"One Holy Catholic and Apostolic"

[WarriorAngel]

I am going to amend the rules a bit.
Allowing Anglicans the right to discuss pertinent Apostolic Information, and include them.
With the exception of anything not Traditional.

 

[RadixLecti]

I am going to amend the rules a bit.
Allowing Anglicans the right to discuss pertinent Apostolic Information, and include them.
With the exception of anything not Traditional.

If I'm understanding correctly, that sounds fine to me. You mean that Anglicans can post as long as their posts are in line with Tradition? I think Adherance to Tradition is going to be absolutely necessary in this forum because it is the largest thing we all have in common.

Also could you explain what you believe the difference is between a schism and a break off? For Example, do you consider the Polish National Catholic Church a schism or a break off for the purposes of this forum.

 

[RadixLecti]

SO who is in, the purest sense, the Church of England?
Parishes thereof are acceptable, break off's are not.

Does this make sense?

I think I understand your question now. The Anglican church is 38 provinces that are all in Communion with the Archbishop of Canterbery. The "Church of England" is province #1 if you will. Then there is the Episcopal Church of Scotland, The Church of Wales, The Church of Ireland, The Episcopal Church of the USA, The Anglican Church of Canada. These are the names of the various 38 provinces that make up the Anglican church.

 

[longhair75]

friend Warrior Angel

WHen we term the use of Traditional, we mean absolutely and fully.
AND I restate that a Bishop of the Church with succession must be schismed for purpose of the forum.

Everyone will eventually claim succession ...which is not the tour de force of the forum.

Traditional, Apostolic, And Succession through a Bishop upholding absolute Traditional values.

Since the Church never throughout an entire history condoned women priests, or Bishops, it will stand that we will not accept Churches that have recreated the Anicent Traditions to conformity.

You may come in and ask questions...if you have a new tradition not based on the ancient teachings...outside of scriptures...
But the church itself is not considered APostolic.

Tertullian and MArcion, and Arian were all priests or Bishops at one time...
BUT they were removed for following heretical concepts that was never taught since the Apostles.

That will be our litmus test.

Absolute Authority in Tradition must be maintained.

So, if I understand the quoted portion of your post, your litmus test for membership in this forum is adherence to Tradition as defined by the Roman Catholic Church

And:

We see also that the suggestion, occasionally made by advanced Anglicans, of a "Uniate" Anglican Church with its own rite and to some extent its own laws (for instance with a married clergy) is utterly opposed to antiquity and to consistent canon law. England is most certainly part of the Latin patriarchate.When Anglicans return to the old Faith they find themselves subject to the pope, not only as head of the Church but also as patriarch.

This portion quoted is from your link, which directs one to the New Advent Roman Cathoilc Encyclopedia, and clarifies you position perfectly

Well, I enjoyed my short time here......

 

[Colabomb]

friend Warrior Angel

So, if I understand the quoted portion of your post, your litmus test for membership in this forum is adherence to Tradition as defined by the Roman Catholic Church

And:
This portion quoted is from your link, which directs one to the New Advent Roman Cathoilc Encyclopedia, and clarifies you position perfectly

Well, I enjoyed my short time here......

That's the problem with using Tradition as a litmus test, everyone defines Tradition differently.

To my roman Catholic Brothers, should the Orthodox be removed from the Forum because they disagree with your interpretation of Tradition concerningthe Pope?

To my Eastern Orthodox Bretheren, would you like to throw your Roman Brothers out because of their western view of Atonement, and the filioque?

Tradition is an unstable litmus Test.

 

[longhair75]

Friend Colabomb,
the link Warrior Angel selected to support the definition of Tradition inclues the phrase

We see also that the suggestion, occasionally made by advanced Anglicans, of a "Uniate" Anglican Church with its own rite and to some extent its own laws (for instance with a married clergy) is utterly opposed to antiquity and to consistent canon law. England is most certainly part of the Latin patriarchate.When Anglicans return to the old Faith they find themselves subject to the pope, not only as head of the Church but also as patriarch.

This was bolded in the quote, but not in the original document. This appears to mean that in order to satisfy friend Warrior Angel as to our Apostolic bonafides we only need return to the fold and submit to Papal Authority.

 

[Secundulus]

Breaking off immediate succession.

SO who is in, the purest sense, the Church of England?
Parishes thereof are acceptable, break off's are not.

Does this make sense?

Just to clarify something, the Tradional Anglican Communion broke communion with Canterbury but retained Apostolic succession since all its Bishops at that time came directly from the Anglican Church at large.

