"One Holy Catholic and Apostolic" [Archive]

RadixLecti

14th July 2007, 03:01 PM

Is this forum for all Apostolic Churches or for all Liturgical churches? Do we have a set thing of the churches that qualify here?

Here is PaladinValer's idea:

For a church or body to be considered Apostolic by this congregational forum, it must:
It must proclaim an adherence to the authority of Holy Tradition
It must proclaim the necessity to have Apostolic Succession
It must proclaim a sacramental/mystical system of Grace
It must have an episcopal polity of church governance
It must have a traditional interpretation of the Nicene Creed (ie: Baptism for the forgiveness/remission of sins is seen literally, and is not up for contradictory reinterpretation
This would include the "Vatican" Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Anglican Church, the Oriental Orthodox Church, the various Old Catholic churches, and many of the various Continuing Anglican churches. This list is in no particular order.

Iosias

14th July 2007, 03:44 PM

Here is PaladinValer's idea:

For a church or body to be considered Apostolic by this congregational forum, it must:
It must proclaim an adherence to the authority of Holy Tradition
It must proclaim the necessity to have Apostolic Succession
It must proclaim a sacramental/mystical system of Grace
It must have an episcopal polity of church governance
It must have a traditional interpretation of the Nicene Creed (ie: Baptism for the forgiveness/remission of sins is seen literally, and is not up for contradictory reinterpretation
This would include the "Vatican" Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Anglican Church, the Oriental Orthodox Church, the various Old Catholic churches, and many of the various Continuing Anglican churches. This list is in no particular order.

Just for clarification, is the aim of this congregational forum to unite those who view their church as meeting those criteria? i.e. whilst I am an Anglican and the Anglican Church meets those criteria, in the eyes of some, I personally adhere to only two or possibly three of those criteria. Would I be allowed to post because of my Church affiliation or prevented from posting because of my individual views?:help:

zhilan

14th July 2007, 04:09 PM

That sounds good. I'm excited about this forum.

talitha

14th July 2007, 05:20 PM

geocajun

14th July 2007, 05:21 PM

What do you guys think of nicknaming this forum, "One Holy Catholic and Apostolic" or "One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church" or some variation of those words in the Creed?
I think the implications of that name are too strong. It projects a stronger-than-real sense of unity, and excludes those who aren't considered apostolic in this forum, from being in the one church. I think for those reasons it would not be a good idea . . .

Letalis

14th July 2007, 05:28 PM

Another member proposed this as part of the title:

"This Is My Body/Blood"

Sounds alright to me.

geocajun

14th July 2007, 05:28 PM

Another member proposed this as part of the title:

"This Is My Body/Blood"

Sounds alright to me.
I could go for that - I think its fitting as well

RadixLecti

14th July 2007, 05:39 PM

I have a real problem with the name of this forum. Not sure where to bring it up, and don't know when/how/why this forum was started......

The name of this forum will cause confusion, because I would consider myself an Apostolic believer though I'm not (anymore) liturgical - and to boot, there is a denomination called Apostolic that is nowhere near Catholic or Anglican or Orthodox......

from Wikipedia:

That is true, I know, but I got that from the article on Pentecostalism. Also please see the Wikipedia article on the Apostolic Church (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostolic_Church).

Mods, I'm reasonably sure I'm posting this in the wrong place, but I don't know where to put it. I would take no exception to its being moved, as long as I'm informed as to where it's being moved to, and as long as I'm assured that it's being taken into consideration.

blessings in Jesus
tal
"Apostolic" refers to the Apostolic Succession that these churches claim. Apostolic succession is the unbroken line of bishops that go back to the First century church. The churches of this forum (Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Anglican, and Utrecht Catholic) are all descended from the same pre-schimed church. The purpose of the forum is not to deride churches that do not claim this lineage, but rather to provide for a deeper fellowship among these "apostolic" churches and to discuss our commonalities.

geocajun

14th July 2007, 05:42 PM

"Apostolic" refers to the Apostolic Succession that these churches claim. Apostolic succession is the unbroken line of bishops that go back to the First century church. The churches of this forum (Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Anglican, and Utrecht Catholic) are all descended from the same pre-schimed church. The purpose of the forum is not to deride churches that do not claim this lineage, but rather to provide for a deeper fellowship among these "apostolic" churches and to discuss our commonalities.
well said

talitha

14th July 2007, 05:42 PM

talitha

14th July 2007, 05:43 PM

talitha

14th July 2007, 05:43 PM

geocajun, where would be a more appropriate place to voice my concerns? (do you understand them?)

geocajun

14th July 2007, 05:43 PM

geocajun

14th July 2007, 05:44 PM

geocajun, where would be a more appropriate place to voice my concerns? (do you understand them?)
I definately understand. I think there is some discussion here about renaming the forum. Remember, this is a community driven forum, so if you can convince others it needs to be changed, then it will be done.

