Anglicanism = not protestant

[TomUK]

I wrote this up a while ago for a PM i was sending to PG. It is adapted from an article i read so it is not totally original. However i think it sumarises quite well the Anglican point of view.

I've not edited it from the original PM sent so parts of it might not make sense.







As you say, the word 'protestant' came into use at the Reformation and derived from the reformers protest as the Reformation was absolutely a protest movement. It was a description of those who protesting not against the Catholic Faith, but against the increased powers and claims of the Papacy and the medieval additions the Roman Church had made to the faith of the undivided Church. There had been a similar protest in 1054 when the EO Churches separated from the Roman Church due to the addition of the filique. Similarlyl in 1870 the Old Catholic Churches of Holland, Germany, Switzerland and Austria separated over the issue of Papal Infallibility. At no time have these churches been designated 'Protestant'. The Church of England has strong ties with the Orthodox Church and is in full communion with the Old Catholic Church. Here in these Churches, as in the Church of England is a non-papal Catholicism that often goes unnoticed by many people within the Church and outside, since the Roman Church hijacked the word 'Catholic' to make it an exclusive possession of those in communion with the Papacy. This claim to a non-papal Catholicism made by the Church of England is reaffirmed in the recently revised Canons and the Preface to the Declaration of Assent clergy must take before taking office. The preface beings:

The Church of England is part of the on, holy catholic and apostolic CHurch, worshipping the one true God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit...it professes the faith uniquely revealed in the Holy Scriptures and set forth in the cahtolic of creeds...

To which the priest must respond:

I declare my belief in the faith which is revealed in the Holy Scriptures and set forth in the catholic creeds, and to bear which the historic forumularies of the Church of England bear witness...

This affirms the principle that the Reformation in England differed fundamentally from the Reformation in many parts of the Continent where it was more revolution that reformation. Here it was an ammending of the old Church not the founding of a new one. The Church of England remained the historic Church of this land. Bishop John jewel insisted that we had not 'changed anything taught and approved by the fathers, but only errors, superstitions and abuses... lawful reformation of our Church... is so far from taking us the name and or nature of true Catholics... of depriving us of the fellowship of the apostolic Church or impairing the right faith, sacraments, priesthood and governance of the Catholic Church that it hath cleared and settled them unto us.'

In the popular mind all who separated from the Roman Church came to be labeled 'Protestants' that disregarded the differences between different groups of Christians, in the same way that 'Catholic' came to be used exclusively for Roman Catholics. Already i've defined non-papal Catholicism that includes Anglicanism. Outside of this group are the Roman Catholics and the Protestants. As stated earlier the word Protestant was used to describe those who protested against the distortions of the doctrines of the undivided primitive Church, it then gathered a wider meaning to describe those who were members of one of the new churches that sprang up at the Reformation - Lutheran, Calvinist, Zwinglian, Presbyterian. New orders of ministry were created that centred round preaching and a polity that placed a high priority on Scripture alone where sacraments were given a diminished role and the threefold minisitry abolished, with the exception of Luthernism where certain elements of the catholic polity were preserved. On the whole such groups were anitpathetic to the Catholic Faith and in England gave rise to a variety of non-conformists with their chapels. Anglican does not fit into this group the Forumlaries do no allow it. The Anglican attitude is best expressed in the dying words of Bishop Thomas Ken:

I die in the Holy Catholic and Apostolic faith professed by the whole church before the disunion of East and West; more particularly i die in the communion of the Church of England, as it stands distinguished from all papal and puritanical innovations, and as it adheres to the doctrine of the Cross.

[WarriorAngel]

Well, in principle I can see your POV and this is how the Anglican Church understands itself.

[WarriorAngel]

Outside of this group are the Roman Catholics and the Protestants.

Well, you forgot the OO and EO.

[RadixLecti]

Well, in principle I can see your POV and this is how the Anglican Church understands itself.


I think a good parallel would be the Polish National Catholic Church. Nobody says the PNCC is a Protestant Church. That is because it came from the Catholic church. The Anglican church was formed in the same way. I think if it had been given a different name like "The Catholic Church of England" no one would dispute that. But that's basically what it is:

The C of E is to England
What the PNCC is to Poland.

Now in all fairness and honesty. The Anglican church has somewhat of a protestant nature. I think it is most truthful to say that the Anglican church is both Catholic and Protestant, or that it is Catholic and Reformed.

When Anglicans say they are "catholic" what they mean is that they are an "apostolic" church. The things that make us "catholic" or "apostolic" are:

1. The Historic Episcopate (apostolic succession)
2. The three orders of the Church are Bishops priests, and deacons.
3. Adherence to the Historic Creeds of the Church
4. Adherence to the Ecumenical Church councils and ecumenical church Tradition.
5. The Sacrametal System ( we have 2 major and 5 minor sacraments)
6. Belief in the Literal Presense of Christ in the Eucharist.

I'm sure I forgot to include something in that list, but that is a simplified version of what Anglicans mean when they say they are "catholic".

So, I personally would say it's fair to say the Anglican Church is catholic, and/or that it's protestant, but it's not accurate to say that it's not catholic/apostolic.

[Colabomb]

I am a Catholic Christian who protests certain doctrines of Rome.

I am a Protestant Catholic. People make a mistake when they see the two as mutually exclusive.

[RadixLecti]

I am a Catholic Christian who protests certain doctrines of Rome.

I am a Protestant Catholic. People make a mistake when they see the two as mutually exclusive.
wow, you and I posted the same idea at the same time! great minds... :)

[zhilan]

WA, are you the mod for this forum? How did that get decided and will there be more mods added? I don't understand this new system at all.

[karen freeinchristman]

WA, are you the mod for this forum? How did that get decided and will there be more mods added? I don't understand this new system at all.
Looking at the moderator list for this forum, I see that there are now several mods including some supers.

:clap:

[longhair75]

I am not sure how I got added to the list, but I wiil try to do a good job. I think my friend Colabomb would have been a better choice

[nyj]

Since CF has done away with the PAD/CAD position and the like, I think the issue is mostly moot at this point. It's a given that the Anglican faith has its roots outside of traditional Protestantism.

[ShiFuBill]

Sorry if I'm mistaken but wasn't the church established by the "39 Articles of the Protestant Church of England?" I had thought the official name of the church was the Protestant Church of England.

[prodromos]

There had been a similar protest in 1054 when the EO Churches separated from the Roman Church due to the addition of the filique.I fail to see any similarity whatsoever. Cardinal Humbert placed a Papal Bull of Excommunication on the altar of Hagia Sofia in Constantinople which was filled with false accusations against the Patriarchate. It cut off Rome from communion with the Patriarch of Constantinople and all who agreed with him, which turned out to be all of the Patriarchates in the East. Constantinople on the other hand only excommunicated Humbert and the other legates. It seems quite apparent that Rome did the leaving, not the other way around.
The Church of England has strong ties with the Orthodox ChurchThis may have been true in the past but is no longer the case as the ordination of women and other issues within the Anglican Communion has driven a wedge between any possibility of reconciliation.

[Albion]

Sorry if I'm mistaken but wasn't the church established by the "39 Articles of the Protestant Church of England?" I had thought the official name of the church was the Protestant Church of England.

Wrong on both of those. The Articles came some time after the Church was planted in Britain (probably in the first century) and also after the break with Rome. The name of the Church -- in England -- is "Church of England." Similar terms are used for its daughter churches in the rest of the world, not a single one of which uses the term "Protestant" in its official name.

One of them, however, did so in the past. The Protestant Episcopal Church in the USA used to, but no longer does. It adopted that term in the early years of our country when the word "Protestant" was generally understood in this country to mean any church that was not Roman Catholic.

[a_ntv]

One of them, however, did so in the past. The Protestant Episcopal Church in the USA used to, but no longer does. It adopted that term in the early years of our country when the word "Protestant" was generally understood in this country to mean any church that was not Roman Catholic.

I think that anyone is free to call itself with the name he prefers.

If the Anglicans would like not be called protestants, we should not call them protestants , but simply Anglican

( It is simply a terminology, it is clear that our ideas on the anglican doctrine does not change.)

Anyway it is clear that this rule is widely ignored by the Anglicans who call our Church Roman Catholic Church, while our official name is simply Catholic Church

[Colabomb]

I think that anyone is free to call itself with the name he prefers.

If the Anglicans would like not be called protestants, we should not call them protestants , but simply Anglican

( It is simply a terminology, it is clear that our ideas on the anglican doctrine does not change.)

Anyway it is clear that this rule is widely ignored by the Anglicans who call our Church Roman Catholic Church, while our official name is simply Catholic Church

Your church calls itself the Roman Catholic Church all the time.

Several Churches in my area alone have "Roman Catholic" Proudly on their signs.

It seems to me its only some american apologists who are frustrated with the title.

[a_ntv]

Your church calls itself the Roman Catholic Church all the time.

Several Churches in my area alone have "Roman Catholic" Proudly on their signs.

It seems to me its only some american apologists who are frustrated with the title.

That can be a use due to a local un-kindness of the protestants who call us 'Roman'

The official name is simply Catholic Church
See the title of 'Cathechism of the Catholic Church' (link (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM))

We use Roman only to indicate the roman rite or the diocese of Rome.

We dont call you London Anglican Church


Till you all will not respect us calling us with our official name, we will go on callng you protestants

[No Swansong]

I may be incorrect about this but I am pretty sure I have read a quote by a pope that said "Our Roman Catholic Church...." but to be honest I would have to look it up to prove it as I don't remember exactly where I read it.

[No Swansong]

Besides I don't mind calling you the Catholic Church as long as you don't object if and when we refer to ourselves as Catholic.

[Albion]

That can be a use due to a local un-kindness of the protestants who call us 'Roman'

The official name is simply Catholic Church
See the title of 'Cathechism of the Catholic Church' (link (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM))

We use Roman only to indicate the roman rite or the diocese of Rome.