If that's unacceptable to the forum just let me know and I'll leave.

 

[VincitOmniaVeritas]

That's the problem with using Tradition as a litmus test, everyone defines Tradition differently.

To my roman Catholic Brothers, should the Orthodox be removed from the Forum because they disagree with your interpretation of Tradition concerningthe Pope?

To my Eastern Orthodox Bretheren, would you like to throw your Roman Brothers out because of their western view of Atonement, and the filioque?

Tradition is an unstable litmus Test.

very good point. I think for the purpose of this forum we should adhere to the tradition that all churches hold in common. At one time all apostolic churches allowed Bishops and Priests to be married, but today the RCC does not and the EO only allow priest to be married if they do so before ordination. So it is difficult to form one contiguous "apostolic" Tradition. I think that we will have to include Male Clergy as part of Church tradition for example, because that is a tradition that all churches have held in common in the past. In 451 the council of Chalcedon held that the episcopacy and priesthood were to be all male, and that the diaconate could be male or female)

 

[Colabomb]

I am going to amend the rules a bit.
Allowing Anglicans the right to discuss pertinent Apostolic Information, and include them.
With the exception of anything not Traditional.

Sister, whose Tradition? Yours? The Orthodox's? Ours?

Tradition is not monolithic. There may be a True line of Tradition, but in a forum where at least four Seperate Churches are said to be equal, it is not appropriate to enforce one group's over anothers.

If we all shared the Same Tradition, we would not be Four Churches coming together but Rather one already together.

 

[Colabomb]

very good point. I think for the purpose of this forum we should adhere to the tradition that all churches hold in common. At one time all apostolic churches allowed Bishops and Priests to be married, but today the RCC does not and the EO only allow priest to be married if they do so before ordination. So it is difficult to form one contiguous "apostolic" Tradition. I think that we will have to include Male Clergy as part of Church tradition for example, because that is a tradition that all churches have held in common in the past. In 451 the council of Chalcedon held that the episcopacy and priesthood were to be all male, and that the diaconate could be male or female)

If male Clergy were unanimous Tradition, we would not be having this discussion.

You say in one place that we should only enforce shared Tradition, and then exclude a large portion of a Church's Populace.

 

[VincitOmniaVeritas]

If male Clergy were unanimous Tradition, we would not be having this discussion.

You say in one place that we should only enforce shared Tradition, and then exclude a large portion of a Church's Populace.

No, I'm saying we should enforce tradition that has at one time been held by the ENTIRE church. The Council of Chalcedon is one of the Seven Ecumenical Councils.

Now, just to play devil's advocate, isn't it true that the Oriental Orthodox reject the Council of Chalcedon anyway? We're going to have to have some kind of common ground in here. But on the other hand, we will have to have some flexibility regarding Church Tradition, otherwise we might as well close this forum and all post in OBOB.

 

[WarriorAngel]

I previously posted that Anglicans can enjoy participation as a member of the Apostolic forum, with the idea that promotion of anything not fully Traditional should not be discussed.

The issue of the Anglicans being a former member of the Patriarch in that they were indeed part of the Church and did not create their Church is cause to let them participate.

I am trying to find a viable solution where we discuss the ancient Churches and how we have all the same Saints and what not, and moreover the principles of the Apostles.

The reason Lutherans are not employed in this forum is because Luther created his own Church and created a Reformed Church, unlike the Anglicans who were in already a parish Church.

Does this help?

It is preference that promotions of homosexual married clergy and women priests will not be allowed.
Does this suit the Anglicans?

The whole vision for this forum is unity. Not compromise.

God Bless.

friend Warrior Angel

So, if I understand the quoted portion of your post, your litmus test for membership in this forum is adherence to Tradition as defined by the Roman Catholic Church

And:
This portion quoted is from your link, which directs one to the New Advent Roman Cathoilc Encyclopedia, and clarifies you position perfectly

Well, I enjoyed my short time here......

 

[RadixLecti]

It is preference that promotions of homosexual married clergy and women priests will not be allowed.[/FONT]
Does this suit the Anglicans?

The whole vision for this forum is unity. Not compromise.

God Bless.

I'm fine with this. The issues you have named are highly controversial even within Anglicanism. I am very glad to have the opportunity to dialog with you about our churches, and I'm excited about the vision for this forum.