RadixLecti

14th July 2007, 05:45 PM

Did you read my post, Radix? There is a denomination called Apostolic. It is a Pentecostal denomination, not a Liturgical denomination. The title of this forum is what I object to, not the forum itself.
I'm just trying to explain what we mean when we say "apostolic." There are many "liturgical" churches that are not "apostolic". Apostolic refers to the way these churches originated i.e their common ancestry. I am familiar with the denomination you're speaking of.

talitha

14th July 2007, 05:54 PM

I definately understand. I think there is some discussion here about renaming the forum. Remember, this is a community driven forum, so if you can convince others it needs to be changed, then it will be done.
I mean, is there a place on CF to bring up this sort of thing? I just sort of found this new area by fluke.

geocajun

14th July 2007, 05:57 PM

I mean, is there a place on CF to bring up this sort of thing? I just sort of found this new area by fluke.
If you want to try to change it from within this forum (my suggestion) then I would start a thread in here. If you want to start a more general thread/complaint about it, you can do it here: http://www.christianforums.com/f398-wiki-rules-discussion.html

Colabomb

14th July 2007, 06:10 PM

Ecclesia Episcopal?

talitha

14th July 2007, 06:15 PM

Why don't you all just call it "liturgical"?

RadixLecti

14th July 2007, 06:19 PM

Why don't you all just call it "liturgical"?
I tried to answer that question here:

I'm just trying to explain what we mean when we say "apostolic." There are many "liturgical" churches that are not "apostolic". Apostolic refers to the way these churches originated i.e their common ancestry. I am familiar with the denomination you're speaking of.

It's also worth noting that the phrase "apostolic" has been used as a common adjective for these churches for many years. It is not a new use of the term that we made for CF.

Maybe the subtitle could list the churches in the sub forum to avoid confusion. Or, perhaps we could retitle the forum using the phrase Apostolic Succession, or something along those lines. In any case, I think the word "Apostolic" must remain part of the description, mainly because most "Apostolic" christians understand what that means immediatly.

geocajun

14th July 2007, 06:36 PM

RadixLecti

14th July 2007, 06:48 PM

"Apostolic Succession Churches" ?

I should add my opinion here is that this is a non-issue. There is tons of overlap within denominational names... some protestant churches consider themselves catholic, but have never asked that the catholic forum be renamed... Some catholics consider themselves charismatic, but haven't asked that their forum be renamed, and so forth...
"Apostolic Churches" would be MUCH easier. Maybe if it included as a subtitle, the names of all the churches included under that name.

Or, "Churches in Apostolic Succession", but really I don't think anything is better than Apostolic Churches. That is a phrase that has been used by many years to describe the churches we're talking about. We might as well go along with the established phrase that most people are familiar with.

Simon Peter

14th July 2007, 07:21 PM

My perspective is that "Apostolic Churches" will cause confusion.

There is a large segment of Christianity who are charismatic protestants who use the term "Apostolic church" to describe a very different church than this forum represents. It's a term used to describe charismatic churches that use 'apostles' to oversee pastors; so it describes leadership style and accountabilty.

I'd recommend you add a word or two to the name and avoid some confusion...

God Bless
Simon

talitha

14th July 2007, 07:22 PM

I've never heard of any churches being called "apostolic churches" besides the Pentecostal denomination. I'm familiar with the term "apostolic succession", and I won't go there. At least it's more indicative of what churches are here. I was just disappointed in what I saw when I came in. Sorry.

blessings
tal

WarriorAngel

14th July 2007, 07:56 PM

Another member proposed this as part of the title:

"This Is My Body/Blood"

Sounds alright to me.

How about;
This is My Body, This is My Blood, Apostolic.

"Apostolic" refers to the Apostolic Succession that these churches claim. Apostolic succession is the unbroken line of bishops that go back to the First century church. The churches of this forum (Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Anglican, and Utrecht Catholic) are all descended from the same pre-schimed church. The purpose of the forum is not to deride churches that do not claim this lineage, but rather to provide for a deeper fellowship among these "apostolic" churches and to discuss our commonalities.
:thumbsup:

Apostolic is not a Title, it is a type.
Apostolic means the Pope, Patriarchs, Bishops, priests and such that have been in one line of ordination since the Apostles.

So I think the names of the Churches who can attend should be immediately under the name of the Title.
TO avoid confusion.