We dont call you London Anglican Church




The official, i.e. legal name of the church in the USA includes the word "Roman," the local pastor here calls his church the "Roman" Catholic Church, and the term is used in many Roman Catholic publications, including right at the front of the Missalette used in American parishes. None of that applies to a name you just made up (London Anglican Church), and cannot be merely a name that Protestants use to offend.

[Albion]

I think that anyone is free to call itself with the name he prefers.

If the Anglicans would like not be called protestants, we should not call them protestants , but simply Anglican

( It is simply a terminology, it is clear that our ideas on the anglican doctrine does not change.)

I was merely answering the question about what the churches ARE called. The name he thought he'd remembered has never been used.

[Secundulus]

If you want to call Anglicans Protestants in the sense that we protested against the abuses of the Roman Church (such as selling salvation for money) in the sixteenth century then we are surely Protestants.

[FaithfulRemnant]

I see Anglicanism as high-church protestant, yet also broad enough to embrace revival movements, retaining the worship of the ancient catholic Christian church yet aware of the supremacy of Christ and the Holy Scriptures in the Christian life, having independence yet also unity of faith.

[a_ntv]

I may be incorrect about this but I am pretty sure I have read a quote by a pope that said "Our Roman Catholic Church...." but to be honest I would have to look it up to prove it as I don't remember exactly where I read it. It can be because the pope is the bishop of the diocese of Rome...when he speaks about the diocese of Rome he can use the name 'Roman Church'.

PS You will find also that a pope called us 'evangelical'...but our name is not 'catholic evangelical church' :)

The official, i.e. legal name of the church in the USA includes the word "Roman," the local pastor here calls his church the "Roman" Catholic Church, and the term is used in many Roman Catholic publications, including right at the front of the Missalette used in American parishes. None of that applies to a name you just made up (London Anglican Church), and cannot be merely a name that Protestants use to offend.


Please...

Tchnically our name is Holy Catholic Apostolic Church, but also Catholic Church is used by us

Go to the site of the US Catholic Bishop and you find that the name is "United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB)" (link (http://www.usccb.org/whoweare.shtml)) The word Roman does not exit.

Anyway to call us Roman is a mis-use due the protestants un-fairness only in a few English speaking Protestant countries
Anyway not only the Vatican, but also US sites like ETWN (http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/churmenu.htm)use only Catholic Church and never Roman Catholic Church

Anyway now you know that our name is simly Catholic Church (and I for instance I'm not not even Roman in rite).

So you can call us only Catholics, not Roman Catholics,

If you do it, I will stop to call the Anglican with the names protestant and calvinist

[Albion]

Tchnically our name is Holy Catholic Apostolic Church, but also Catholic Church is used by us

Those may be variations used over the course of history, but "Roman" is part of its legal name in this country. In addition, it is only you who are asking for the name you prefer to be used here; no one has shown any of us that Roman Catholics in general are opposed to being called Roman Catholics.

Go to the site of the US Catholic Bishop and you find that the name is "United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB)" (link (http://www.usccb.org/whoweare.shtml)) The word Roman does not exit.

Why would it? That's the Conference of Bishops, not the Church. In every church, there are different titles for different side organizations. That happens in our church, too. But I just "googled" the term "Roman Catholic Church" and found all kinds of (Roman) Catholic sites, some hosted by religious orders, using the term "Roman Catholic." This settles the dispute for me.

If you do it, I will stop to call the Anglican with the names protestant and calvinist

There's no comparison there. You started out speaking of the name of a church and you are talking now about using terms that describe (in your opinion) a church.

Anyway, I'm disappointed that you think it's alright to mislabel someone else's church as part of some bribe. You know as well as we do that Roman Catholic Church is a normal useage whereas all your made-up characterizations are intended only to be insulting. I think you can rise above that if you try, but suit yourself.

[IowaLutheran]

Those may be variations used over the course of history, but "Roman" is part of its legal name in this country.

You are correct, at least where I live. Their corporate documents filed with the state use the term "Roman Catholic".

http://www.sos.state.ia.us/Search/corp/corp_summary.asp?corpno=BF089149C16933BC2EA6F98169E65BF95D6840A4FCBAD02EB8A95E0AA7B62652&corp=roman+catholic

[No Swansong]

I do know that when a lawsuit is brought against the Diocese I live in, it is referred to as the Roman Catholic Diocese of Columbus and its representatives. They also usually name the Bishop but this is usually dropped.

[a_ntv]

You are correct, at least where I live. Their corporate documents filed with the state use the term "Roman Catholic".


a legal name of a diocese is NOT the name of the Church. Such roman is a reference to the rite, not to the Church: i.e. Diocese of Roman Rite of the Catholic Church

The Catholic Church exists in front of God only, not in front of a state officer, and it is done of many different dioceses of different rites.

And the Vatican uses always the name CATHOLIC CHURCH, that is made of many rite others the roman one.

Ok.
Due only to the lack of kindness of the protestants people here, who dont recognize us the minimal right to be called as we like, I'll go on calling the Anglican a PROTESTANT ECCLESIAL COMUNITY (I will not use the name Church for the reasons explained by the Vatican here (http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070629_responsa-quaestiones_en.html)#5)

[Albion]

I do know that when a lawsuit is brought against the Diocese I live in, it is referred to as the Roman Catholic Diocese of Columbus and its representatives. They also usually name the Bishop but this is usually dropped.

So that proves it. There is no doubt that Roman Catholics do not, as a rule, object to the term "Roman Catholic."

[Colabomb]

It can be because the pope is the bishop of the diocese of Rome...when he speaks about the diocese of Rome he can use the name 'Roman Church'.

PS You will find also that a pope called us 'evangelical'...but our name is not 'catholic evangelical church' :)




Please...

Tchnically our name is Holy Catholic Apostolic Church, but also Catholic Church is used by us

Go to the site of the US Catholic Bishop and you find that the name is "United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB)" (link (http://www.usccb.org/whoweare.shtml)) The word Roman does not exit.

Anyway to call us Roman is a mis-use due the protestants un-fairness only in a few English speaking Protestant countries
Anyway not only the Vatican, but also US sites like ETWN (http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/churmenu.htm)use only Catholic Church and never Roman Catholic Church

Anyway now you know that our name is simly Catholic Church (and I for instance I'm not not even Roman in rite).

So you can call us only Catholics, not Roman Catholics,

If you do it, I will stop to call the Anglican with the names protestant and calvinist



As I pointed out earlier, I drive by several ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCHES, as I go through this city. And its not reactionary. There is 2 Old Catholic parishes in this city, and most Christians here don't even know they exist. There would be no reason for "The Catholic Church" as you call it, to "add" Roman to the title.

The name of the diocese is "The Roman Catholic Diocese of Columbus"

[a_ntv]

As I pointed out earlier, I drive by several ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCHES, as I go through this city. And its not reactionary. There is 2 Old Catholic parishes in this city, and most Christians here don't even know they exist.

The name of the diocese is "The Roman Catholic Diocese of Columbus"
The Old Catholic ECCLESIAL COMUNITY is a PROTESTANT denomination founded after the 1870
The Catholic Church is a CHURCH fouded by Christ in the 33 about.

I've explained that "The Roman Catholic Diocese of Columbus" means a diocese of the the Catholic Church using the Roman Rite. There could be a Melkite Catholic Dioces of Columbus or a Chaldean Catholic Diocese of Columbus: all part of the Catholic Church

And that the Catholic Church is something huger than a sumof single dioceses.
I'm NOT of Roman Rite being anyway fully part of the Catholic Church.

Anyway, to respect for the other is the base point of any ecumenism.
If you call our church (not a diocese) Catholic Church, I have no problem to call the Anglican without the adjective protestant

[Albion]

The Old Catholic ECCLESIAL COMUNITY is a PROTESTANT denomination founded after the 1870
The Catholic Church is a CHURCH fouded by Christ in the 33 about.

I've explained that "The Roman Catholic Diocese of Columbus" means a diocese of the the Catholic Church using the Roman Rite. There could be a Melkite Catholic Dioces of Columbus or a Chaldean Catholic Diocese of Columbus: all part of the Catholic Church

And that the Catholic Church is something huger than a sumof single dioceses.
I'm NOT of Roman Rite being anyway fully part of the Catholic Church.

That's the LATIN rite, not the Roman rite, so this is not why the word is being used to indicate your church.

Anyway, to respect for the other is the base point of any ecumenism.
If you call our church (not a diocese) Catholic Church, I have no problem to call the Anglican without the adjective protestant

Then I guess you aren't interested in ecumenism, after all.

BUT you have completely ignored all the rest of what we explained to you.

This includes the following--

The Pope says "Roman Catholic"

Colabomb has RC Churches in his own town that use the term "Roman Catholic."

The academic community, books, reference works, Wikipedia, etc. all use Roman Catholic.

The legal name of the church includest the word "Roman."

Many religious orders and church organizations use "Roman Catholic."

and more.

We cannot be expected to tailor our speech because of one person with a personal agenda.

[a_ntv]

That's the LATIN rite, not the Roman rite, so this is not why the word is being used to indicate your church.
.

No, the Latin rite is a general terms that includes all the Latin-based rites: the Roman, the Ambrosian, the Mozarabic, the Sarum....

[karen freeinchristman]

Every Roman Catholic church that I know of in the UK is called Roman Catholic; every Roman Catholic school is called RC.
When we say the Nicene Creed in my (Anglican) church, we do not say 'we believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic church' to mean that we believe in the RC church, do we?

[a_ntv]

Every Roman Catholic church that I know of in the UK is called Roman Catholic; every Roman Catholic school is called RC.

That is a local bad use in some protestant historically anti-catholic countries, like England

England went on for centuries to oppress and discriminate catholics: a result of this is still in the Roman used there

[TomUK]

That can be a use due to a local un-kindness of the protestants who call us 'Roman'

The official name is simply Catholic Church
See the title of 'Cathechism of the Catholic Church' (link (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM))

We use Roman only to indicate the roman rite or the diocese of Rome.