 

[WarriorAngel]

very good point. I think for the purpose of this forum we should adhere to the tradition that all churches hold in common. At one time all apostolic churches allowed Bishops and Priests to be married, but today the RCC does not and the EO only allow priest to be married if they do so before ordination. So it is difficult to form one contiguous "apostolic" Tradition. I think that we will have to include Male Clergy as part of Church tradition for example, because that is a tradition that all churches have held in common in the past. In 451 the council of Chalcedon held that the episcopacy and priesthood were to be all male, and that the diaconate could be male or female)

The CC does have married clergy.
IT is a preference of the Latin Rite to give Paul's discipline of celibacy.

However; ALL other ancient Apostolic Churches do not adhere to women ordinations, so if that topic would be considered taboo along with gay married clergy... would not be touched on, then I think we can find a solution which will lead to unity and understanding.

I don't desire alienation, but unity.

Which is the dream for this forum.

Can this be a viable solution?
Because married and unmarried clergy is not about Tradition, so much as it is a discipline for clergy addressed by Paul, whereas women have not enjoyed the rights of priesthood in history previously to any split.

If this solution is unworkable, I would be sad if you guys could not participate.

 

[RadixLecti]

Sister, whose Tradition? Yours? The Orthodox's? Ours?

Tradition is not monolithic. There may be a True line of Tradition, but in a forum where at least four Seperate Churches are said to be equal, it is not appropriate to enforce one group's over anothers.

If we all shared the Same Tradition, we would not be Four Churches coming together but Rather one already together.

I think the issue here is ultra-liberalism and revisionism. That is something you don't see much of in other apostolic churches, and I think Warrior Angel is concerned that this will be far to devisive for this forum. The issue is not with Anglicanism, it's with ultra-liberalism and revisionism.

 

[WarriorAngel]

I'm fine with this. The issues you have named are highly controversial even within Anglicanism. I am very glad to have the opportunity to dialog with you about our churches, and I'm excited about the vision for this forum.

Thank you. That is what I want.

A mutual loving and understanding relationship that could help us overcome all the obstacles that alienate us from one another.

AND because I understand that this is also a controversial topic among the Anglicans, I would like that it be avoided in this section, but rather hashed out in the Anglican congregational forum.

 

[VincitOmniaVeritas]

The CC does have married clergy.
IT is a preference of the Latin Rite to give Paul's discipline of celibacy.

However; ALL other ancient Apostolic Churches do not adhere to women ordinations, so if that topic would be considered taboo along with gay married clergy... would not be touched on, then I think we can find a solution which will lead to unity and understanding.

I don't desire alienation, but unity.

Which is the dream for this forum.

Can this be a viable solution?
Because married and unmarried clergy is not about Tradition, so much as it is a discipline for clergy addressed by Paul, whereas women have not enjoyed the rights of priesthood in history previously to any split.

If this solution is unworkable, I would be sad if you guys could not participate.

LOL, you and I are saying the exact same thing. So we're in agreement. Great!

 

[Colabomb]

I previously posted that Anglicans can enjoy participation as a member of the Apostolic forum, with the idea that promotion of anything not fully Traditional should not be discussed.

The issue of the Anglicans being a former member of the Patriarch in that they were indeed part of the Church and did not create their Church is cause to let them participate.

I am trying to find a viable solution where we discuss the ancient Churches and how we have all the same Saints and what not, and moreover the principles of the Apostles.

The reason Lutherans are not employed in this forum is because Luther created his own Church and created a Reformed Church, unlike the Anglicans who were in already a parish Church.

Does this help?

It is preference that promotions of homosexual married clergy and women priests will not be allowed.
Does this suit the Anglicans?

The whole vision for this forum is unity. Not compromise.

God Bless.

I would be fine banning the topics of women Clergy (Which I support) and non-celebate homosexuals (Which I don't support) for the sake of unity, simply because they are so very controversial.

 

[Colabomb]

I don't mind making some concessions for unity. I am just trying to ensure that this board becomes a place of Equal footing, rather than one that has preferred positions.

For example, I don't mind discussing the Papacy on this forum, as long as I am not forced to believe it to be part of it.

Another Example, I believe the Validity of the Sacrament (Eucharist) is not necessarily dependant on an unbroken line of tactile succession, but rather on the intent of those partaking, and the Promises of God. I realize that I will be a minority on this board, but I don't think it fair to remove me when I agree with the other members of this board more than I disagree.

See what I am getting at? I really am looking for peace here, not confrontation.

 

[Assisi]

Are we still discussing the name?

How about something based on Scripture which is directly relevant to Apostolic succession?

The part of Scripture which comes to my mind is Acts 1. We could grab some words from there...

How about 'His Office Let Another Take', or 'Witness to His Resurrection', or 'the lot fell on Matthias'.

How about 'Matthias's Lot'.