Now, I have a question...one I need to address...
WAS Luther a monk, or a Bishop?
Lutherans feel they are alike Apostolic.
However, Luther was the first reformer, so I tend to think his changing things from Tradition is not Apostolic.

In manner of the duetero's, purgation of sort, Saints and so forth, prayers for souls etc.

They do not follow Tradition, and so I would like to bring this up as to why they are not considered Traditional Apostolic Churches.

Hey...maybe that should be the title...:D

Traditional Apostolic Churches.

WarriorAngel

14th July 2007, 08:02 PM

Anyone else like TAC?

talitha

14th July 2007, 08:45 PM

This is My Body, This is My Blood, Apostolic

Good one.

Letalis

14th July 2007, 08:47 PM

"Apostolic Churches - This is My Body, This is My Blood"

It follows the structure of the other congregation forum names.

WarriorAngel

14th July 2007, 09:03 PM

ac-tbtb
:)

geocajun

14th July 2007, 09:06 PM

"Apostolic Churches - This is My Body, This is My Blood"

It follows the structure of the other congregation forum names.
:thumbsup:

RadixLecti

14th July 2007, 09:09 PM

I think the implications of that name are too strong.

I agree. "I really like This is my Body -Apostolic" Instead of "Apostolic" we could use the word "Historic" instead.

PaladinValer

14th July 2007, 09:40 PM

I came up with the This Is My Body/Blood.

I don't mind Traditional Apostolic Churches however.

And as for my suggested quoted above, I think it would be best if individuals would also have to agree with all five, otherwise we'll have a false ecumenicism here.

EmperorConstantine

14th July 2007, 09:47 PM

Apostolic - We have real bishops.;)

EmperorConstantine

14th July 2007, 09:47 PM

Although maybe Liturgical could be a bit clarifying.

RobNJ

14th July 2007, 09:57 PM

Although maybe Liturgical could be a bit clarifying.

Although, some liturgical churches, don't follow Apostolic Succession

Letalis

14th July 2007, 10:04 PM

I've changed the forum description to this:

"A forum for members that attend a church with a claim to apostolic succession."

Hopefully that will clarify the purpose of the forum without having to rename it.

WarriorAngel

14th July 2007, 10:05 PM

Traditional should be in there. :)
Less confusion.

Letalis

14th July 2007, 10:09 PM

"Traditional Apostolic Churches - This is My Body, This is My Blood"

It's pretty long.

WarriorAngel

14th July 2007, 10:20 PM

Traditional Apostolic Churches - My Body, My Blood

OR just add on to what Letalis offered underneath..
Traditional Apostolic Succession.

talitha

14th July 2007, 11:13 PM

hey, y'all, while I'm here, I just wanted to say that I applaud this effort to bridge a centuries'-old gap..... God bless you all.

tal

RadixLecti

15th July 2007, 02:21 AM

hey, y'all, while I'm here, I just wanted to say that I applaud this effort to bridge a centuries'-old gap..... God bless you all.

tal
Thanks Talitha!

NordicLutheran

15th July 2007, 04:10 AM

Here is PaladinValer's idea:

For a church or body to be considered Apostolic by this congregational forum, it must:
It must proclaim an adherence to the authority of Holy Tradition
It must proclaim the necessity to have Apostolic Succession
It must proclaim a sacramental/mystical system of Grace
It must have an episcopal polity of church governance
It must have a traditional interpretation of the Nicene Creed (ie: Baptism for the forgiveness/remission of sins is seen literally, and is not up for contradictory reinterpretation
This would include the "Vatican" Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Anglican Church, the Oriental Orthodox Church, the various Old Catholic churches, and many of the various Continuing Anglican churches. This list is in no particular order.
Would this not also include the various Scandinavian Lutheran Churches that claim Apostolic Succession?

NordicLutheran

15th July 2007, 04:17 AM

How about;
This is My Body, This is My Blood, Apostolic.

:thumbsup:

Apostolic is not a Title, it is a type.
Apostolic means the Pope, Patriarchs, Bishops, priests and such that have been in one line of ordination since the Apostles.

So I think the names of the Churches who can attend should be immediately under the name of the Title.
TO avoid confusion.

Now, I have a question...one I need to address...
WAS Luther a monk, or a Bishop?
Lutherans feel they are alike Apostolic.
However, Luther was the first reformer, so I tend to think his changing things from Tradition is not Apostolic.

In manner of the duetero's, purgation of sort, Saints and so forth, prayers for souls etc.

They do not follow Tradition, and so I would like to bring this up as to why they are not considered Traditional Apostolic Churches.