We dont call you London Anglican Church


Till you all will not respect us calling us with our official name, we will go on callng you protestants


Well first of all i would like to apologise if you are offended by our use of the term 'Roman Catholic.' However i do hope you understand that it has no malicious intent but it is instead utilised as a necessary tool to distinguish between two Churches. You may disagree with claim of many of us in the Anglican Church to apply the term 'Catholic Church' to ourselves. Personally i believe that the Holy Scripture and the witness of the Church Fathers and also Church history disagrees with your take on things. However the term 'Roman Catholic' is simply used as a way to maintain a distinction between ourselves and those under the authority of the Papal See. If you can think of a more suitable term then i would love to here it. However, as my Anglican brothers and sisters have already pointed out there are huge sections of the your Church who are more than willing to accept to accept the term 'Roman Catholic.'

Your final point also worries me a little. If for theological reasons you insist on calling me Protestant then while i would disagree i would accept your point of view. If however you only reason to call us Protestant is because of spite then i believe that any hope of dialogue between us is going to be very short lived.

Pax Christi

[TomUK]

That is a local bad use in some protestant historically anti-catholic countries, like England

England went on for centuries to oppress and discriminate catholics: a result of this is still in the Roman used there

Please do not use charged language here - the history of either Churches is not entirely pretty. This discussion is certainly not going to be solved by debating 'who's got the lowest body count.'

[Secundulus]

The following is a copy and paste from the homepageof our local Roman Catholic Church.

We are a warm, vibrant Roman Catholic Church with over 1700 families located in Columbus (http://www.columbusga.com/), Georgia. We would be happy to welcome you to worship with us or join our parish.


http://home.catholicweb.com/stannecsg/

[No Swansong]

Please notice the "Official" name of the Diocese of Columbus. (http://www.colsdioc.org/)

[No Swansong]

Roman Catholic seems to be an appropriate noun. At least in the U.S.

[copticorthodoxy]

I think that the Anglican church is a protestant group having a mass

[a_ntv]

Well first of all i would like to apologise if you are offended by our use of the term 'Roman Catholic.' However i do hope you understand that it has no malicious intent but it is instead utilised as a necessary tool to distinguish between two Churches. You may disagree with claim of many of us in the Anglican Church to apply the term 'Catholic Church' to ourselves. Personally i believe that the Holy Scripture and the witness of the Church Fathers and also Church history disagrees with your take on things. However the term 'Roman Catholic' is simply used as a way to maintain a distinction between ourselves and those under the authority of the Papal See. If you can think of a more suitable term then i would love to here it. However, as my Anglican brothers and sisters have already pointed out there are huge sections of the your Church who are more than willing to accept to accept the term 'Roman Catholic.'

Your final point also worries me a little. If for theological reasons you insist on calling me Protestant then while i would disagree i would accept your point of view. If however you only reason to call us Protestant is because of spite then i believe that any hope of dialogue between us is going to be very short lived.
Pax Christi

You can call youerslf as you like.
We can call ourself as we like.

That is the base of the rspect.

I dont object if call yourself catholic, protestanat, anglican, calvinist, evangelical, orthodox, whichever you want, but you have to call us as the Vatican call us.

The respect for the other is necessary to any theological reason or discussion

You are right: there are theological issues back the use of these names: you call us Roman Catholic meaning that the Roman Catholic is simply an branch of the Church as well the English Church: we disagree. we call you protestant to underline your lack of a valid Eucharist.

So theses nick-names (roman, protestant) we use during a theological debate are by themself a barrier towards the other.
The simply use of these nick-names kills the theological debate.
To prevent these problems, the ony way is respect and charity, that here it means to use for the other the name he likes more (Catholic Church and Church of England): of course the use of correct name of the other doent mean we agree the doctrine of the other, but it simply moves away further linguistics and theological barrieres.

Roman Catholic seems to be an appropriate noun. At least in the U.S.
I'm livig in a not English speaking country where the term Roman is never used, and the Church, because the Catholic Church NEVER uses it (check any vatican document) to indicate the whole of itself.

I repeat, the noun roman catholic, as well as papists, is a result of the last centuries of dicrimination of catholics in England and US.

We are proud of the discrimination we have been subject, but if you go on to use such a name, that is a lack of respect for us and it close any possible ecumenism

[prodromos]

I'm livig in a not English speaking country where the term Roman is never used, and the Church, because the Catholic Church NEVER uses it (check any vatican document) to indicate the whole of itself.The trouble is that you are engaging in discussions with English speaking people from English speaking countries who are commonly exposed to Catholic Churches which refer to themselves as "Roman Catholic". You are insisting that the minority position (in forum members) be held by the majority. This does not seem to be a particularly humble approach. I grew up always knowing your church as the Roman Catholic Church and it was never understood in a derogatory sense. I have never understood the recent phenomenon of Catholics wishing to divest themselves of the "Roman" label. The one thing which sets your church apart from others is the Papacy which has almost always had its centre in Rome (or more accurately Vatican City). It is a fact of your church which is known to all. Why do you wish to downplay it?

[No Swansong]

You can call youerslf as you like.
We can call ourself as we like.

That is the base of the rspect.

I dont object if call yourself catholic, protestanat, anglican, calvinist, evangelical, orthodox, whichever you want, but you have to call us as the Vatican call us.

The respect for the other is necessary to any theological reason or discussion

You are right: there are theological issues back the use of these names: you call us Roman Catholic meaning that the Roman Catholic is simply an branch of the Church as well the English Church: we disagree. we call you protestant to underline your lack of a valid Eucharist.

So theses nick-names (roman, protestant) we use during a theological debate are by themself a barrier towards the other.
The simply use of these nick-names kills the theological debate.
To prevent these problems, the ony way is respect and charity, that here it means to use for the other the name he likes more (Catholic Church and Church of England): of course the use of correct name of the other doent mean we agree the doctrine of the other, but it simply moves away further linguistics and theological barrieres.


I'm livig in a not English speaking country where the term Roman is never used, and the Church, because the Catholic Church NEVER uses it (check any vatican document) to indicate the whole of itself.

I repeat, the noun roman catholic, as well as papists, is a result of the last centuries of dicrimination of catholics in England and US.

We are proud of the discrimination we have been subject, but if you go on to use such a name, that is a lack of respect for us and it close any possible ecumenism
I have spoken with a Canon Lawyer (a man who has a Ph.D. in Roman Catholic Canon Law) He assures me that the appropriate title in the U.S. is the Roman Catholic Church. He also assures me that the rest of the world does not object to the term and was quite surprised that there is what he says must be a very small number of people who do actually object to the term. As far as I am concerned the matter is closed for me as those on CF who object must be a very small minority.

I will continue to use the term Roman Catholic as it is the easiest way to distinguish between those who look to Rome for their patriarch and all of the other Catholic Churches, unless a term that is less insulting can be provided. (perhaps vatican catholics?)

[IowaLutheran]

I'm livig in a not English speaking country where the term Roman is never used, and the Church, because the Catholic Church NEVER uses it (check any vatican document) to indicate the whole of itself.



I did a google search for "Roman Catholic" within www.vatican.va (http://www.vatican.va) and came up with pages and pages of hits revealing that that the Vatican repeatedly uses the term "Roman Catholic." Most seem to be in the context of ecumenical documents issued by the Vatican. So, perhaps the answer to this discussion is that the heirarchy of your church, when talking about itself in documents designed to be read by members of the Church, refers to itself as the "Catholic Church." On the other hand, in documents prepared by the Vatican for dialogue and discussion with people outside the Church, the Church seems to have no problem with calling itself the "Roman Catholic Church."

Here are just a few examples of the pages and pages of hits on the term "Roman Catholic" when I did the search of the Vatican website.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/council-churches-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20030519_final-communique_en.html

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/ch_orthodox_docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20000719_baltimore_en.html

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/angl-comm-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_19770429_paul-vi-coggan_en.html

[Albion]

I think that the Anglican church is a protestant group having a mass

You can think whatever you want about what Anglicanism represents doctrinally, but the problem with our Roman Catholic friend is not that. His is that he's insisting upon everyone here using a NAME for his church--regardless of who we may be addressing--that is a personal preference.

[a_ntv]

Here are just a few examples of the pages and pages of hits on the term "Roman Catholic" when I did the search of the Vatican website.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/council-churches-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20030519_final-communique_en.html

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/ch_orthodox_docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20000719_baltimore_en.html

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/angl-comm-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_19770429_paul-vi-coggan_en.html

These are ecumenical documents: we are nice and we offer the other cheek

But the term Roman is only in the English Translation.
If you look at the Italian original the term Roman does not exist (you can check here (http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/council-churches-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20030519_final-communique_it.html))

[Albion]

These are ecumenical documents: we are nice and we offer the other cheek

But the term Roman is only in the English Translation.
If you look at the Italian original the term Roman does not exist (you can check here (http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/council-churches-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20030519_final-communique_it.html))

If it is, indeed, only in the English translation (which I doubt):

Then there must be a reason for inserting it. That reason is to avoid confusion as to which Catholic church is being spoken of. That in itself recommends that we do so also.

P.S. Where is the English translation of the link you gave us? We don't know if "Roman is only in the English Translation" without it.

[a_ntv]

Why do you wish to downplay it?
I dont have any problen in the Roman: I'm proud of it.
It is simply NOT the name of our Church.

And the Anglicans use it with a theology purpose: to indicate that the Church is Rome is simply a branch of the Church at the same level of the Church of England: we disagree with this theological intepretation: the original tree of the Church have other branches, the Orthodox, but the Church of England is not part of this original olive tree: it is a separated younger oak

If they asks us not to use the term protestant for them, that is a pre-concept implicit stament, we ask them not to use the name Roman Catholic that is a pre-concept implicit stament as well.



I will continue to use the term Roman Catholic as it is the easiest way to distinguish between those who look to Rome for their patriarch and all of the other Catholic Churches, unless a term that is less insulting can be provided. (perhaps vatican catholics?)

It is clear that our protestants brothers are only able to ask respect for themself, without giving the same to the other.

You can call us only catholics. We dont need other adjectives and if you say simply catholic there is not any risk of confusion.

[Albion]

It is clear that our protestants brothers are only able to ask respect for themself, without giving the same to the other.

What is clear is that if the Vatican uses the word for English speaking peoples, it CANNOT be disrespectful in the eyes of the Church. And if RCC parishes and publications use Roman routinely--as they do--it proves beyond any doubt that its use is not disrespectful. So if you write to us in English, this is the way it is.

[MrdeRastignac]

Either way, I seem to miss the origin of the Anglican Church in all the posts here: the schism with Rome just took place because of Henry VIII who wanted to divorce...... Originally lacking the more profound theological reasoning, this schism is quite special IMO.
Only in the years afterwards (pretty soon though) influences from the Reformation further changed the nature of the Church of England.

So I don't see why you couldn't call the Anglican Church a Protestant church... IMO, protestant is merely how others refer/referred to many denominations as the original 'protestants' called themselves 'reformers'.
The word 'Christian' was a negative thing too at first... that certainly changed!

BTW, in every language I know it is quite common to refer to the Catholic Church as 'the Roman-Catholic Church'. I still have to find anyone who would be offended by that, as it has been used for centuries meaning nothing more than: "the universal (or common) church of Rome".

[No Swansong]

I dont have any problen in the Roman: I'm proud of it.
It is simply NOT the name of our Church.

And the Anglicans use it with a theology purpose: to indicate that the Church is Rome is simply a branch of the Church at the same level of the Church of England: we disagree with this theological intepretation: the original tree of the Church have other branches, the Orthodox, but the Church of England is not part of this original olive tree: it is a separated younger oak

If they asks us not to use the term protestant for them, that is a pre-concept implicit stament, we ask them not to use the name Roman Catholic that is a pre-concept implicit stament as well.




It is clear that our protestants brothers are only able to ask respect for themself, without giving the same to the other.

You can call us only catholics. We dont need other adjectives and if you say simply catholic there is not any risk of confusion.
Actually I cannot as there are other Catholics on the board. Anglicans, Old Catholics, others.

It is not a matter of disrespect. It is a matter of using what has been proven to me by (discussion with) a Canon Lawyer to be the appriate name for the body.

btw for the record you may call me a protestant all you want. I am a Protestant in that I do protest the abuses that were heaped upon the people by the Roman Catholic Church.

[No Swansong]

Either way, I seem to miss the origin of the Anglican Church in all the posts here: the schism with Rome just took place because of Henry VIII who wanted to divorce...... Originally lacking the more profound theological reasoning, this schism is quite special IMO.
Only in the years afterwards (pretty soon though) influences from the Reformation further changed the nature of the Church of England.

So I don't see why you couldn't call the Anglican Church a Protestant church... IMO, protestant is merely how others refer/referred to many denominations as the original 'protestants' called themselves 'reformers'.
The word 'Christian' was a negative thing too at first... that certainly changed!

BTW, in every language I know it is quite common to refer to the Catholic Church as 'the Roman-Catholic Church'. I still have to find anyone who would be offended by that, as it has been used for centuries meaning nothing more than: "the universal (or common) church of Rome".
This isn't really true. Many of those who were involved in the reformation in England had ties to the reformation on the continent.

Henry's desire for a divorce which would have been provided anyway except for political pressure on the Pope, was only a catalyst. It certainly was not the cause.

[Albion]

Either way, I seem to miss the origin of the Anglican Church in all the posts here: the schism with Rome just took place because of Henry VIII who wanted to divorce.

Henry wanted an annullment. The Roman Catholic Church grants over 100,000 of them yearly in the USA alone and for much less reason than Henry had.

So I don't see why you couldn't call the Anglican Church a Protestant church.

I don't mind a bit, although all Anglicans agree that we are different from (other) Protestant churches in some ways and that this ought to be understood by others. When a RC uses the word purposesly in order to slam the church, it's clear that he's not meaning anything respectful or knowledgable.
BTW, in every language I know it is quite common to refer to the Catholic Church as 'the Roman-Catholic Church'. I still have to find anyone who would be offended by that,

All but one of us agrees with you.

[prodromos]

I dont have any problen in the Roman: I'm proud of it.
It is simply NOT the name of our Church.We have shown that de facto it IS in English speaking countries. If you have a problem with that then your problem is with your Catholic brethren, not with us. Get over it.

[Yeznik]

Ok, why doesn't the Anglican Church go into Communion with one of the orthodox churches?

Or do Anglican also protest orthodox doctrine and theology as well?

[Albion]

Ok, why doesn't the Anglican Church go into Communion with one of the orthodox churches?

We're willing to listen. Do the Orthodox have any interest in it? Right now, they can commune in our churches; we consider their priests valid; and we consider their sacraments valid. If they want to have intercommunion with us, I'm sure we would welcome the overture.

[No Swansong]

Ok, why doesn't the Anglican Church go into Communion with one of the orthodox churches?

Or do Anglican also protest orthodox doctrine and theology as well?
There were many talks between the Orthodox and the Anglican Communion about that precise issue before the U.S. branch of the Anglican Communion made a unilateral decision to start ordaining women. There are many provinces still in the Anglican Communion that the Orthodox would not have an issue with. Additionally many of the Continuing Anglican bodies would also fit into Orthodoxy fairly well.

My argument is that as far as I am concerned the issue lies with the Orthodox not the Anglicans. Anglicans happily welcome Orthodox to the table. There isn't an Anglican Church in the world that would deny you communion. The decision to be in communion lies with the Orthodox not the Anglicans. As for whether we need to or not it would be nice but since I believe the Anglican Church to be The Church of Christ on earth, I am sad that the Orthodox don't feel themselves to be in communion with us and I will pray that some day that may be remedied.

[Colabomb]

The Old Catholic ECCLESIAL COMUNITY is a PROTESTANT denomination founded after the 1870
The Catholic Church is a CHURCH fouded by Christ in the 33 about.

I've explained that "The Roman Catholic Diocese of Columbus" means a diocese of the the Catholic Church using the Roman Rite. There could be a Melkite Catholic Dioces of Columbus or a Chaldean Catholic Diocese of Columbus: all part of the Catholic Church

And that the Catholic Church is something huger than a sumof single dioceses.
I'm NOT of Roman Rite being anyway fully part of the Catholic Church.

Anyway, to respect for the other is the base point of any ecumenism.
If you call our church (not a diocese) Catholic Church, I have no problem to call the Anglican without the adjective protestant

I know what The Old Catholic Church is. I was simply pointing out that since there are only 2 non Roman churches in the city that call themselves Catholic, there would be no reason for them to identify themselves as roman unless that was the name of their church.

[No Swansong]

The Old Catholics are not protestant. Do you have any knowledge of the Church of Utrecht?

[Yeznik]

There were many talks between the Orthodox and the Anglican Communion about that precise issue before the U.S. branch of the Anglican Communion made a unilateral decision to start ordaining women. There are many provinces still in the Anglican Communion that the Orthodox would not have an issue with. Additionally many of the Continuing Anglican bodies would also fit into Orthodoxy fairly well.

My argument is that as far as I am concerned the issue lies with the Orthodox not the Anglicans. Anglicans happily welcome Orthodox to the table. There isn't an Anglican Church in the world that would deny you communion. The decision to be in communion lies with the Orthodox not the Anglicans. As for whether we need to or not it would be nice but since I believe the Anglican Church to be The Church of Christ on earth, I am sad that the Orthodox don't feel themselves to be in communion with us and I will pray that some day that may be remedied.


How is the relationship between the British Orthodox Church and the Anglican Church specifically.

[a_ntv]

We call protestant any christian body that does not have a valid Eucharist (=the bread is not changed in the Body of Christ), by whichever cause (lack of will, lack of propter intention, lack of apostolic succession)

Adinstance, we consider the Anglicans, the Lutherans, the Baptists, most Old Catholics as protestant.

A simply trick to understand if a christian body is protestant is to check if they have women priest/pastor: if they have women-priest (or allow inter-comunion with bodies that have women-priest), they are surely protestant, if they dont have women priest, a deeper check is needed.

There are denominations more or less protestant: ad instance we feel the Lutherans to be less protestant than the Anglicans

There could be others definitions of protestant:
- protestant are the christian bodies born in the XVI century or later: also in this case the Anglicans are protestant (anyway it is not a precise definition because we call protestant also the Valdes, who are older than the XVI century)
- protestant are the chrisitan bodies who have deep errors in the doctrine: also in this case the Anglican Comunity, that doctrinally is in the same family of calvinism, is protestant
- protestant are the christians who are nor Catholic nor Orthodox: this definition is not precise because the PNCC or the FSPX are nor protestant nor catholic nor orthodox

We dont agree with the definition of protestant simply as bodies separated by the Catholic Church:
- we dont call protestant the Church of England of Henry VIII, while we call protestant the same body after the Cranmer reformation.
- the Polish National Church is not protestant, while Old Catholic Union of Utrecht is protestant

[No Swansong]

We call protestant any christian body that does not have a valid Eucharist (=the bread is not changed in the Body of Christ), by whichever cause (lack of will, lack of propter intention, lack of apostolic succession)

Adinstance, we consider the Anglicans, the Lutherans, the Baptists, most Old Catholics as protestant.

A simply trick to understand if a christian body is protestant is to check if they have women priest/pastor: if they have women-priest (or allow inter-comunion with bodies that have women-priest), they are surely protestant, if they dont have women priest, a deeper check is needed.

There are denominations more or less protestant: ad instance we feel the Lutherans to be less protestant than the Anglicans

There could be others definitions of protestant:
- protestant are the christian bodies born in the XVI century or later: also in this case the Anglicans are protestant (anyway it is not a precise definition because we call protestant also the Valdes, who are older than the XVI century)
- protestant are the chrisitan bodies who have deep errors in the doctrine: also in this case the Anglican Comunity, that doctrinally is in the same family of calvinism, is protestant
- protestant are the christians who are nor Catholic nor Orthodox: this definition is not precise because the PNCC or the FSPX are nor protestant nor catholic nor orthodox

We dont agree with the definition of protestant simply as bodies separated by the Catholic Church:
- we dont call protestant the Church of England of Henry VIII, while we call protestant the same body after the Cranmer reformation.
- the Polish National Church is not protestant, while Old Catholic Union of Utrecht is protestant
The PNCC originated through the Union of Utrecht.

[No Swansong]

How is the relationship between the British Orthodox Church and the Anglican Church specifically.
Unfortunatelfy I have little knowledge about this specific relationship. Perhaps you may ask one of our English members.

[No Swansong]

We call protestant any christian body that does not have a valid Eucharist (=the bread is not changed in the Body of Christ), by whichever cause (lack of will, lack of propter intention, lack of apostolic succession)

Adinstance, we consider the Anglicans, the Lutherans, the Baptists, most Old Catholics as protestant.

A simply trick to understand if a christian body is protestant is to check if they have women priest/pastor: if they have women-priest (or allow inter-comunion with bodies that have women-priest), they are surely protestant, if they dont have women priest, a deeper check is needed.

There are denominations more or less protestant: ad instance we feel the Lutherans to be less protestant than the Anglicans

There could be others definitions of protestant:
- protestant are the christian bodies born in the XVI century or later: also in this case the Anglicans are protestant (anyway it is not a precise definition because we call protestant also the Valdes, who are older than the XVI century)
- protestant are the chrisitan bodies who have deep errors in the doctrine: also in this case the Anglican Comunity, that doctrinally is in the same family of calvinism, is protestant
- protestant are the christians who are nor Catholic nor Orthodox: this definition is not precise because the PNCC or the FSPX are nor protestant nor catholic nor orthodox

We dont agree with the definition of protestant simply as bodies separated by the Catholic Church:
- we dont call protestant the Church of England of Henry VIII, while we call protestant the same body after the Cranmer reformation.
- the Polish National Church is not protestant, while Old Catholic Union of Utrecht is protestant
I love how the Roman Catholic Church determines who has a valid Eucharist. Fortunately for us your opinion of our eucharist means nothing.

[a_ntv]

The PNCC originated through the Union of Utrecht.
Yes, but the PNCC left the Union of Utrecht when the Union of Utrecht became protestant

the Union of Utrecht is an iteresting case of protestant with apostolic succesion

I love how the Roman Catholic Church determines who has a valid Eucharist.

Actualy it is not so important to determine who have a valid Eucharist, but for the cases of inter-communion , that are anyway quite common in a globalized world.

If you want I can give you more details on the criterias used, but i dont think you are interested.

Fortunately for us your opinion of our eucharist means nothing.

We all are free to believe what we want.

[ContraMundum]

I love how the Roman Catholic Church determines who has a valid Eucharist. Fortunately for us your opinion of our eucharist means nothing.


Let's be fair here....

Most "Roman" Catholics, whether in the Vatican itself or not, tend to be far more gracious and less dogmatic than the American career apologists that feed the flocks that dominate internet forums. The career apologists really need to get real ministries, IMHO.

What I mean to say is, that this kind of dialogue (where only polemics against the baptised of other non-Roman Catholic communities is spoken) does a great disservice to those who are of the flock of the Bishop of Rome- who is first among equals.

Most Roman Catholics would never engage in bashing other communions, nor do they regard their church as "better" than others. They recognise the complexity, the sins and the politics of their communion and yet also know the great graces that flow from Christ to those among the faithful within her care.

So, when I see someone judging other baptised believers as "outside of grace" or any variant on that theme I see nothing but ecclesiolatry, which is a grave sin.

Why adopt the attitude of the career apologists?

We have to love and respect each other, put up with each other's foibles and shortcomings, and put our egos at bay in order to live in peace and grow towards each other in ecumenical spirit.

When we argue about who gets the exclusive title of "THE Catholic Church", we completely lose credibility and look ridiculous. Let's not get sucked into it.

[No Swansong]

Let's be fair here....

Most "Roman" Catholics, whether in the Vatican itself or not, tend to be far more gracious and less dogmatic than the American career apologists that feed the flocks that dominate internet forums. The career apologists really need to get real ministries, IMHO.

What I mean to say is, that this kind of dialogue (where only polemics against the baptised of other non-Roman Catholic communities is spoken) does a great disservice to those who are of the flock of the Bishop of Rome- who is first among equals.

Most Roman Catholics would never engage in bashing other communions, nor do they regard their church as "better" than others. They recognise the complexity, the sins and the politics of their communion and yet also know the great graces that flow from Christ to those among the faithful within her care.

So, when I see someone judging other baptised believers as "outside of grace" or any variant on that theme I see nothing but ecclesiolatry, which is a grave sin.

Why adopt the attitude of the career apologists?

We have to love and respect each other, put up with each other's foibles and shortcomings, and put our egos at bay in order to live in peace and grow towards each other in ecumenical spirit.

When we argue about who gets the exclusive title of "THE Catholic Church", we completely lose credibility and look ridiculous. Let's not get sucked into it.
Let us just say that your experience is far different than mine. I have met very few Catholics who consider Anglican Eucharist as truly being the body and blood of Christ. Most Catholics I have known Consider Anglicans wannabe's at best.

[Albion]

Let us just say that your experience is far different than mine. I have met very few Catholics who consider Anglican Eucharist as truly being the body and blood of Christ. Most Catholics I have known Consider Anglicans wannabe's at best.

I wish he were correct in what he wrote, but my experience is almost totally what you report having experienced. Even when they are being polite and encouraging, it is as a person being supportive of another who is engaged in something completely foreign to his own system of values.

I have almost never found even broadminded, ecumenically-minded Catholics who would receive communion in an Anglican church. The most they do is attend and tell us that we are sooo like their own church.

[Rhamiel]

wow, talk about a pity party, all I hear any more is "The Catholics don't consider my church to be a real church" from the baptists and now the Anglicans are upset because we do not think you have a valid priesthood/ Eucharist? Why do you care what we think, you do not hear me whine about the fact that anglicans do not recognize the role of the Pope as vicar of Christ
Albion
I have almost never found even broadminded, ecumenically-minded Catholics who would receive communion in an Anglican church. The most they do is attend and tell us that we are sooo like their own church
good, ecumenicism is not, "lets forget our differences" it is working for a better understanding of our common faith and emphasizing what we have in common and working together to spared the gospel of Christ.
do you want to know what I see here? I see a lack of respect. You do not respect our view on the sacrament of the alter. I respect your view that you have a valid priesthood and sacraments, I think you are wrong but I respect it, I understand why you would think that way, but you do not even try to understand the Catholic view, how ecumenical is that?

[NewToLife]

Hmmm, as an ex-Anglican I accept what the OP says, yet the reality is I think that most Anglicans are in fact protestant in every meaningful sense of the word. Certainly that has been my experience at least.

Certainly in the CofE much of the Anglo Catholic wing left after the decision to ordain women, it was largely the Anglo Catholic wing that could be said to be non-protestant. I dont in all honesty think protestant is an unfitting description of evangelicals or liberals within Anglicanism.

[NewToLife]

Unfortunatelfy I have little knowledge about this specific relationship. Perhaps you may ask one of our English members.
Relationships are on a friendly basis, there are a number of Orthodox priests who were, previous to conversion, Anglican clergy, there are also many laypeople who have converted, so many Orthodox have friendships within Anglicanism and this exists at all levels. Anglicans tend to be very supportive of a conversion to Orthodoxy and some Orthodox congregations can worship only because Anglicans make unused churches available.

There has been a long history of friendship between the two churches with the society of St Sergius and St George existing in order to further relations. At one time it looked as though there might even be communion. Of course such things are no longer possible as Anglicanism has shifted sharply away from Orthodoxy in theological terms.

On a day to day basis there is theological disagreement but no real animosity, there remains co-operation in many endevours despite our differences.

On a personal level I still visit my old Anglican Church regularly as i have many friends there.

[TomUK]

Relationships are on a friendly basis, there are a number of Orthodox priests who were, previous to conversion, Anglican clergy, there are also many laypeople who have converted, so many Orthodox have friendships within Anglicanism and this exists at all levels. Anglicans tend to be very supportive of a conversion to Orthodoxy and some Orthodox congregations can worship only because Anglicans make unused churches available.

There has been a long history of friendship between the two churches with the society of St Sergius and St George existing in order to further relations. At one time it looked as though there might even be communion. Of course such things are no longer possible as Anglicanism has shifted sharply away from Orthodoxy in theological terms.

On a day to day basis there is theological disagreement but no real animosity, there remains co-operation in many endevours despite our differences.

On a personal level I still visit my old Anglican Church regularly as i have many friends there.

That's been my experience also.

(happy birthday in four days!)

[No Swansong]

wow, talk about a pity party, all I hear any more is "The Catholics don't consider my church to be a real church" from the baptists and now the Anglicans are upset because we do not think you have a valid priesthood/ Eucharist? Why do you care what we think, you do not hear me whine about the fact that anglicans do not recognize the role of the Pope as vicar of Christ
Albion

good, ecumenicism is not, "lets forget our differences" it is working for a better understanding of our common faith and emphasizing what we have in common and working together to spared the gospel of Christ.
do you want to know what I see here? I see a lack of respect. You do not respect our view on the sacrament of the alter. I respect your view that you have a valid priesthood and sacraments, I think you are wrong but I respect it, I understand why you would think that way, but you do not even try to understand the Catholic view, how ecumenical is that?
I'm not sure who you think is whining, but I have never really cared what the Roman Catholic Church thought about Anglican Orders.

[ContraMundum]

Let us just say that your experience is far different than mine. I have met very few Catholics who consider Anglican Eucharist as truly being the body and blood of Christ. Most Catholics I have known Consider Anglicans wannabe's at best.

At the risk of sounding haughty, which I am most certainly not, the differences of experience may be because of the context in which we meet Catholics. Most of the Catholics I meet are clergy, who are not only educated but experienced, and have plenty of contructive criticism to share about their church, as well as praise points for mine. The feelings are reciprocated, naturally. There is mutual respect and we even pray together often.

It seems like at the end of ther day it is the lay Catholic career apologists that really don't know how to share their faith without being critical. Most of them are ex-"somethings" as well, and we all know that many will spend the best of their years defending their decision to leave "whatever-it-was" to anyone within earshot- whether willing listeners or not.

Mature, sensible Catholics will not throw stones because they know they have a lot of glass windows in their own house. Let's face it, it's far from perfect, but that's ok. It's just like the rest of us.

A good Catholic would rather love you than bury you in canon law.*

The internet apologist types are still trying to work out doctrines and debates in their heads, and burden us with their need to feel "right". They forget what a valid baptism actually means and mark all other Christians as somehow far from Christ.

BTW- there are some great, mature and caring Catholics on this forum- none spend hours in the debate threads, interestingly enough.

*(which requires trained lawyers with years of learning and experience to properly understand- not some layman with internet apologetics site).

[No Swansong]

At the risk of sounding haughty, which I am most certainly not, the differences of experience may be because of the context in which we meet Catholics. Most of the Catholics I meet are clergy, who are not only educated but experienced, and have plenty of contructive criticism to share about their church, as well as praise points for mine. The feelings are reciprocated, naturally. There is mutual respect and we even pray together often.

It seems like at the end of ther day it is the lay Catholic career apologists that really don't know how to share their faith without being critical. Most of them are ex-"somethings" as well, and we all know that many will spend the best of their years defending their decision to leave "whatever-it-was" to anyone within earshot- whether willing listeners or not.

Mature, sensible Catholics will not throw stones because they know they have a lot of glass windows in their own house. Let's face it, it's far from perfect, but that's ok. It's just like the rest of us.

A good Catholic would rather love you than bury you in canon law.*

The internet apologist types are still trying to work out doctrines and debates in their heads, and burden us with their need to feel "right". They forget what a valid baptism actually means and mark all other Christians as somehow far from Christ.

BTW- there are some great, mature and caring Catholics on this forum- none spend hours in the debate threads, interestingly enough.

*(which requires trained lawyers with years of learning and experience to properly understand- not some layman with internet apologetics site).
No offense taken Contra but please do not forget that I am completing an advanced degree in Theology in a Roman Catholic University. Most of the Catholics I come into contact with are also clergy with advanced degrees, even the retired Bishop of the Diocese teaches in the department. Additionally in my city exists the only Pontifical Seminary in the U.S. Added to that my Godfather is the retired Chief Justice of the Diocesan Court. (with a Ph.D. in Canon Law) I unfortunately have much more contact with well educated Roman Catholic Clergy than laymen. Trust me these individuals are very quick to state that the Roman Catholic Church is The Church and that no others are. Additionally they are very quick to point out that while we (non-Roman Catholics) are heretical we have a backdoor to salvation through Baptism although most of us are too ignorant to know that.

Again your experience is far different than mine. Perhaps it is a difference between the American Roman Catholic Church and the Australian Roman Catholic Church?

[Albion]

wow, talk about a pity party, all I hear any more is "The Catholics don't consider my church to be a real church" from the baptists and now the Anglicans are upset because we do not think you have a valid priesthood/ Eucharist? Why do you care what we think, you do not hear me whine about the fact that anglicans do not recognize the role of the Pope as vicar of Christ
Albion

It looks as though the above is directed at me, although it isn't anything I wrote, so I feel I should reply although what's there to say? Like John, it makes no difference to me what the Roman Church says about Anglican orders, the Lord's Supper, or the sacraments. It may be that you mistook a mere confirmation of his judgment about the typical Catholic's attitude toward us--a purely informational comment--for giving a hoot what it is or is not.

do you want to know what I see here?

Not especially.

I respect your view that you have a valid priesthood and sacraments, I think you are wrong but I respect it, I understand why you would think that way, but you do not even try to understand the Catholic view, how ecumenical is that?
I understand it.

Don't fall for the idea that unless a person agrees with Rome, it can only be because he doesn't understand her.

[ContraMundum]

No offense taken Contra but...

None taken...

Godfather is the retired Chief Justice of the Diocesan Court.

You have a Catholic Godfather? How "De Nero". :)

Trust me these individuals are very quick to state that the Roman Catholic Church is The Church and that no others are. Additionally they are very quick to point out that while we (non-Roman Catholics) are heretical we have a backdoor to salvation through Baptism although most of us are too ignorant to know that.

Yuck. But then again, if that's all they've got to say, or that's their bottom line, it isn't much, eh?

Again your experience is far different than mine. Perhaps it is a difference between the American Roman Catholic Church and the Australian Roman Catholic Church?

Wellllllllllll......now that you mention it- American Catholics have spawned the professional apologists, haven't they? It seems like an American phenomenon, but it's canker doth spread abroad, sadly. However, I think that in this country Anglicans and Catholics have grown up far closer, and the ugly debates about who is "right" ended ages ago in favor of unity.

Catholics need to remember that they win more people to Christ and the Roman church by their loving actions and faith than they do with American apologist's useless and doctrinaire hot air babbling.

Ever heard the likes of Vinny Louis? "Catholic" apologists like him don't even appear Christian- he's the Catholic Jack Chick. How embarassing for them. Compare his tape ministry to Mother Theresa's ministry and it's a no brainer which one would win more people to Christ.

Another thing- I'm a Continuer, and my communion does have very close ties with Rome and some upcoming agreements with her. Perhaps that explain why I get along so well with Catholics too, but really, maybe it's an American culture clash problem you have encountered. Americans are very hostile and divided amongst each other over religion and politics, I have observed in recent times. It's sad.

[katealpha]

Interesting discussion but I find it difficult to see how the Church of England is not 'protestant'. I understood that the C of E saw itself broadly as both 'protestant' and 'catholic', and practically it seems to me to have taken from both.

The liturgy, in parts, feels 'catholic', and some Anglicans use prayer beads and have devotions to Mary, mother of God. Indeed a High Church Anglican visiting a Catholic mass in the UK would, I think, feel broadly at home, and only maybe thrown by the fact that we sometimes pray standing up, pray for the dead, and say the Hail Mary.
However, the Anglican church as a whole appears to me to be moving further away from its 'catholic' traditions. Women 'priests', clearly. Only rarely do I see the word 'mass' used to describe Anglican services, and this is in village churches where no one has updated the board for 50 years. Anglican services seem to rarely include the Eucharist. A friend of mine who would regard herself as a very High Anglican is lamenting that at her local church, 'Holy Communian' now only happens monthly. There are so many wording options that Anglican priests can pick and choose how they put a service together, and the 'High Church' elements Catholics would recognise, such as the Gloria, the Creed (albeit the Anglican one) and Kyrie Eleyson get left out.

I don't have figures to prove this, it is just my perception.

[No Swansong]

You have a Catholic Godfather? How "De Nero". :)






Well I don't know how DeNiro it is but remember I was a teenaged convert to Roman Catholicism. It only follows that my Godfather would be Catholic. But his last name is Johnson not Corleone.

[Albion]

Interesting discussion but I find it difficult to see how the Church of England is not 'protestant'. I understood that the C of E saw itself broadly as both 'protestant' and 'catholic', and practically it seems to me to have taken from both.

And that is exactly correct. The C of E is a Protestant Church but it did retain, unlike other Protestants, the historic polity of bishops in Apostolic Succession and the liturgy. That's all there is to that.

The liturgy, in parts, feels 'catholic', and some Anglicans use prayer beads and have devotions to Mary, mother of God. Indeed a High Church Anglican visiting a Catholic mass in the UK would, I think, feel broadly at home, and only maybe thrown by the fact that we sometimes pray standing up, pray for the dead, and say the Hail Mary.
However, the Anglican church as a whole appears to me to be moving further away from its 'catholic' traditions.

You may be right, but I have to correct the "feels 'catholic'" part of the above. The Anglican liturgical use is closer to the Mass of the 16th-20th centuries than the Roman Catholic New Mass you use for worship now (or that is used in the USA at any rate).

Women 'priests', clearly. Only rarely do I see the word 'mass' used to describe Anglican services, and this is in village churches where no one has updated the board for 50 years. Anglican services seem to rarely include the Eucharist. A friend of mine who would regard herself as a very High Anglican is lamenting that at her local church, 'Holy Communian' now only happens monthly.

I don't know why you'd have these opinions. "Mass" is used, I think it is safe to say, about as often as the alternatives, "Holy Communion" or "Eucharist." And as for the observance, it is a rare parish that celebrates it only one time per month.

There are so many wording options that Anglican priests can pick and choose how they put a service together, and the 'High Church' elements Catholics would recognise, such as the Gloria, the Creed (albeit the Anglican one) and Kyrie Eleyson get left out.

I don't have figures to prove this, it is just my perception.

Well, in my church, there are not those alternatives. You probably are referring to the recent creation of Books of Alternative Services in use in some of the world's Anglican churches, but most still use the Book of Common Prayer which allows approximately as much room for variance as do the Roman Catholic forms.

[IowaLutheran]

There are so many wording options that Anglican priests can pick and choose how they put a service together, and the 'High Church' elements Catholics would recognise, such as the Gloria, the Creed (albeit the Anglican one) and Kyrie Eleyson get left out.




What do you mean? Anglicans use the same creeds as Catholics do (some take out the phrase "and the son" - the filioque clause - which is the Eastern Orthodox version of the creed).

[Albion]

What do you mean? Anglicans use the same creeds as Catholics do (some take out the phrase "and the son" - the filioque clause - which is the Eastern Orthodox version of the creed).

That's quite a statement, I agree. The Gloria and the Creed are in the Book of Common Prayer and mandatory. The Kyrie is not used when the Decalogue is read (the norm in the UK, I think), but otherwise, Katealpha's observation is not correct.

[katealpha]

Hi Albion, I may be wrong in some of my perceptions, and you may be right. I've probably been to about 10 Anglican services, in different churches, all in England, in the past year, and I did notice that no one seems to be using the Book of Common Prayer but I think the Alternative Service Book you mention.
I went to an Anglican school and we used the BCP in chapel there so I'm very familiar with it but that was some years ago and it was a very High Anglican school.

I don't know how the creeds are different without seeing them side by side, because they are similar, but the Catholic one we profess during mass is longer!

[katealpha]

Found it online... here's the Creed we (Catholics) say in mass:

We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth, of all that is seen and unseen.
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God,
begotten, not made, one in Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven:
[bow during the next two lines:]
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he was born of the Virgin Mary, and became man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered, died, and was buried.
On the third day he rose again in fulfillment of the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.
We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son he is worshipped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.


This is the Nicene Creed. In my experience of Anglican Churches something identical or very similar to the Apostles Creed is used. According to what I'm reading elsewhere on the internet Catholics can use the Apostles Creed as an alternative and might choose to do so in e.g. Children's liturgy.


Apostles Creed:

I believe in God, the Father almighty,
creator of heaven and earth.
I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord.
He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit
and born of the Virgin Mary.
He suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried.
He descended to the dead.
On the third day he rose again.
He ascended into heaven,
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting.
Amen.


Perhaps someone can explain what Anglicans use and then my erroneous confusion over the Creed will be cleared up for good!



In peace.

[No Swansong]

We use the Nicene Creed almost all of the time but may also use the Apostles Creed so your information is faulty there.

Beginning next year however no BCP's will print the extra-conciliar addition known as the Filioque clause. Many parishes now do not normally recite the clause. I don't know if this is a TEC issue or if it has been adopted by the entire AC.

[Fish and Bread]

I have been to Anglican services, both Episcopalian and AMIA, where no creed has been recited at all. I have heard of others that use their own parish-devised creeds. Having said that, the Nicene and Apostles Creed are what are in the Book of Common Prayer, and what are normatively used by Anglicans at their Eucharists, it's just that some of the more liberal or evangelical parishes and dioceses sometimes will not use them (The liberals because they disagree with their content in many cases, the evangelicals because they sometimes prefer a less structured service). Still, the majority of Anglicans of all persuasions do recite them.

I can assure folks that the Anglican and Roman Catholic Nicene Creed are identical, though, as are the Anglican and Roman Catholic Apostles' Creed. I think there are one or two words that are translated differently in the Nicene Creed, but to no real affect (They mean the same thing). In fact, the Roman Catholic Church itself will be modifying it's translation of the Nicene Creed in English in the next few years.

[Secundulus]

Found it online... here's the Creed we (Catholics) say in mass:

We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth, of all that is seen and unseen.
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God,
begotten, not made, one in Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven:
[bow during the next two lines:]
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he was born of the Virgin Mary, and became man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered, died, and was buried.
On the third day he rose again in fulfillment of the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.
We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son he is worshipped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.


This is the Nicene Creed. In my experience of Anglican Churches something identical or very similar to the Apostles Creed is used. According to what I'm reading elsewhere on the internet Catholics can use the Apostles Creed as an alternative and might choose to do so in e.g. Children's liturgy.


Apostles Creed:

I believe in God, the Father almighty,
creator of heaven and earth.
I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord.
He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit
and born of the Virgin Mary.
He suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried.
He descended to the dead.
On the third day he rose again.
He ascended into heaven,
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting.
Amen.


Perhaps someone can explain what Anglicans use and then my erroneous confusion over the Creed will be cleared up for good!



In peace.

We say the Nicene creed exclusively during Mass and it is identical to what you have above except:

We genuflect, not bow, at the words of the incarnation.
We have not modernized the words in the past 500 years.We use the Apostles Creed during recitation of the daily office (morning and evening prayer).

These are the words we use for the Nicene Creed:

I BELIEVE in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, And of all things visible and invisible:
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God; Begotten of his Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, Very God of very God; Begotten, not made; Being of one substance with the Father; By whom all things were made: Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven, And was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, And was made man: And was .crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; He suffered and was buried: And the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures: And ascended into heaven, And sitteth on the right hand of the Father: And he shall come again, with glory, to judge both the quick and the dead; Whose kingdom shall have no end.
And I believe in the Holy Ghost, The Lord, and Giver of Life, Who proceedeth from the Father and the Son; Who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; Who spake by the Prophets: And I believe one Catholic and Apostolic Church: I acknOwledge one Baptism for the remission of sins: And I look for the Resurrection of the dead: And the Life of the world to come. Amen.

[Secundulus]

Also, we don't have Mass once a month but a minimum of twice a week.

[Albion]

Found it online... here's the Creed we (Catholics) say in mass:

We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth, of all that is seen and unseen.
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God,
begotten, not made, one in Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven:
[bow during the next two lines:]
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he was born of the Virgin Mary, and became man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered, died, and was buried.
On the third day he rose again in fulfillment of the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.
We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son he is worshipped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.


This is the Nicene Creed. In my experience of Anglican Churches something identical or very similar to the Apostles Creed is used. According to what I'm reading elsewhere on the internet Catholics can use the Apostles Creed as an alternative and might choose to do so in e.g. Children's liturgy.


Apostles Creed:

I believe in God, the Father almighty,
creator of heaven and earth.
I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord.
He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit
and born of the Virgin Mary.
He suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried.
He descended to the dead.
On the third day he rose again.
He ascended into heaven,
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting.
Amen.


Perhaps someone can explain what Anglicans use and then my erroneous confusion over the Creed will be cleared up for good!



In peace.

Hi. I think I know just what is causing the trouble here. We Anglicans use the Nicene Creed in all Eucharists/Masses. You started us off by speaking of Mass and making a comparison of the Catholic Mass with what you thought you were observing with the Anglican liturgy. In that liturgy, the Nicene Creed is used.

It is the same one as yours, except that we--in my diocese--use the traditional version whereas you are now using a modern language version. We still say "Begotten of the Father before all ages" where you have modernized that to "Eternally begotten of the Father," for example. If the BAS were used in an Anglican church that you have visited, instead of the Book of Common Prayer, a modern version quite like yours would be used. But otherwise, yes, we use the Nicene Creed.

Where I think the confusion entered in is that many parishes have Communion several Sundays a month and not every week or, if they do celebrate weekly, it's at one service and not all of them. What is used in the absence of the Order for Holy Communion is Morning Prayer--the equivalent of the monastic offices of Matins and Lauds.

In this service, the Apostles' Creed is used instead of the Nicene Creed. Of course, the Apostles' Creed is shorter than the Nicene, so this may be why you thought that a shortened version of the Nicene Creed was being used, especially if the parish in question were using the BAS with its contemporary wording.

[ContraMundum]

Exactly- Traditional Anglican liturgy is more in touch with the ancient liturgies than mainstream Novus Ordo masses from across the Tiber. Amen and Amen.

[katealpha]

All very interesting! Thanks all for replying and enriching my understanding. I shall consult more closely exactly what type of service it is next time I'm in an Anglican church.

"Mainstream Novus Ordo masses from across the Tiber" - such wit! such turn of phrase!
While you are technically correct, I feel that Vatican II was a good thing for the Catholic church in brining the mass, the priesthood and the laity closer together. Having been a few weeks ago to a traditional (Tridentine) mass in Latin, which a priest is doing monthly at a Polish church local to us, it scores more highly on reverence - I was the only woman there not covering her head - I prefer mass in a language I understand, which, as I am sure you know when translated into English, borrowed heavily from the beautiful BCP.

[Mary of Bethany]

This is something I don't quite understand, from an outsider's pov (I've never been RC). Why is the Traditional Mass tied to Latin? I know that the Mass before the Novus Ordo always was done in Latin, but since the language of the people is now used in Mass, why can't there be a "traditional" Mass, that is also in the language of the people?

Mary

[Rhamiel]

I think there are some but they are not too popular, I am not sure though

[Albion]

While you are technically correct, I feel that Vatican II was a good thing for the Catholic church in brining the mass, the priesthood and the laity closer together. Having been a few weeks ago to a traditional (Tridentine) mass in Latin, which a priest is doing monthly at a Polish church local to us, it scores more highly on reverence - I was the only woman there not covering her head - I prefer mass in a language I understand, which, as I am sure you know when translated into English, borrowed heavily from the beautiful BCP.

...and I'm sure that none of us would have waded in merely to say that we prefer something else. But when you wrote this -- However, the Anglican church as a whole appears to me to be moving further away from its 'catholic' traditions....Only rarely do I see the word 'mass' used to describe Anglican services....Anglican services seem to rarely include the Eucharist. A friend of mine who would regard herself as a very High Anglican is lamenting that at her local church, 'Holy Communian' now only happens monthly. There are so many wording options that Anglican priests can pick and choose how they put a service together, -- --

we thought we needed to point out that our liturgy is more Catholic, if you want to put it that way, and more traditional in any case. That's in addition to merely correcting the misperception that the Creed, Gloria, and Kyrie are omitted and the Eucharist infrequently only celebrated.

Anyway, thanks for an interesting discussion that might have benefitted others, too.

[Albion]

This is something I don't quite understand, from an outsider's pov (I've never been RC). Why is the Traditional Mass tied to Latin? I know that the Mass before the Novus Ordo always was done in Latin, but since the language of the people is now used in Mass, why can't there be a "traditional" Mass, that is also in the language of the people?

Mary

My recollection of this is that the change to a language that the people actually speak and understand came as part only of a bigger movement ( which also was occurring in the Protestant churches and possibly, therefore, may have influenced the Catholic Church).

That concerned "liturgical renewal" or whatever term is preferred for that broad-based urge to find a supposedly even more primitive or Apostolic style of worship than the traditional Mass. Various "experts"-- many of whose theories concerning the position of the priest at the altar and so on have since been shown to be incorrect -- were consulted on much more than just the wording.

[Fish and Bread]

This is something I don't quite understand, from an outsider's pov (I've never been RC). Why is the Traditional Mass tied to Latin? I know that the Mass before the Novus Ordo always was done in Latin, but since the language of the people is now used in Mass, why can't there be a "traditional" Mass, that is also in the language of the people?

I think it has to do with preserving the liturgical distinctiveness of what is now often referred to as the extraordinary form. The indults for the mass' continued use post-Vatican II, and now the Pope's expansion of celebrations of the old mass, were in part with the goal of preserving the Church's liturgical heritage. They also were meant to appeal to folks who remember the old mass and are nostalgic, as well as younger folks who find the old mass helpful spiritually -- and to bring back those who had left the Church for societies that celebrate the old mass. Additionally, there was the thought that it could influence the Novus Ordo celebrations in a more reverent traditional direction.

So, when we combine those factors, I think it's made the church hesitant to mess with the old form. There's talk of perhaps adding some prefaces for new Saints and other minor changes and the like, but basically one doesn't want to risk almost modifying the thing out of existence or at least to where it undermines the purposes it was intended for. All of the sudden the mass is done in English and then someone thinks "Hey, we should at least do the canon in an audible voice" and "Hey, how about some Haugen and Haus tunes here and there played on the guitar?" and "What about communion in hand? Shouldn't folks have that option?" and then all of the sudden "You know, we should be able to simplify these rubrics a little bit". All of the sudden, you've got something awfully close to Novus Ordo and the whole thing is undermined. :)

There is actually a minor uproar right now over the fact that one reading of the Pope's recent letter seemed to some folks to imply that they could use the new Novus Ordo lectionary and splice it into the old Tridentine mass. I have relatives with a priest friend who believes this, for example, but it's a lot more widespread than that. It's kind of a dangerous thing because it undermines the old calendar and the old mass settings that have been composed and so forth. All of the sudden we lose a lot of great Latin liturgical music or it no longer makes sense on the day it was supposed to be sung. Also, all of the sudden old liturgical seasons that were suppressed post Vatican II, like the one leading into Lent, would have ordinary time readings and so forth. I'm hoping that the Vatican rules definitively that the Pope did not intend to authorize the new lectionary with the old mass. Ultimately, though we can see that's really just a relatively minor change and it's making folks upset, think what a major change would do.


That concerned "liturgical renewal" or whatever term is preferred for that broad-based urge to find a supposedly even more primitive or Apostolic style of worship than the traditional Mass. Various "experts"-- many of whose theories concerning the position of the priest at the altar and so on have since been shown to be incorrect -- were consulted on much more than just the wording.

One of the things a lot of folks who are discontented with Vatican II mention is that some of the changes seemed, to their way of thinking to have been based on archaeologicalism (The idea that primitive liturgical forms and spiritual practices of the Church are somehow "more pure" or better than later ones), a philosophy condemned by previous Popes. Ironically, a lot of folks who were happy with Vatican II also accuse the ones who were not of archaeologicalism. :)

[Albion]

One of the things a lot of folks who are discontented with Vatican II mention is that some of the changes seemed, to their way of thinking to have been based on archaeologicalism (The idea that primitive liturgical forms and spiritual practices of the Church are somehow "more pure" or better than later ones), a philosophy condemned by previous Popes.

That's true, and it's a good point. However, the reason for the disjointedness of some of this was simply because the 'archaeology' was wrong.

[a_ntv]

This is something I don't quite understand, from an outsider's pov (I've never been RC). Why is the Traditional Mass tied to Latin? I know that the Mass before the Novus Ordo always was done in Latin, but since the language of the people is now used in Mass, why can't there be a "traditional" Mass, that is also in the language of the people?

Mary

Because there are not approved books of the "traditional" Mass in other languages than Latin. Perhapas in a future

The people that prefer the "traditional" Mass are very pew and they prefer Latin.

Please note that also in the "traditional" Mass the readings and the sermon can be in the other language different from Latin.

And anyway the difference between the "traditional" Mass and the New Ordo is anyway limited.

[Diane_Windsor]

From an outsider's perspective

Till you all will not respect us calling us with our official name, we will go on callng you protestants

. . . .

If you do it, I will stop to call the Anglican with the names protestant and calvinist

:doh: Do you realize how childish your thinking is? You're acting like a child who runs to mommy because his brother called him a name. "Roman Catholic" is a legitimate societal term that is used by many modern English dictionaries (including Webster's (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/roman%20catholic)) to describe those who are in communion with the pope. Also, you should expect those Anglicans who consider themselves "Catholic" to identify you as a "Roman Catholic" to differetiate between the two churches.

Since you claim to be a Christian then I would advise you to meditate upon the Golden Rule, taught by your religion's founder: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. That basically means that you should call the Anglicans on this forum what they would like to be called even if they insist on calling you a "Roman Catholic" and your church as the RCC.


To others, why is it that the only RCs who object to the term "Roman Catholic" are conservative internet RC apologists wannabes? :scratch: I don't see Marcus Grodi et. al. complaining when people describe them as Roman Catholics.

[rrguy]

Diane those are some good points. How can anyone have a decent discussion or believe anyone, if we are all do as I say not as I do? lol

I really appreciate being able to read so many views all the input & gathering this info. Yet it is almost hard to follow these post cause the pov has changed how many times?

From what I read, there is one thing evident. As much as one finds good in something, someone else will find wrong. Which can be useful in seeing what is good vs bad. Yet when we debate we seem to use them against the opposing party/ view? Yet conveniently forget about out or own short comings. One minute it is viewed as a quality, but when describing another denomination its a downfall? So it seems these post jump pov so much, the original point or question gets forgotten? They get caught up in who is offended, & who is more wrong?



Peace be with you.

[Tonks]

Interesting discussion...however, both Rome and Orthodoxy reject the Branch Theory. Likewise, the rediscovery of the "catholicity" of the Anglican Communion really didn't come about until the Oxford Movement.

The theology present in the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral and many of the other documents represent a faith that is not ancient or catholic...particularly concerning the Scriptures and the Sacraments.

High-Church / Anglo-Catholic includes all of the Western smells and bells without much of a yoke to the fullness of actual Latin theology.

[TomUK]

Interesting discussion...however, both Rome and Orthodoxy reject the Branch Theory. Likewise, the rediscovery of the "catholicity" of the Anglican Communion really didn't come about until the Oxford Movement.

The theology present in the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral and many of the other documents represent a faith that is not ancient or catholic...particularly concerning the Scriptures and the Sacraments.

High-Church / Anglo-Catholic includes all of the Western smells and bells without much of a yoke to the fullness of actual Latin theology.

Interesting. I would argue the opposite - that Anglicanism is much closer to the original Catholic Church (ie pre-schism) in both theology and practice. However even if you don't accept that then surely you can concede that the Anglican Church which emerged from the reformation (though not created by it) was distinctly different from the Protestant Churches which were emerging at the time. Ultimately that is the point for this thread - to highlight the inaccuracies and inconsistencies in calling the Anglican Church a Protestant Church.

[Albion]

Interesting discussion....
The theology present in the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral and many of the other documents represent a faith that is not ancient or catholic...particularly concerning the Scriptures and the Sacraments.

High-Church / Anglo-Catholic includes all of the Western smells and bells without much of a yoke to the fullness of actual Latin theology.

A couple of items to tidy-up things and perhaps give a better picture of some of this--

The Quardilateral is not a Creed and therefore does not aspire to "represent a faith" as you mean it. It is a statement generated by the Church in order to lay out the minimum of agreement necessary for there to be inter-church discussions on possible church unification.

"High Church" means ceremony.

"Anglo-Catholic" means committed to the church as directly continuing the church of Middle Ages and before (as opposed to it being a reformed church). It does not mean acceptance of all Catholic doctrinal positions (what you called "the fullness of Latin theology).

While most Anglo-Catholics are High Church, the original Anglo-Catholics were not, and there is no necessary connection between the two terms (High Church and Anglo-Catholic).

[Albion]

Interesting. I would argue the opposite - that Anglicanism is much closer to the original Catholic Church (ie pre-schism) in both theology and practice. However even if you don't accept that then surely you can concede that the Anglican Church which emerged from the reformation (though not created by it) was distinctly different from the Protestant Churches which were emerging at the time. Ultimately that is the point for this thread - to highlight the inaccuracies and inconsistencies in calling the Anglican Church a Protestant Church.

Well, Tom, it IS a Protestant church. It just is not like the others that came from the Reformation, having abandoned all the essentials of the Catholic faith of the past. In our case, that means episcopal polity in Apostolic Succession and the efficacy of the Sacraments. As you properly note also, the church was not a new creation in the 16th century but had been planted in Britain in the early centuries of Church history.

[rrguy]

After a little research, what I came up with closely matches what Albion just stated above.

So I am not sure if you can find fault against someone calling Anglicanism Protestant or Catholic or a combination?

[TomUK]

What does it mean to be a Protestant?

[ContraMundum]

The problem is" "Protestant" means something different to many just about everyone these days. Likewise, Catholic.

I asked a Pentecostal the other day if he was "Protestant", and he said "absolutely not". (And he does know what he means, too!).

[Rhamiel]

I am not even sure I know the purpose of this thread any more... you want me to stop calling the Anglican community protestant? well then you have to stop protesting the authority of the Pope as the leader of all christians here on earth, since you were formed in the 16th century( or at least split from the Catholic Church then) you have a lot in common with protestant denominations, you also have a lot in common with the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, guess why? because we are all christian!!! ofcourse we have a lot in common

[ContraMundum]

I am not even sure I know the purpose of this thread any more... you want me to stop calling the Anglican community protestant?

Yes. :)


well then you have to stop protesting the authority of the Pope as the leader of all christians here on earth, since you were formed in the 16th century( or at least split from the Catholic Church then) you have a lot in common with protestant denominations, you also have a lot in common wi