Hey...maybe that should be the title...:D

Traditional Apostolic Churches.
Lutherans do follow tradition. We just try not to let it cloud salvation, and there are a good number of Lutheran Churches that claim Apostolic Succession! I would hope that they would be vaild enough for people who subscribe to the belief of apostolic succession.

Iosias

15th July 2007, 06:09 AM

This is My Body, This is My Blood

Why has this phrase been used?

Colabomb

15th July 2007, 07:54 AM

What about those of us who use Tradition as a valuable asset in understanding Scripture, but not as infallible in its own right?

What about those of us who value Episcopal Government, but do not believe that the Sacraments are bound to the Line of Bishops?

Will we be allowed on this forum?

xristos.anesti

15th July 2007, 09:43 AM

Catholics - the all of them.

Colabomb

15th July 2007, 12:45 PM

Catholics - the all of them.

Including me?

*smiles at his new friends*

RadixLecti

15th July 2007, 02:27 PM

What about those of us who use Tradition as a valuable asset in understanding Scripture, but not as infallible in its own right?

I think you may have stronger feelings about scripture than you think. (just a hunch ;) ) In STR you did a great job advocating the creeds, and those are all examples of Church Tradition. The decisions of the seven Ecumenical counicils are also examples of Church Tradition. These are all based on Scripture, but a superficial reading of scripture could easily lead someone to a different conclusion. So when we hold strongly to the Creeds we are holding to the value of Church Tradition. Even the compilation of the Bible could be seen as an example of Church Tradition. We believe the Holy Spirit was guiding the Church to determine what should and should not be in the Bible, in the same way it guided the Church in making a definitive statement about the Trinity.

NordicLutheran

15th July 2007, 02:28 PM

RadixLecti

15th July 2007, 02:34 PM

Would this not also include the various Scandinavian Lutheran Churches that claim Apostolic Succession?
It might (and maybe moravians too) I think it all depends on how that church views the necessity of apostolic succession, and if they have a desire to form a closer relationship with Christians from other Apostolic Churches (which is required for anyone to post, Apostolic or not).

Colabomb

15th July 2007, 02:55 PM

I think you may have stronger feelings about scripture than you think. (just a hunch ;) ) In STR you did a great job advocating the creeds, and those are all examples of Church Tradition. The decisions of the seven Ecumenical counicils are also examples of Church Tradition. These are all based on Scripture, but a superficial reading of scripture could easily lead someone to a different conclusion. So when we hold strongly to the Creeds we are holding to the value of Church Tradition. Even the compilation of the Bible could be seen as an example of Church Tradition. We believe the Holy Spirit was guiding the Church to determine what should and should not be in the Bible, in the same way it guided the Church in making a definitive statement about the Trinity.

Oh I definitely believe the Holy Spirit did Move the Church at certain times and places for His purposes of course. When I was speaking of Church Tradition, I was speaking more of Quotations from the Fathers, which I know is not the whole of Tradition.

WarriorAngel

15th July 2007, 03:06 PM

hey, y'all, while I'm here, I just wanted to say that I applaud this effort to bridge a centuries'-old gap..... God bless you all.

tal

:hug: Thanks.

Does the Episcopal Church have Apostolic Succession? They ordain women and homosexuals, are they not validly ordained in the apostolic sense and only Episcopal male priests are truly ordained? Serious question I would like to hear the views from the RCC and the EO church on churches who claim apostolic succession, and also ordain women.

Does the AC have two Churches in itself?
I heard they did...one is broke off to a more relative stance of breaking Tradition.

I do not consider ordination of women to be Tradition.

It is against Tradition, and therefore it is not a part of the Traditional Apostolic Churches in this sense.

Oh I definitely believe the Holy Spirit did Move the Church at certain times and places for His purposes of course. When I was speaking of Church Tradition, I was speaking more of Quotations from the Fathers, which I know is not the whole of Tradition.

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.

Colabomb

15th July 2007, 03:19 PM

I guess, paladinvaler, one of the loudest voices for the forum you now Enjoy... will be out.

RadixLecti

15th July 2007, 03:28 PM

Does the AC have two Churches in itself?
I heard they did...one is broke off to a more relative stance of breaking Tradition.

The Anglican Communion (all Anglicans in Communion with Canterbury) is divided into 38 provinces. When the North American provinces began to ordain women to the priesthood and episcopacy, there was massive fragmenting and many bishops left and formed "continuing" Anglican churches. These are conservative churches lead by bishops that left the North American provinces because the NA provinces no longer held strictly to Scripture and Tradition.

The vast majority of Anglicans adhere strictly to Scripture and Tradition (the male episcopacy, traditional interpretation of scripture, the sacraments etc.)

Most of what you read in the news about the AC comes from places like the US, UK, Canada, and Australia. However, more Anglicans live in Africa than all these places combined.

It is also worth noting that there are many Anglicans in the Episcopal Church that hold to Church Tradition.

WarriorAngel

15th July 2007, 03:50 PM

The vast majority of Anglicans adhere strictly to Scripture and Tradition (the male episcopacy, traditional interpretation of scripture, the sacraments etc.)

LINK (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09022a.htm)
The medieval (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10285c.htm) Western uses (Paris, Sarum and so on), of which people at one time (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14726a.htm) made much for controversial purposes, were in no sense really independent rites (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13064b.htm), as are the remnants of the Gallican use at Milan (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10298a.htm) and Toledo. These were only the Roman Rite (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13155a.htm) with very slight local modifications. From this conception we see that the practical disappearance of the Gallican Rite (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06357a.htm), however much the archeologist may regret it, is justified by the general principle that rite (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13064b.htm) should follow patriarchate (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11549a.htm).

We see also that the suggestion, occasionally made by advanced Anglicans (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01498a.htm), of a "Uniate" Anglican Church (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01498a.htm) with its own rite (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13064b.htm) and to some extent its own laws (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09053a.htm) (for instance with a married clergy (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04049b.htm)) is utterly opposed to antiquity and to consistent canon law. England (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01505x.htm) is most certainly part of the Latin patriarchate (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11549a.htm).When Anglicans (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01498a.htm) return to the old Faith (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05752c.htm) they find themselves subject to the pope (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm), not only as head of the Church (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm) but also as patriarch.

What I am saying is the local Church schismed, and the 'broken off' from them are not.

So...the variations not in line with the immediate Church of England are like reformed Churches.

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?

Secundulus

15th July 2007, 04:10 PM

Does the Episcopal Church have Apostolic Succession? They ordain women and homosexuals, are they not validly ordained in the apostolic sense and only Episcopal male priests are truly ordained? Serious question I would like to hear the views from the RCC and the EO church on churches who claim apostolic succession, and also ordain women.

The Traditional Anglican Communion broke communion with Canterbury in 1978 specifically over the ordination of women. We do not think it is valid.

WarriorAngel

15th July 2007, 05:25 PM

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

15th July 2007, 05:47 PM

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

15th July 2007, 05:54 PM

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

15th July 2007, 06:09 PM

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

15th July 2007, 06:18 PM

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

15th July 2007, 06:28 PM

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

15th July 2007, 06:32 PM

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

15th July 2007, 06:35 PM

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

15th July 2007, 06:39 PM

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

15th July 2007, 06:41 PM

VincitOmniaVeritas

15th July 2007, 06:48 PM

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

15th July 2007, 06:51 PM

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? :hug:

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

15th July 2007, 06:57 PM

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

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

15th July 2007, 07:00 PM

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

15th July 2007, 07:01 PM

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

15th July 2007, 07:03 PM

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. :hug:

VincitOmniaVeritas

15th July 2007, 07:05 PM

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

15th July 2007, 07:14 PM

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? :hug:

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

15th July 2007, 07:19 PM

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

15th July 2007, 10:53 PM

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'.^_^

WarriorAngel

15th July 2007, 11:57 PM

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.

A schism breaks off the Church with a Bishop ...
For the sake of this forum they did not create a new Church, but disagreed whereas they kept the same Church Traditions and Bishops.

I make the distinction that Luther removed the Traditions and kept only some. Therefore Reforming Christianity.

I think the dueterocanicals are important books. I also think keeping in line with the ancient concepts is what we agree on.

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......

AND therein lies the issue that you totally misunderstood.

The quoted part that I used was to show that the Anglican Church did not reform the Church as opposed to Luther.
I used the quote only to show the CoE was already in existence and under the Patriarch aka Pope and therefore did not create a New Church.
I was showing how the Anglican Church has Apostolic history.

I hope you understand the differences I was getting at.

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.

:thumbsup: Thank you, that's all I request.
Too controversial. I think the Anglican Church needs to hash that out in their private space.

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.

You cannot be forced to believe, but we can discuss topics about the ancient Churches.

I really believe that someday the Churches will all unite, and the footing IMO should be about a variety of things that we hold similar and discuss the Traditions.

And we can also see how we have emerged and where we can go.

Its not always going to be rainbows, but no where else can we show prudence and discover so many things about each other..

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'.^_^

HEY, awesome idea. :thumbsup: