TAC vs. ECUSA: Which is the Truth?

[DarkNLovely]

As you can imagine, I'd be interested in this, especially if I plan on attending! So, I would like to know if any members here are a part of eiter of these groups and what your experiences are. Why should a new Anglican or inquier join either of these? I'm most interesested in the fact that TAC does not recognize the Arch.Bis. of Canterbury. Why is that? And anything else you want to tell me! ;)

[Secundulus]

As you can imagine, I'd be interested in this, especially if I plan on attending! So, I would like to know if any members here are a part of eiter of these groups and what your experiences are. Why should a new Anglican or inquier join either of these? I'm most interesested in the fact that TAC does not recognize the Arch.Bis. of Canterbury. Why is that? And anything else you want to tell me! ;)

The Traditional Anglican Communion (TAC) is one of the Continuing Anglican Churches. I believe that presently it is the largest. I am a member of TAC in Georgia and I believe Albion is a member also.

Essentially, the TAC is Anglicanism before the innovations of the Anglican Communion that began in the 1970’s. Our homepage is here where you can read all about what we believe and what we stand for - http://www.acahome.org/index.htm (http://www.acahome.org/index.htm) .

In short, our differences, as stated here - http://www.acahome.org/submenu/docs/excerpts.htm (http://www.acahome.org/submenu/docs/excerpts.htm) may be summarized as follows.

· We believe that the Bible is God’s revelation of himself and that this revelation is valid for all time.
· We believe that revealed Christianity, and not the beliefs of the world, defines our morality.
· We believe that the practice of homosexuality is sin.
· We believe that marriage is between one man and one woman.
·We do not condone abortion.
· We believe that the Church was created by God.
· We do not believe that any Church can alter the truth set forth in the scriptures or what was determined by the historic Church Councils.

You might also want to read the Affirmation of St. Louis which was the founding document of the TAC in 1977 - http://www.acahome.org/submenu/docs/affirm.htm (http://www.acahome.org/submenu/docs/affirm.htm) .

As for the Archbishop of Canterbury, I don’t think it was so much our not recognizing him as he not recognizing us.

[PaladinValer]

First off:

I'm going to remind (or, if the case may be, inform) you (the OP) that STR's definition of Anglicanism is broad in that it means the entire Anglican tradition and heritage.

That means it is home to not only those members of the Anglican Church, but also the various Continuing Church bodies.

Any sort of "who is true," no matter the position or irrefutable fact, is going to lead to nothing other than chaos.

Although I'm not a member of staff, as one of the Founding Members of STR, I'd like to ask you to think very carefully in the future how you ask questions and that you remember the broad nature of who can be considered a full member here in STR.

With that...

I'm most interesested in the fact that TAC does not recognize the Arch.Bis. of Canterbury. Why is that?

This applies to one of those "irrefutable facts" that I was alluding to earlier.

To put it mildly, it is because, as I answered your questions earlier, one of the few extraterritorial powers that the Archbishop of Canterbury enjoys is the power to declare who is In Communion with the Holy See of Canterbury and who is not. This is not a function of him as a Primate of the Church of England, but as the Primus inter pares ("First Among Equals"), as the Holy See of Canterbury has two functions: its regular territorial role and it also as a role as being the spiritual headpiece for the entire Anglican Church.

As such, it isn't that the Continuing Church bodies don't recognize the Archbishop of Canterbury; it is that the Archbishop of Canterbury doesn't recognize them.

All the Continuing Church bodies, most of which are found in the United States but some significant few can be found in Canada, England, and Australia as well, are complete breaks from the official Anglican Church provinces found there. You must remember that, in the Anglican Church just like in the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Vatican Catholic Church, and as was practiced in the Early Church, no one diocean bishop or a metropolitan or archbishop can interfere in another's territory without explicit permission.

That means the Bishop of North Carolina cannot simply go into the Diocese of South Carolina and ordain a priest. That means the Metropolitan of Province II in TEC cannot excommunicate the Diocean Bishop of North Dakota. That means the Archbishop of Nigeria cannot establish parishes under his juristictions within the actual archepiscopal juristiction of the Archbishop of Ireland. They are all no-nos.

Since the Archbishop of Canterbury recognizes TEC as the official province of the Anglican Church in the US, there simply cannot be any other such Anglican Church province within the territory where TEC is established without expressed permission by the Primate of TEC.

The same is true of those Continuing Church bodies found in England, Australia, Canada, and elsewhere. These bodies are outside the Holy See of Canterbury and are therefore not properly "Anglican churches," though there is absolutely no doubt that their history is derived from the Anglican Church and that they have continued (hense the proper term for these bodies) in most Anglican heritage and traditions.

Something that also must be remembered is that, despite the fact that these bodies are not in the Anglican Church, they do possess valid Holy Orders, which means their sacraments are valid. In other words, in their parishes and missions, when the priest or bishop consecrates the elements, they truly do become the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ. It isn't just a play; it is for real.

To possibly preempt the question: Can these bodies become recognized by the Archbishop of Canterbury? Yes, but only if the ABC (Archbishop of Canterbury) were to no longer recognize TEC as being In Communion with him.

And even if so, and this is especially true within the territory of TEC, that means the ABC could only pick one of this other various bodies. And there are a lot of these Continuing Church bodies.

A la Highlander, "there can be only one."

[Polycarp1]

To supplement this, the Continuing Anglican bodies, most of which are not in communion with one another (though the churches in TAC of course are), are unquestionably schismatic from The Episcopal Church (and, as noted, the Anglican Churches of Canada, Australia, etc.). Hence they have withdrawn from communion with the See of Canterbury. To be just to their position, it should be noted that their members by and large hold the present standards of Anglican practice in the sees in communion with Canterbury to be heretical to traditional Anglican praxis -- and that this justifies their separation from them. While I disagree quite strongly with both that evaluation and the conclusion drawn from it, it's only fair to recognize their position.

[Fish and Bread]

I am a member of TAC in Georgia and I believe Albion is a member also.

Wait, Albion is part of a Anglican body that keeps saying they are in serious talks about reunifying with the Pope? Are you sure? Next thing you know, Karen will be join a province that doesn't ordain women and Glenn will join a low-church evangelical calvinist congregation. ;) It's as though a space-time vortex is tearing a hole in the fabric of reality apart or something! ;)

[karen freeinchristman]

STR's definition of Anglicanism is broad in that it means the entire Anglican tradition and heritage.

That means it is home to not only those members of the Anglican Church, but also the various Continuing Church bodies.

Any sort of "who is true," no matter the position or irrefutable fact, is going to lead to nothing other than chaos.

Although I'm not a member of staff, as one of the Founding Members of STR, I'd like to ask you to think very carefully in the future how you ask questions and that you remember the broad nature of who can be considered a full member here in STR.
Thanks for posting this, PV. And because I AM a member of staff here in STR, I would like to urge everyone who posts in this thread to post with careful discernment, restraint, love, consideration, and so on.

[TomUK]

I honestly don't know what i'd do if i was an Anglican in America. Communion with Canterbury is incredibely important and if there is a split here in England then i hope to stay where the the ABC is. However i would be quite concerned over a lot of things going on the ECUSA at the moment, spefically theologically but also ecumenically.

I don't envy you have to make that decision!

[Secundulus]

Wait, Albion is part of a Anglican body that keeps saying they are in serious talks about reunifying with the Pope? Are you sure? Next thing you know, Karen will be join a province that doesn't ordain women and Glenn will join a low-church evangelical calvinist congregation. ;) It's as though a space-time vortex is tearing a hole in the fabric of reality apart or something! ;)

I think the talks, at least on our side, are more towards re-communion, not re-unification.

Re-communion with other faithful Christians is something to be desired if one is to follow what Christ said.

[DarkNLovely]

First off:

I'm going to remind (or, if the case may be, inform) you (the OP) that STR's definition of Anglicanism is broad in that it means the entire Anglican tradition and heritage.

That means it is home to not only those members of the Anglican Church, but also the various Continuing Church bodies.

Any sort of "who is true," no matter the position or irrefutable fact, is going to lead to nothing other than chaos.

Although I'm not a member of staff, as one of the Founding Members of STR, I'd like to ask you to think very carefully in the future how you ask questions and that you remember the broad nature of who can be considered a full member here in STR.

With that...



This applies to one of those "irrefutable facts" that I was alluding to earlier.

To put it mildly, it is because, as I answered your questions earlier, one of the few extraterritorial powers that the Archbishop of Canterbury enjoys is the power to declare who is In Communion with the Holy See of Canterbury and who is not. This is not a function of him as a Primate of the Church of England, but as the Primus inter pares ("First Among Equals"), as the Holy See of Canterbury has two functions: its regular territorial role and it also as a role as being the spiritual headpiece for the entire Anglican Church.

As such, it isn't that the Continuing Church bodies don't recognize the Archbishop of Canterbury; it is that the Archbishop of Canterbury doesn't recognize them.

All the Continuing Church bodies, most of which are found in the United States but some significant few can be found in Canada, England, and Australia as well, are complete breaks from the official Anglican Church provinces found there. You must remember that, in the Anglican Church just like in the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Vatican Catholic Church, and as was practiced in the Early Church, no one diocean bishop or a metropolitan or archbishop can interfere in another's territory without explicit permission.

That means the Bishop of North Carolina cannot simply go into the Diocese of South Carolina and ordain a priest. That means the Metropolitan of Province II in TEC cannot excommunicate the Diocean Bishop of North Dakota. That means the Archbishop of Nigeria cannot establish parishes under his juristictions within the actual archepiscopal juristiction of the Archbishop of Ireland. They are all no-nos.

Since the Archbishop of Canterbury recognizes TEC as the official province of the Anglican Church in the US, there simply cannot be any other such Anglican Church province within the territory where TEC is established without expressed permission by the Primate of TEC.

The same is true of those Continuing Church bodies found in England, Australia, Canada, and elsewhere. These bodies are outside the Holy See of Canterbury and are therefore not properly "Anglican churches," though there is absolutely no doubt that their history is derived from the Anglican Church and that they have continued (hense the proper term for these bodies) in most Anglican heritage and traditions.

Something that also must be remembered is that, despite the fact that these bodies are not in the Anglican Church, they do possess valid Holy Orders, which means their sacraments are valid. In other words, in their parishes and missions, when the priest or bishop consecrates the elements, they truly do become the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ. It isn't just a play; it is for real.

To possibly preempt the question: Can these bodies become recognized by the Archbishop of Canterbury? Yes, but only if the ABC (Archbishop of Canterbury) were to no longer recognize TEC as being In Communion with him.

And even if so, and this is especially true within the territory of TEC, that means the ABC could only pick one of this other various bodies. And there are a lot of these Continuing Church bodies.

A la Highlander, "there can be only one."
I will have to say that I believe my questian as asked was valid. They may both be Anglican, but they can't both be true.

[DarkNLovely]

Thanks for posting this, PV. And because I AM a member of staff here in STR, I would like to urge everyone who posts in this thread to post with careful discernment, restraint, love, consideration, and so on.
I'm not trying to cause any trouble, but I fail to see what's wrong with the question. I didn't say any of them weren't Anglicans. I'm just curious as to why the split. Obviously somebody believes the other is not "true", correct? I'm just stating what I see as an outsider. I didn't say it, I just stated what is being "said" to me by the fact that this division exists.

[Secundulus]

I'm not trying to cause any trouble, but I fail to see what's wrong with the question. I didn't say any of them weren't Anglicans. I'm just curious as to why the split. Obviously somebody believes the other is not "true", correct? I'm just stating what I see as an outsider. I didn't say it, I just stated what is being "said" to me by the fact that this division exists.

I think each of us would say that our individual Church possesses the truth as opposed to the alternative.

The differences exist because of a difference in how we approach theology. Our theologies define our religious beliefs. My post above in general terms describes the TAC's theology.

I cannot speak for the rest of the Anglican Communion, but specifically, we believe our theology differs from theirs in the following points:

· We believe that the Bible is God’s revelation of himself and that this revelation is valid for all time.
· We believe that revealed Christianity, and not the beliefs of the world, defines our morality.
· We believe that the Church was created by God.
· We do not believe that any Church can alter the truth set forth in the scriptures or what was determined by the historic Church Councils.

[DarkNLovely]

I think each of us would say that our individual Church possesses the truth as opposed to the alternative.

The differences exist because of a difference in how we approach theology. Our theologies define our religious beliefs. My post above in general terms describes the TAC's theology.

I cannot speak for the rest of the Anglican Communion, but specifically, we believe our theology differs from theirs in the following points:

· We believe that the Bible is God’s revelation of himself and that this revelation is valid for all time.
· We believe that revealed Christianity, and not the beliefs of the world, defines our morality.
· We believe that the Church was created by God.
· We do not believe that any Church can alter the truth set forth in the scriptures or what was determined by the historic Church Councils.
Tahnk you for the answer. Is the TAC considered schimatic or not cannonical?

[Secundulus]

Tahnk you for the answer. Is the TAC considered schimatic or not cannonical?

I believe that the Anglican Communion would call us schismatic.

[PaladinValer]

Tahnk you for the answer. Is the TAC considered schimatic or not cannonical?

Again, word choice.

And again, STR is home for not just the Anglican Church or not just the Continuing Church bodies. It is home to both. Regardless how individuals preceive their's and others', any sort of attempt to "convert" one to the other or to say the other has invalid Holy Orders or even that one is "gay" or one is "homophobic," etc, is not tolerated.

That would include rather "heavy" terms like schismatic, especially after being told the answer to that question earlier.

Onward:

In the eyes of the Holy See of Canterbury and of the Archbishop thereof, the "Traditional Anglican Communion" is considered "Anglican" in terms of keeping the vast majority of Anglican custom and tradition and also because its Holy Orders comes from the Anglican Church. However, its status is non-canonical since they are not recognized by the Primus inter pares.

In addition,

Despite Secundulus' words, the Anglican Church does uphold those four points he discusses.

[Colabomb]

Christ and his Gospel is the Truth.

The rest is important, but irrelevant in light of the Glorious Truth.

Seek Christ and His Gospel. Do not be set aside and led astray by politics and arguments of men.

Anyone who preaches the Gospel of Christ, whether it be an ecusa minister, a continuing anglican or a baptist, preaches the Truth of Christ.

Seek Christ above all else. When you are in communion with Christ, whether political bodies of bishops accept it or not, you are in communion with ALL the children of God, in all provinces, denominations and churches.

There is but One Church, even if we are too blind to see it. This is why there is an open table.

I pray for the day the silly political bonds are broken, and we can all see Christ in each other.

[Albion]

As you can imagine, I'd be interested in this, especially if I plan on attending! So, I would like to know if any members here are a part of eiter of these groups and what your experiences are. Why should a new Anglican or inquier join either of these? I'm most interesested in the fact that TAC does not recognize the Arch.Bis. of Canterbury. Why is that? And anything else you want to tell me! ;)

My honest feeling is that this is putting the cart before the horse. For one thing, you don't have the opportunity to attend just any number of different Anglican churches. You told us that only St. Mary's and, I guess, an Episcopal church are within your geographical range. A TAC parish is not included.

If so, you have already narrowed the list to a couple of possibilities, so why not visit those you might actually be able to attend regularly and see what you think and feel, also asking these kinds of questions of them? St. Mary's would have the same position as TAC vis-a-vis the ABC, i.e. that any church that allows women clergy has broken with Apostolic order and so they can't be in communion with them.

Put more simply, you need not settle all the fine points of doctrine and practice when you are first getting interested in the church. This advice would hold if you were contemplating becoming a Methodist or a Lutheran, or any other body of Christians.

[Albion]

Wait, Albion is part of a Anglican body that keeps saying they are in serious talks about reunifying with the Pope?

You probably had Secundulus in mind, although I did a lot of posting about TAC's negotiations with the Vatican when the topic came up.

[Fish and Bread]

You probably had Secundulus in mind, although I did a lot of posting about TAC's negotiations with the Vatican when the topic came up.
Actually I was just responding incredulously to someone's post who said you were part of the TAC (Check the quoted material). :) I never actually thought you were.

[Albion]

Actually I was just responding incredulously to someone's post who said you were part of the TAC (Check the quoted material). :) I never actually thought you were.

Well, that's perfectly OK. It wasn't critically important to anything; and I'm not personally offended because of the error, if it even deserves to be called that. As you know, I explain the entire Continuing Anglican movement and support it whenever someone asks for some information, and to that extent, it doesn't matter to me which one of the Continuing churches is in the spotlight. But I thought I might as well set the record straight in case it might come up at some other time.

[DarkNLovely]

*off topic*

I think it would be cool if you all got your own Icon at the top! The TAW, VITD, and OBOB have one!

[DarkNLovely]

I know I'm not Anglican, but I think this one with Jesus hold the Scriptures would represent Anglicanism and the dedication to both scripture and tradition very well!

http://www.guildofscholars.org/x_icon.gif

[PaladinValer]

Ah, but we also hold Holy Reason to be authoritative as well. :)

Things that I might like to use would be:

1. Canterbury Cathedral
2. Icon of St. Augustine of Canterbury
3. Icon of St. Clive Staples Lewis
4. A Canterbury Cross
5. The Compass Rose
6. A "Triple Trinity" of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; Scripture, Tradition, and Reason, Bible, Book of Common Prayer, and Hymnal (Now that would be cool)

That's an impressive painting (icon?) however. Mind offering a link to its source?

[DarkNLovely]

Ah, but we also hold Holy Reason to be authoritative as well. :)

Things that I might like to use would be:

1. Canterbury Cathedral
2. Icon of St. Augustine of Canterbury
3. Icon of St. Clive Staples Lewis
4. A Canterbury Cross
5. The Compass Rose
6. A "Triple Trinity" of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; Scripture, Tradition, and Reason, Bible, Book of Common Prayer, and Hymnal (Now that would be cool)

That's an impressive painting (icon?) however. Mind offering a link to its source?
Oh! I gogled "Anglican Icons" and found it! My internet kicked me off so now I have to go find it again! LOL! Hang on a sec......

[DarkNLovely]

Here goes!

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.guildofscholars.org/x_icon.gif&imgrefurl=http://www.guildofscholars.org/&h=192&w=124&sz=20&hl=en&start=224&tbnid=FR1DH67wpHpfiM:&tbnh=103&tbnw=67&prev=/images%3Fq%3DAnglican%2BIcons%26start%3D220%26gbv%3D2%26ndsp%3D20%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN

[DarkNLovely]

This one is nice! Too big, but nice!

http://library.thinkquest.org/04apr/00281/germans/barb05.jpg

[Secundulus]

Ah, but we also hold Holy Reason to be authoritative as well. :)


This is what Hooker actually said. Note that he places scripture prominently first in priority.
“What Scripture doth plainly deliver, to that first place both of credit and obedience is due; the next whereunto is whatsoever any man can necessarily conclude by force of reason; after these the voice of the Church succeedeth. That which the Church by her ecclesiastical authority shall probably think and define to be true or good, must in congruity of reason over-rule all other inferior judgments whatsoever” ( Laws, Book V, 8:2; Folger Edition 2:39,8-14).

[PaladinValer]

What Scripture did the Church have before the Second Ecumenical Council?

[Secundulus]

What Scripture did the Church have before the Second Ecumenical Council?

The same ones they had before it. They were being used by the Church long before they were recognized as Canon.

Besides, what they had in the fourth Century and before is not entirely relevant to what they had in the 16th Century when Hooker penned his words.

[PaladinValer]

1. It is very relevent since it has to do with the "primary" status of Scripture.

2. Before the Bible was Canonized, who could tell which books were inspired? Not even the Saints of the day could.

[Iosias]

As you can imagine, I'd be interested in this, especially if I plan on attending!

The decision you must make is which is faithful to Scripture. Are the ordination of women and homosexuals inline with Scripture? If you are intent upon attending an Anglican church then may I suggest the REC (http://rechurch.org/recus/recus/index.html).

I would however suggest:
http://www.opc.org/
http://www.pcanet.org/
http://reformedpresbyterian.org/

[karen freeinchristman]

The decision you must make is which is faithful to Scripture. Are the ordination of women and homosexuals inline with Scripture? Obviously they are not out of line with scripture.

[Iosias]

Obviously they are not out of line with scripture.

Well in order to justify them you must contradict Scripture so in fact yes they are out of line with Scripture. Our opinions must be brought inline with what the Scriptures say on any and every issue.

FYI: May Women Speak in Church? (http://www.opc.org/nh.html?article_id=440)by James W. Scott

[Secundulus]

1. It is very relevent since it has to do with the "primary" status of Scripture.

2. Before the Bible was Canonized, who could tell which books were inspired? Not even the Saints of the day could.

That is arguable since if they did not know what books were inspired, they could not have brought charges of heresy against the Arians, amongst others.

When Hooker wrote, he knew which books were inspired. Today, we know which books are inspired.

[Iosias]

Why Should We Believe the Bible? (http://www.opc.org/nh.html?article_id=323) by John Rogers
The Inspiration of Scripture (http://www.opc.org/nh.html?article_id=322) by James W. Scott

[karen freeinchristman]

Well in order to justify them you must contradict Scripture so in fact yes they are out of line with Scripture. Our opinions must be brought inline with what the Scriptures say on any and every issue.

FYI: May Women Speak in Church? (http://www.opc.org/nh.html?article_id=440)by James W. Scott
(FWIW, you said 'homosexuals', which I take to refer to homosexual orientation, not activity.)

And the women thing, well, I've stated how I think it is biblical many times and am tired of it. Here are some links: http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Women_Service_Church.htm

http://www.womensordination.org/why.html

http://users.stargate.net/~ejt/women1.htm

http://www.godswordtowomen.org/studies/womenhistory/pastors.htm

http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/news/2006/20060721kasper.cfm?doc=126

http://www.covchurch.org/uploads/Ul/K8/UlK8DVqhlBLtMRvceuJU9A/A-Biblical-and-Theological-Basis-for-Women-in-Min..pdf

http://www.vineyard.ca/engine.cfm?i=58

Basically, it is all down to our understanding of Scripture.

[Iosias]

Basically, it is all down to our understanding of Scripture.

:thumbsup: "let God be true, but every man a liar" (Rom 3:4) Try Knowing Scripture (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Knowing-Scripture-R-C-Sproul/dp/0877847339/ref=sr_1_1/203-4263486-0006318?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1190372164&sr=8-1) by R C Sproul :)


"Christ made women’s ordination possible when he revoked the Old Testament priesthood of Aaron and brought both men and women into a new convenant; into a new priesthood through baptism....Galatians 3:27, 18." (source (http://www.womensordination.org/why.html)) N T Wright however correctly notes that "The first thing to say is fairly obvious but needs saying anyway. Galatians 3 is not about ministry."

Wright however demonstrates that he is a scholar and not an exegete in saying "I am in two minds whether to agree with those who say this verse is a later and non-Pauline interpolation. One of the finest textual critics of our day, Gordon Fee, has argued very strongly that it is, purely on the grounds of the way the manuscript tradition unfolds. I urge you to examine his arguments and make up your own minds." To add weight to his case he attempts to cast doubt as to whether the Scriptures are actually Scripture. Again I say..."let God be true, but every man a liar"

[Secundulus]

(FWIW, you said 'homosexuals', which I take to refer to homosexual orientation, not activity.)

And the women thing, well, I've stated how I think it is biblical many times and am tired of it. Here are some links:

Basically, it is all down to our understanding of Scripture.

To clarify what I am talking about:

The issue of Women's ordination is primarily a Church Tradition. I can see the points of both sides of the issue in the interpretation of scripture as it pertains to the New Covenant.

The issue of homosexuals is not one of individual orientation for we all inheret the sin nature. It is an issue of how we deal with that individual sin nature in the light of the revelation of scripture.

My point was that the Anglican Church, until recently, never taught that reason and tradition are equal to scripture as the three legged stool analogy would imply.

Reason and tradition are clearly inferior to scripture and to treat them otherwise leads invariably to error. God's ways are not our ways.

[DarkNLovely]

The decision you must make is which is faithful to Scripture. Are the ordination of women and homosexuals inline with Scripture? If you are intent upon attending an Anglican church then may I suggest the REC (http://rechurch.org/recus/recus/index.html).

I would however suggest:
http://www.opc.org/
http://www.pcanet.org/
http://reformedpresbyterian.org/
Presbetyrians are Anglicans too?

Well, if REC and TAC have a similar value, why don't the join forces?

[DarkNLovely]

:thumbsup: "let God be true, but every man a liar" (Rom 3:4) Try Knowing Scripture (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Knowing-Scripture-R-C-Sproul/dp/0877847339/ref=sr_1_1/203-4263486-0006318?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1190372164&sr=8-1) by R C Sproul :)


"Christ made women’s ordination possible when he revoked the Old Testament priesthood of Aaron and brought both men and women into a new convenant; into a new priesthood through baptism....Galatians 3:27, 18." (source (http://www.womensordination.org/why.html)) N T Wright however correctly notes that "The first thing to say is fairly obvious but needs saying anyway. Galatians 3 is not about ministry."

Wright however demonstrates that he is a scholar and not an exegete in saying "I am in two minds whether to agree with those who say this verse is a later and non-Pauline interpolation. One of the finest textual critics of our day, Gordon Fee, has argued very strongly that it is, purely on the grounds of the way the manuscript tradition unfolds. I urge you to examine his arguments and make up your own minds." To add weight to his case he attempts to cast doubt as to whether the Scriptures are actually Scripture. Again I say..."let God be true, but every man a liar"
I'm confused. Do you believe women shoud be ordained or not? I'm sorry1 It's too early and I just woke up! LOL!

[karen freeinchristman]

To clarify what I am talking about:

The issue of Women's ordination is primarily a Church Tradition. I can see the points of both sides of the issue in the interpretation of scripture as it pertains to the New Covenant.

The issue of homosexuals is not one of individual orientation for we all inheret the sin nature. It is an issue of how we deal with that individual sin nature in the light of the revelation of scripture.

My point was that the Anglican Church, until recently, never taught that reason and tradition are equal to scripture as the three legged stool analogy would imply.

Reason and tradition are clearly inferior to scripture and to treat them otherwise leads invariably to error. God's ways are not our ways.
I agree with you completely!

[norbie]

Originally Posted by DarkNLovely http://www3.foru.ms/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://foru.ms/showthread.php?p=38935328#post38935328)
As you can imagine, I'd be interested in this, especially if I plan on attending!

This is what I would do and maybe wert a thought. First go to your nearest Anglican Church on weekdays and find out about service times, and which service is High or Low Anglican, otherwise you won't be happy there. When you find your style of service, go for it the next Sunday. Is this a welcoming, friendly concregation, how do I fit in age wise. And then comes the more important part: is the clergy teaching the Gospel and is this close to the Bible. The woman and same sex relationship is your last worry in finding your church. You must give this church at least one or two month to make your decision. Also check it out if there are any groups where you can get involved later on.
I wish you well in finding your church, your home with Christ

[PaladinValer]

That is arguable since if they did not know what books were inspired, they could not have brought charges of heresy against the Arians, amongst others.

They had plenty of materials, some of which was nigh-universally accepted, but some which was not.

Furthermore, you must deal with the issue of the time before the New Testament books were written. For those two decades, what existed?

What existed was oral Tradition, which would be written down.

Some of these writings would in turn become Canonized. However, the fact remains that they were Tradition before they became Scripture. That leads to the conclusion that Scripture is simply a subset of Tradition, historically speaking.

Presbetyrians are Anglicans too?

No. AV1611 really had no business evangelizing people here towards Presbyterianism.

Well, if REC and TAC have a similar value, why don't the join forces?


Because they are not as similar as you think.

The TAC is a result, as I remarked in an earlier thread and post, of the rejection of the Liturgical Movement. It was born in the late 1970's.

The REC is a result of the rejection of the Catholicity of Anglicanism. It was born on December 2nd 1873.

The TAC accepts the Catholicity of Anglicanism whereas the REC truly does not.

My point was that the Anglican Church, until recently, never taught that reason and tradition are equal to scripture as the three legged stool analogy would imply.

Since Scripture is Tradition, that is an impossible position to hold.

The reason why Scripture, which truly is Tradition, is given "special ephasis" was due to the fact that it is an especially set aside portion of Tradition. That's all.

The Nicene Creed is quite similar, as are the Seven Ecumenical Councils.

Reason and tradition are clearly inferior to scripture and to treat them otherwise leads invariably to error. God's ways are not our ways.

That depends on one's view of what Tradition and Reason are.

What are your definitions of what Holy Tradition and Holy Reason are?

[Iosias]

Presbetyrians are Anglicans too?

No they are not Anglicans but the difference between Cranmer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Cranmer), Latimer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Latimer), Ridley (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_Ridley_%28martyr%29), Hooper (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hooper), Ussher (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Ussher), Ryle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Charles_Ryle) and the Presbyterians are virtually none existant. The only difference is that one accepts having bishops and the other do not. Indeed the Puritans were Anglican originally :)

An excellent book is A Quest for Godliness: The Puritan Vision of the Christian Life (http://www.monergismbooks.com/questgodliness8193.html) by J.I. Packer

[Secundulus]

They had plenty of materials, some of which was nigh-universally accepted, but some which was not.

Furthermore, you must deal with the issue of the time before the New Testament books were written. For those two decades, what existed?

What existed was oral Tradition, which would be written down.

Some of these writings would in turn become Canonized. However, the fact remains that they were Tradition before they became Scripture. That leads to the conclusion that Scripture is simply a subset of Tradition, historically speaking.


For the first two decades, the Apostles existed. They were physically present teaching what was written down and preserved for later generations.

The fact remains that in the 16th Century and especially today, we are not reliant on "oral tradition" but on a canon of inspired scripture.



What are your definitions of what Holy Tradition and Holy Reason are?

My definition of Holy Reason is that which exists in the prideful imagination of fallen man when he thinks he can make scripture say what it does not say.

Scripture is either inspired in which case we should follow it or it is not inspired in which case we can interpret it however we please.

The Traditional view of the Anglican Church has been that it is inspired and holds a superior position to both reason and tradition.

[Iosias]

The Traditional view of the Anglican Church has been that it is inspired and holds a superior position to both reason and tradition.

:amen: I think I have linked to these articles before but they are worth pointing out again:

The English Reformers' Teaching on Scripture (http://churchsociety.org/churchman/documents/Cman_107_1_Strickland.pdf) by Ernest Strickland
The Reformer's View of Inspiration (http://churchsociety.org/churchman/documents/CMan_111_4_Hughes.pdf) by Philip Edcumbe Hughes
The English Reformers' Teaching on Salvation (http://churchsociety.org/churchman/documents/Cman_105_2_Allister.pdf) by Donald Allister

[Colabomb]

To clarify what I am talking about:

The issue of Women's ordination is primarily a Church Tradition. I can see the points of both sides of the issue in the interpretation of scripture as it pertains to the New Covenant.

The issue of homosexuals is not one of individual orientation for we all inheret the sin nature. It is an issue of how we deal with that individual sin nature in the light of the revelation of scripture.

My point was that the Anglican Church, until recently, never taught that reason and tradition are equal to scripture as the three legged stool analogy would imply.

Reason and tradition are clearly inferior to scripture and to treat them otherwise leads invariably to error. God's ways are not our ways.
Amen and Amen.

[Colabomb]

Furthermore, you must deal with the issue of the time before the New Testament books were written. For those two decades, what existed?



Or the True Traditions which were inspired by the Holy Ghost were accepted as such and made concrete, over and above the other less important/factual traditions.

Also the 200 AD number is extremely misleading. The Books of Scripture were in WIDE circulation long before the final canonization, and there was little confusion over which books those were.

[Iosias]

The Formation of the New Testament Canon (http://www.lgmarshall.org/Warfield/warfield_formationcanon.html)

The Lord Gave the Word: A Study in the History of the Biblical Text (http://www.trinitarianbiblesociety.org/site/articles/lordgaveword.asp)

[DarkNLovely]

So are ya'll gonna get an icon? Agree with PalVal that Catebury Cathedral would be nice! But my fav is now Lichfeild!

[PaladinValer]

For the first two decades, the Apostles existed. They were physically present teaching what was written down and preserved for later generations.

Nothing was written down yet. It was all oral.

The fact remains that in the 16th Century and especially today, we are not reliant on "oral tradition" but on a canon of inspired scripture.

What did those people have before the 2nd Ecumenical Council?

Written Oral Tradition!

My definition of Holy Reason is that which exists in the prideful imagination of fallen man when he thinks he can make scripture say what it does not say.

Then why are you Anglican if you don't agree with Holy Reason? Especially when that isn't what Anglicans (perhaps that is what Continuer's think?) think of Holy Reason.

Holy Reason is the utilization of our own intellect, our own God-given gift of rational thought and thinking, in cooperation with the Holy Spirit and each other in interpreting and expounding upon Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition.

The Traditional view of the Anglican Church has been that it is inspired and holds a superior position to both reason and tradition.

How about Anglicanism before Edward VIth? Or even before Henry VIIIth? Or does that not count?

Also the 200 AD number is extremely misleading. The Books of Scripture were in WIDE circulation long before the final canonization, and there was little confusion over which books those were.

Straw Man.

[Secundulus]

Nothing was written down yet. It was all oral.



What did those people have before the 2nd Ecumenical Council?

Written Oral Tradition!

Do you mean to infer that the scriptures were not inspired until the Church declared them so at Constantinople?

If not, then the inspired Scriptures existed independently of that Council and are not dependent upon it for either their existence or their inspiration.

Then why are you Anglican if you don't agree with Holy Reason? Especially when that isn't what Anglicans (perhaps that is what Continuer's think?) think of Holy Reason.

I don't disagree with reason. I disagree with the use that Liberal Theology makes of reason. Based upon this alone, it is not we who have departed from Traditional Anglicanism, it is you.

Articles vi. & xx.—"Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation; so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. . . . . . . The Church hath [power to decree (statuendi) rites and ceremonies, and] authority in controversies of faith; and yet it is not lawful for the Church to [ordain (instituere) any thing that is contrary to God’s word written, neither may it] so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another. Wherefore, although the Church be a witness and a keeper of Holy Writ, yet [as it ought not to decree (decerne) anything against the same, so] besides the same, ought it not to enforce (obtrudere) anything to be believed for necessary of salvation."

Holy Reason is the utilization of our own intellect, our own God-given gift of rational thought and thinking, in cooperation with the Holy Spirit and each other in interpreting and expounding upon Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition.

From this it appears, first, that the Church expounds and enforces the faith; for it is forbidden to expound in a particular way, or so to enforce as to obtrude; next, that it derives the faith wholly from Scripture; thirdly, that its office is to educe an harmonious interpretation of Scripture. Thus much the Article settles.

Newman, John Henry. Tracts for the Times: Remarks on Certain Passages in the Thirty-Nine Articles, Number 90. New York: Charles Henry, 1839. Project Canterbury, http://anglicanhistory.org/tracts/tract90/ (http://anglicanhistory.org/tracts/tract90/) (accessed 21 Sep 2007).

How about Anglicanism before Edward VIth? Or even before Henry VIIIth? Or does that not count?

Anglicanism from at least the year 600 until 1525 was Roman Catholic. It did not exist as a seperate entity nor did it have any distinct doctrine.

So, I might ask you the same thing you asked me above. Why aren't you Roman Catholic?

[PaladinValer]

Do you mean to infer that the scriptures were not inspired until the Church declared them so at Constantinople?

Nope.

If not, then the inspired Scriptures existed independently of that Council and are not dependent upon it for either their existence or their inspiration.

Non-Debate and Straw Man.

I don't disagree with reason. I disagree with the use that Liberal Theology makes of reason.

Says...?

Based upon this alone, it is not we who have departed from Traditional Anglicanism, it is you.

Articles vi. & xx.—"Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation; so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. . . . . . . The Church hath [power to decree (statuendi) rites and ceremonies, and] authority in controversies of faith; and yet it is not lawful for the Church to [ordain (instituere) any thing that is contrary to God’s word written, neither may it] so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another. Wherefore, although the Church be a witness and a keeper of Holy Writ, yet [as it ought not to decree (decerne) anything against the same, so] besides the same, ought it not to enforce (obtrudere) anything to be believed for necessary of salvation."
From whose interpretation? Your's? One person doesn't make a Church.

From this it appears, first, that the Church expounds and enforces the faith; for it is forbidden to expound in a particular way, or so to enforce as to obtrude; next, that it derives the faith wholly from Scripture; thirdly, that its office is to educe an harmonious interpretation of Scripture. Thus much the Article settles.

:yawn: The Articles:

1. Were never canonized in the Anglican Church
2. Were written ambiguously
3. Were proven historically "iffy" thanks to events like the Liturgical Movement.

Anglicanism from at least the year 600 until 1525 was Roman Catholic. It did not exist as a seperate entity nor did it have any distinct doctrine.

Historically false.

[Mick116]

I was a member of an Anglican Catholic Church in Australia (TAC) parish in Brisbane. This Church beautifully blends sincere, evangelical faith with a rich catholic worship tradition. Our bishop is a spiritually gifted teacher, yet was rejected by the Brisbane archdiocese of the Anglican Church of Australia (Canterbury Communion), because of his consecration at the hands of so-called schismatics.

The "Forward in Faith" catholic movement within the Anglican Communion has strong ties with the TAC, and they remain in communion with each other.

[Secundulus]

Nope.
Non-Debate and Straw Man.

The Church was already using these scriptures for 250 years before Constantinople so it certainly is not a straw-man. You cannot simply wish them away.

Says...?

Says the definition of Liberal Theology and the fact that I disagree with it. You can accept the definition here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Christianity or I can quote you my textbook.

From whose interpretation? Your's? One person doesn't make a Church.

Its not my interpretation. It is our Bishops' - Affirmation of St. Louis http://www.acahome.org/index.htm.


:yawn: The Articles:

1. Were never canonized in the Anglican Church
2. Were written ambiguously
3. Were proven historically "iffy" thanks to events like the Liturgical Movement.


Nevertheless, they are what defined historic Anglicanism. This again points to the fact that what you are bears little resemblence to that Anglicanism. It is something new.

Historically false.

Historically true. Who made Henry VIII the "Defender of the Faith"? Was it the Patriarch of Contantinople?

[PaladinValer]

The Church was already using these scriptures for 250 years before Constantinople so it certainly is not a straw-man. You cannot simply wish them away.

Fallacy of Complex Conclusion. My responses do not fit this conclusion because of your illogically blatant conjunction of two answers that were, in actuality, separate.

Says the definition of Liberal Theology and the fact that I disagree with it. You can accept the definition here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Christianity or I can quote you my textbook.

Who says I'm liberal? YOU?!

Sir, with all due respect, you don't have a clue if you are insinuating that I am "liberal."

And as many others here have remarked, the very terms of "liberal" and "conservative" are quite respective to a single person's point of view, not to mention that they are, likewise, not as homogenious as many think.

Its not my interpretation. It is our Bishops' - Affirmation of St. Louis http://www.acahome.org/index.htm.

Our bishops?

I do not recognize those bishops authority, much as I don't recognize the authority of Eastern Orthodox or Vatican Catholic bishops in the affairs of the Anglican Church.

Perhaps in your church, the Articles carry more weight and have each been interpreted firmly. That is not true however in my church, the Anglican Church.

Nevertheless, they are what defined historic Anglicanism.

To be...what? Broad and inclusive. Isn't that why many left the Anglican Church and founded their own churches, including your TAC?

This again points to the fact that what you are bears little resemblence to that Anglicanism. It is something new.

Whose Anglicanism? Anglican or Continuing? Or Reformed Episcopal?

Historically true. Who made Henry VIII the "Defender of the Faith"? Was it the Patriarch of Contantinople?

Primacy=/=Papacy.

[Secundulus]

Who says I'm liberal? YOU?!

Sir, with all due respect, you don't have a clue if you are insinuating that I am "liberal."

And as many others here have remarked, the very terms of "liberal" and "conservative" are quite respective to a single person's point of view, not to mention that they are, likewise, not as homogenious as many think.

I'm not talking about politics. I am talking about Theology. TEC embraces Liberal Theology. That is simply fact, not conjecture.

[PaladinValer]

Then you don't know TEC as well as you think.

And I would appreciate it if you did not post such nonsense about my church in the future. Thank you.

[Secundulus]

Then you don't know TEC as well as you think.

And I would appreciate it if you did not post such nonsense about my church in the future. Thank you.

Definition: The word liberal in liberal Christianity denotes a characteristic willingness to interpret scripture in an intellectually independent manner—with no preconceived notion of inerrancy of scripture when its passages are literally interpreted.
Isn't that pretty much what you are saying about REASON.

Bishop Spong is also noted as a well known Liberal Theologian. Isn't he one of yours?

[PaladinValer]

Definition: The word liberal in liberal Christianity denotes a characteristic willingness to interpret scripture in an intellectually independent manner—with no preconceived notion of inerrancy of scripture when its passages are literally interpreted.
Isn't that pretty much what you are saying about REASON.

No. Reread what I said more closely.

Bishop Spong is also noted as a well known Liberal Theologian. Isn't he one of yours?

There are individuals like +Spong in every church and denomination. Does that make them "liberal" too?!

Fallacy of Division. Properties of parts are not necessarily the properties of the whole.

[Secundulus]

No. Reread what I said more closely.



There are individuals like +Spong in every church and denomination. Does that make them "liberal" too?!

Fallacy of Division. Properties of parts are not necessarily the properties of the whole.

There are not Bishops publishing and preaching heresy in every Church.

I do not need to look at every individual in an organization to determine a corporate philosophy. I need only look at the leadership who has been elected to repreresent them.

You seem to be having trouble grasping the fact that your leading Bishops, including your Presiding Bishop, are liberal theologians. This fact alone, which is the culmination of a trend that began in the 1950's is the source of 30+ years of division within the Anglican Communion. Your theology is simply out of line with the majority of the rest of the Church.

But go ahead, don't address my statement. Simply deny it or tell me which logical fallacy this falls under.

[ContraMundum]

The Traditional Anglican Communion (TAC) is one of the Continuing Anglican Churches. I believe that presently it is the largest. I am a member of TAC in Georgia and I believe Albion is a member also.

Me too.

..and I think we are right. It cannot be wrong to worship and believe as our forefathers have.

[ContraMundum]

I believe that the Anglican Communion would call us schismatic.

The TAC clergy tend to use the order definition of the term "schismatic", that is: one that departs from Catholic faith and order. Check out any of the old texts. Therefore, the TAC could accuse those who have introduced new doctrines and practices into the church as schismatics. This is what the old Anglicans would have done.

But then again, it's not worth discussing here.

Why? Because just cruising through this thread has enlightened me to the fact that few know what they're talking about when judging the "other communions". Best to just shut up or face God in the afterlife for breaking a commandment about false witness.

[PaladinValer]

There are not Bishops publishing and preaching heresy in every Church.

Because you say so? Come now; I'm very certain you will find many.

I do not need to look at every individual in an organization to determine a corporate philosophy.

You do, however, need to provide proof that a wide and diverse population exists. One person is one person, not the whole.

You argued a logical fallacy, which is always an invalid argument. Can you please offer a rational argument or recant?

I need only look at the leadership who has been elected to repreresent them.

This made no sense, nor, if I read it correctly, is it what is done within TEC.

You seem to be having trouble grasping the fact that your leading Bishops, including your Presiding Bishop, are liberal theologians. This fact alone, which is the culmination of a trend that began in the 1950's is the source of 30+ years of division within the Anglican Communion. Your theology is simply out of line with the majority of the rest of the Church.

Saith thou. "Liberal" to you. "Conservative" to others. That is a fact you are having a difficult time grasping.

Liberal, conservative, even moderate are not monolithic terms. A person who holds to the opinion that abortion should be allowed only in cases of incest and rape is going to be considered liberal by full-on pro-lifers and conservative by full-on pro-choicers.

But go ahead, don't address my statement. Simply deny it or tell me which logical fallacy this falls under.

In other words, it doesn't matter if you argue fallaciously so long as you can say whatever you wish?

Forgive me, but that sounds like an excuse for bad form.

As I've said earlier, STR is home to both the Anglican Church and the Continuing Church bodies. If you are going to debate something about my church in its forum, I expect you to do so in a rational way. Otherwise, I could very easily argue under the rules that you are making unsubstantiated claims about my church within its home forum.

I spoke with grace and dignity earlier about your TAC when someone new to Anglicanism spoke of "schism;" I would appreciate the same candor and respect in return.

And yes, that paragraph does inch towards the Fallacy of Appealing to Pity, though it doesn't seem to break it.

[ContraMundum]

You argued a logical fallacy, which is always an invalid argument.....

.....it doesn't matter if you argue fallaciously....

....And yes, that paragraph does inch towards the Fallacy of Appealing to Pity, though it doesn't seem to break it.

One thing I like about you PV is your reliability...to be uniquely "PV".


Do you know of a list of logical fallacies online that we can all have a look at? I'm sure we could all benefit from it. If not, please make one for us, if you have the time.

[PaladinValer]

One thing I like about you PV is your reliability...to be uniquely "PV".

...which means?

Do you know of a list of logical fallacies online that we can all have a look at? I'm sure we could all benefit from it. If not, please make one for us, if you have the time.

http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/toc.htm

[ContraMundum]

...which means?

You're unique, obviously. :P



http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/toc.htm

Thanks.

[Secundulus]

Saith thou. "Liberal" to you. "Conservative" to others. That is a fact you are having a difficult time grasping.

Liberal, conservative, even moderate are not monolithic terms. A person who holds to the opinion that abortion should be allowed only in cases of incest and rape is going to be considered liberal by full-on pro-lifers and conservative by full-on pro-choicers.

In other words, it doesn't matter if you argue fallaciously so long as you can say whatever you wish?

Hey, I can play your game too.

Your statement is guilty of the fallacy of slothful induction.

[PaladinValer]

Hey, I can play your game too.

Your statement is guilty of the fallacy of slothful induction.

Slothful Induction only occurs when evidence is not brought up as proof.

[ContraMundum]

...and it all depends on what constitutes "proof" anyway....but we've been through that already.

This "debate" will go nowhere.

[DarkNLovely]

If anybody is interested, I'm feeling really good about the COE! I don't plan on doing any converting or anything, but I really like this Church and how it is, despite diffrences between some groups because, well, all groups are like that! :D

[AngCath]

I'm feeling really good about the COE
I am happy to hear dabbing your foot in the Anglican pool has gone well so far.

[Secundulus]

If anybody is interested, I'm feeling really good about the COE! I don't plan on doing any converting or anything, but I really like this Church and how it is, despite diffrences between some groups because, well, all groups are like that! :D


Well, tomorrow is Sunday. Pick a Church and tell us how you liked it.

[norbie]

Well, tomorrow is Sunday. Pick a Church and tell us how you liked it.
This is a very good suggestion and maybe you can even share with us in the other thread how the teaching of the Gospel told you something.

[Colabomb]

Historically false.

Without any evidence to the contrary, this argument is equivalent to "nuh uh!"

[PaladinValer]

Without any evidence to the contrary, this argument is equivalent to "nuh uh!"

Have you forgotten all those posts made by either pmcleanj, polycarp1, myself, and others?

[Iosias]

Let us recall that the Church did not make the Scriptures as such but rather the Church recognised their inspiration.

[PaladinValer]

The Church canonized Scripture.

[No Swansong]

Presbetyrians are Anglicans too?

Well, if REC and TAC have a similar value, why don't the join forces?

You can be Anglican and support Presbyterian polity. For example both AV and I believe that there is significant Scriptural evidence for this type of Church government. The REC however as I have pointed out in other threads is Anglican historically. They came into being because they believed the PECUSA was becoming too Anglo-Catholic. They have retained Apostolic Succession, not because they feel it to be absolutely necessary but because they believe it to be a useful form of Church Government. If you haven't already discovered it there are many here who would have you believe that if you are not Anglo-Catholic you are not truly Anglican. This is not true and has been rebutted several times.

[No Swansong]

You can be Anglican and support Presbyterian polity. For example both AV and I believe that there is significant Scriptural evidence for this type of Church government. The REC however as I have pointed out in other threads is Anglican historically. They came into being because they believed the PECUSA was becoming too Anglo-Catholic. They have retained Apostolic Succession, not because they feel it to be absolutely necessary but because they believe it to be a useful form of Church Government. If you haven't already discovered it there are many here who would have you believe that if you are not Anglo-Catholic you are not truly Anglican. This is not true and has been rebutted several times.
Sorry forgot the other part.

The TAC at least as it exists in the U.S. is far too Anglo-Catholic for most REC'ers.

[No Swansong]

The TAC clergy tend to use the order definition of the term "schismatic", that is: one that departs from Catholic faith and order. Check out any of the old texts. Therefore, the TAC could accuse those who have introduced new doctrines and practices into the church as schismatics. This is what the old Anglicans would have done.

But then again, it's not worth discussing here.

Why? Because just cruising through this thread has enlightened me to the fact that few know what they're talking about when judging the "other communions". Best to just shut up or face God in the afterlife for breaking a commandment about false witness.
It seems some just blew past your post completely Contra. So sad.

[No Swansong]

The Church canonized Scripture.
That's what he said. He said they recognized their inspiration and you said they canonized them. Or am I mistaken and you are are asserting that they are truly Scripture just because the Church says they are?

[DarkNLovely]

You can be Anglican and support Presbyterian polity. For example both AV and I believe that there is significant Scriptural evidence for this type of Church government. The REC however as I have pointed out in other threads is Anglican historically. They came into being because they believed the PECUSA was becoming too Anglo-Catholic. They have retained Apostolic Succession, not because they feel it to be absolutely necessary but because they believe it to be a useful form of Church Government. If you haven't already discovered it there are many here who would have you believe that if you are not Anglo-Catholic you are not truly Anglican. This is not true and has been rebutted several times.
Oh ok.! Ia didn't know they had Apostolic succession. Wow! Well, I didn't get to go to church. My fam goes to a certain church and I don't have my own car and they pretty much not in favor at all of denominationalism (though they have great respect for their fellow Christians in denominations!). I kinda don't like it either, it's just that I no longer want to attend a non-denom church! I was raised in a denominational church, and then we moved to non-denom. I loved the first church, but I kinda have my issues with that denomination and other things about it, so I'm gonna try something different!

[No Swansong]

Oh ok.! Ia dodn't know they had Apostolic succession. Wow! Well, I didn't get to go to church. My fam goes to a certain church and I don't have my own cr and they pretty much not in favor at all of denominationalism (thought they have great respect for their fellow Christians in denominations!). I kinda don't like it either, it's just that I no longer want to attend a non-denom church! I was raised in a denominational church, and then we moved to non-denom. I loved the first church, but I kinda hae my issues with that denomination and other things about it, so I'm gonna try something different!
You are in my prayers.

[Colabomb]

Have you forgotten all those posts made by either pmcleanj, polycarp1, myself, and others?

Yes, and they aren't convincing.

[PaladinValer]

Then why be Anglican?

[DarkNLovely]

There is something about the Anglican Church that seems right, ya know? I don't like the politics and somethings I find ubber disturbing, but I my interest is piqued and I really want to learn more so I have to find some way to get myself to church!

[ContraMundum]

Then why be Anglican?


I don't think one needs a reason to be Anglican.

[Colabomb]

Then why be Anglican?

You just gave evidence as to why people think that certain persons no this board push an "Anglo Catholic or the highway" message.

Or a more direct quote "To know Anglo-Catholicism is to know Anglicanism." (Which is ironically not a very Catholic statement to begin with)

Anglicanism is truly a Catholic church, like it or not, and Anglicans can disagree on issues such as this. Like it or not, we are not all bound the the opinions of the fathers, or of the Tractarians. The Fathers were men. The Reason their writings are not canonized is because they are not inspired in the same way as Scripture. If the writings of Clement, Augustine, and Desert fathers were inspired in that way, the Holy Spirit would move the Church to canonize them and give them their proper place. But He has not. And the works are therefore not Perfect. Perhaps they carry great wisdom, great teachings, and a better understanding of what the church was at the time, but they are not inspired, at least as the Scriptures are. They are not perfect.

Many of us are proud protestants, and make no apologies about it. Many of us put Scripture first, above Tradition and Reason, and make no apologies. Many of us accept Western Atonement Theology, and make no apologies. Many of us Read the Fathers with Honor, but with the understanding that their writings are only the opinions of men.

And yes, I do believe there was a pre roman Church in England. But I have no doubt that Rome Totally engulfed the English church. The Church that came to be in the 1500's, I believe, was a move of God. And yes, they proclaimed their God given independence from the Bishop of Rome, which was a good thing.

But I have no doubt that the Church in England Belonged to Rome for over 1,000 years. To say otherwise is historical revisionism.

[Colabomb]

There is something about the Anglican Church that seems right, ya know? I don't like the politics and somethings I find ubber disturbing, but I my interest is piqued and I really want to learn more so I have to find some way to get myself to church!

Don't let people distract you with the politics. Seek Christ.

The Church is found wherever Christ is Preached. Seek Him.

[PaladinValer]

You just gave evidence as to why people think that certain persons no this board push an "Anglo Catholic or the highway" message.

No, I did not. If that is how you interpreted it, then you did so illogically.

Or a more direct quote "To know Anglo-Catholicism is to know Anglicanism." (Which is ironically not a very Catholic statement to begin with)

And do you know why I did?

I posted why in earlier posts.

Anglicanism is truly a Catholic church, like it or not, and Anglicans can disagree on issues such as this. Like it or not, we are not all bound the the opinions of the fathers, or of the Tractarians. The Fathers were men. The Reason their writings are not canonized is because they are not inspired in the same way as Scripture. If the writings of Clement, Augustine, and Desert fathers were inspired in that way, the Holy Spirit would move the Church to canonize them and give them their proper place. But He has not. And the works are therefore not Perfect. Perhaps they carry great wisdom, great teachings, and a better understanding of what the church was at the time, but they are not inspired, at least as the Scriptures are. They are not perfect.

Straw Man.

Many of us are proud protestants, and make no apologies about it. Many of us put Scripture first, above Tradition and Reason, and make no apologies. Many of us accept Western Atonement Theology, and make no apologies. Many of us Read the Fathers with Honor, but with the understanding that their writings are only the opinions of men.

As are the Councils? Or is Arianism Christian?

The dogma of the Holy Trinity cannot be found in whole, whether together or in pieces, in the Bible, to give one such example.

And yes, I do believe there was a pre roman Church in England. But I have no doubt that Rome Totally engulfed the English church. The Church that came to be in the 1500's, I believe, was a move of God. And yes, they proclaimed their God given independence from the Bishop of Rome, which was a good thing.

Then cite your proof.

But I have no doubt that the Church in England Belonged to Rome for over 1,000 years. To say otherwise is historical revisionism.

Forgive me, but as a historian myself who has studied this subject, I must professionally disagree, as would those with even far more experience than I.

[No Swansong]

Obviously they are not out of line with scripture.
So you have made a decision Karen about the ordination of practicing homosexuals?

If I am not mistaken you were on the fence for a very long time were you not?

[No Swansong]

If anybody is interested, I'm feeling really good about the COE! I don't plan on doing any converting or anything, but I really like this Church and how it is, despite diffrences between some groups because, well, all groups are like that! :D



Just please do not confuse the CofE with ECUSA. While ECUSA (Now called TEC) is the American representative of the Anglican Communion in the U.S. (Which it appears many, perhaps a majority, in the Anglican Communion would like to change) ECUSA is, contrary to some of the other rot you may read here, very Liberal both Theologically and practically.

[No Swansong]

Forgive me, but as a historian myself who has studied this subject, I must professionally disagree, as would those with even far more experience than I.


I love it when you make these statements. Very few "Historians" would recognize a person with a Bachelors degree in history as their peer. Secondly I know I have read and probably even personally know published, respected and recognized Ph.D. holding Historians who would disagree with you. The Church in England was Roman Catholic from around 700 to 1500 A.D. that is a historical fact, any other assertion is indeed revisionist.

[higgs2]

So have we welcomed you back again Jtbdad? I lose track :)

Hope you're feeling better mentally and physically. :hug:

[PaladinValer]

I love it when you make these statements. Very few "Historians" would recognize a person with a Bachelors degree in history as their peer.

I wouldn't expect psuedohistorians to accept a real historian as a peer; I agree there.

Secondly I know I have read and probably even personally know published, respected and recognized Ph.D. holding Historians who would disagree with you. The Church in England was Roman Catholic from around 700 to 1500 A.D.

A few? Sure. That doesn't prove anything however.

that is a historical fact, any other assertion is indeed revisionist.

Tell me...what caused the Salem Witch trials? What does history say?

And yes, there is a point to the question.

[DarkNLovely]

Just please do not confuse the CofE with ECUSA. While ECUSA (Now called TEC) is the American representative of the Anglican Communion in the U.S. (Which it appears many, perhaps a majority, in the Anglican Communion would like to change) ECUSA is, contrary to some of the other rot you may read here, very Liberal both Theologically and practically.
So, what I am infering is that the Anglican Church itself is not confined to the The Anglican Commuion. One may not be in the Anglican Communion, but still be Anglican. Now I must ask, what then is the point of the Anglican Communion?

[No Swansong]

I wouldn't expect psuedohistorians to accept a real historian as a peer; I agree there.

I am not sure who you are referring to as pseudohistorians but the Church Historians I am acquainted with are published, well respected historians. I am sorry but I just do not accept your Bachelors degree in History credentials enough to call yourself an "Professional Historian" As I stated earlier I would bet that the majority of "Historians" would not consider you a professional Historian.



A few? Sure. That doesn't prove anything however. I would dare say it is most probably the majority position. Every text I have in Church History, some Anglican some Roman Catholic others other denominations all say that the English Church was a Schism of the Roman Catholic Church in one way or another.

Just for kicks I think I'll poll all of the Anglican clerics that I know. To keep it fair I will include only those who hold an M.Div or higher. This will of course take a couple of days. I think I will also check with the Credentialed Historians that I know, (admittedly only a handful) those who are published and hold a professorship and ask them if they would accept as a peer an individual holding a Bachelors degree.



Tell me...what caused the Salem Witch trials? What does history say?

And yes, there is a point to the question.And that would be?

[No Swansong]

So, what I am infering is that the Anglican Church itself is not confined to the The Anglican Commuion. One may not be in the Anglican Communion, but still be Anglican. Now I must ask, what then is the point of the Anglican Communion?
That is a good question it would of course depend upon who you ask. We have those here who say that only those in the Anglican Communion are Anglican. Others would argue that Anglicanism is more a praxis. There are many in the Communion who believe the "continuers" are more Anglican than ECUSA. (The largest Anglican Province in the World for example)

Some have tried to argue that a member of the CofE, who regularly attends and communes and is very active in their Church isn't an Anglican.

Just be cautious. The Anglo-Catholic movement in Anglicanism is not the only valid expression of Anglicanism but many here will try to convince you otherwise.

[PaladinValer]

I am not sure who you are referring to as pseudohistorians but the Church Historians I am acquainted with are published, well respected historians. I am sorry but I just do not accept your Bachelors degree in History credentials enough to call yourself an "Professional Historian" As I stated earlier I would bet that the majority of "Historians" would not consider you a professional Historian.

Over those of non-historians as well?

I would dare say it is most probably the majority position.

Fallacy of Appealing to the Masses then. If there is peered debate on the issue, then volume doesn't prove who is right or wrong.

Every text I have in Church History, some Anglican some Roman Catholic others other denominations all say that the English Church was a Schism of the Roman Catholic Church in one way or another.

And what ratio to the whole have you read?

Just for kicks I think I'll poll all of the Anglican clerics that I know. To keep it fair I will include only those who hold an M.Div or higher.

What? You don't want to ask a professional historian? What authority does a M.Div have over that of a MA Historian, especially if it is in the realm of experise?

I think I will also check with the Credentialed Historians that I know, (admittedly only a handful) those who are published and hold a professorship and ask them if they would accept as a peer an individual holding a Bachelors degree.

Make sure you also ask if said holder has precedence over one who has no history degree whatsoever.

And that would be?

Answer the question. What do historians say? Then the point will be made clear.

[No Swansong]

Over those of non-historians as well?

Not sure I understand your question but if you are asking if they would consider you a historian compared to those who are not trained in history I think the answer would still be no because I do not think that they would compare you to non-historians but to professionals as you claim to have a "professional opinion" therefore you are making the claim to be a professional.



Fallacy of Appealing to the Masses then. If there is peered debate on the issue, then volume doesn't prove who is right or wrong.True but most of the time it is the masses (of Professional Historians) that determine what is historical and what isn't. Can they be wrong? sure; but if you disagree with them then it is your responsibility to prove them wrong. So far you have provided no evidence that the Church in England was not Roman Catholic during the period of time in question.



And what ratio to the whole have you read?Of the whole of what I own (at last count 27 of 29 books on Church History) of all volumes produced? admittedly a small fraction. And you?



What? You don't want to ask a professional historian? What authority does a M.Div have over that of a MA Historian, especially if it is in the realm of experise?Because I am asking because I want to know what is being taught in the seminaries. I don't consider M.Div's to be equivalent in knowledge with M.A's in History but you haven't earned a Masters degree in History have you? I do believe that an M.Div would have as much knowledge of Church History as you would.




Make sure you also ask if said holder has precedence over one who has no history degree whatsoever.Why would I do that? Certainly they would not consider an individual without an education in History to be an Historian. It is your claim to be a "Professional Historian" that is questionable.



Answer the question. What do historians say? Then the point will be made clear.[/quote]

I am not an Historian. (Truth be told as an undergraduate I took more Art History classes than World History) To give an informed answer as to what Historians say I would have to do some research. Considering that I am in the process of completing an advanced degree in Theology I am not sure I could find such time. Please just tell me what you think they would say and make your point.



Actually I need to change a comment here. Although the holder of an Advanced degree the degree I am now pursuing is in Theology and is not an advanced degree. I am not really starting from scratch but I did not wish to mislead anyone.

[No Swansong]

So have we welcomed you back again Jtbdad? I lose track :)

Hope you're feeling better mentally and physically. :hug:
Sorry Higgs missed this. I have discovered another "quest".

As for feeling better, I appreciate the concern but it is unlikely I will ever feel better. Unfortunately I will continue to decline in health until my family is forced to admit me to a long term care facility. I only hope I can finish school before I lose the ability to do so. As for mentally, well that changes from day to day. Today was not a bad day.

John

[PaladinValer]

Not sure I understand your question but if you are asking if they would consider you a historian compared to those who are not trained in history I think the answer would still be no because I do not think that they would compare you to non-historians but to professionals as you claim to have a "professional opinion" therefore you are making the claim to be a professional.

That would be the Fallacy of Appealing to Authority then.

True but most of the time it is the masses (of Professional Historians) that determine what is historical and what isn't.

Does "most of the time" mean it is right to do?

Can they be wrong? sure; but if you disagree with them then it is your responsibility to prove them wrong.

Wrong? Maybe. Or perhaps they are simply missing elements that constitute a greater whole. Or perhaps their focus on one key issue is what influences their position.

So far you have provided no evidence that the Church in England was not Roman Catholic during the period of time in question.

You are welcome to go back in the archives.

Of the whole of what I own (at last count 27 of 29 books on Church History) of all volumes produced? admittedly a small fraction. And you?

Which begs then, after quantity, how many are quality.

Because I am asking because I want to know what is being taught in the seminaries. I don't consider M.Div's to be equivalent in knowledge with M.A's in History but you haven't earned a Masters degree in History have you?

That has nothing to do with it.

Furthermore, since it is a historical issue and not one of theology, then an expert in history trumps one of theology.

I do believe that an M.Div would have as much knowledge of Church History as you would.

You might be surprised what classes they offer these days then.

Why would I do that? Certainly they would not consider an individual without an education in History to be an Historian. It is your claim to be a "Professional Historian" that is questionable.

When did I make said claim?

Reread my request. Your conclusion is a Straw Man.

I am not an Historian. (Truth be told as an undergraduate I took more Art History classes than World History)

A fascinating category, by the way.

To give an informed answer as to what Historians say I would have to do some research. Considering that I am in the process of completing an advanced degree in Theology I am not sure I could find such time. Please just tell me what you think they would say and make your point.

The point is this:

History is not just "dry facts" but also about interpretation. There are many dry facts that are all elements to what led to the deaths of those women and man. Historians acknowledge the dry facts but they disagree in their interpretation.

Therefore, it is not at all "revisionist" to hold a different perspective when you look at all the dry facts. Indeed, even your and your son's accusations of "revisionism" are warranted when, and this does occur at times, new elements related to the senario are (re)discovered.

The truth is, no one really knows what caused the Salem Witch Trials. All that is known are a lot of dry facts that can be interpreted in a myriad of ways that are just as logically valid and potentially sound as another one. Usually what separates these theories is simply emphasis on one or a few of these dry facts.

When I look at the history of the Christian Church in the British Isles, I see a lot of dry facts. I examine them, I evaluate them, and I draw theories based upon them. My conclusion is that the Pope never had true juristiction. Could someone counter that? Sure, but to call mine "revisionist" simply due to a different evaluation of the evidence is simply not true. One can argue that emphasis should be redirected or that one should observe evidence either (re)discovered or overlooked, but then again, that would warrant a revision.

[higgs2]

Sorry Higgs missed this. I have discovered another "quest".

As for feeling better, I appreciate the concern but it is unlikely I will ever feel better. Unfortunately I will continue to decline in health until my family is forced to admit me to a long term care facility. I only hope I can finish school before I lose the ability to do so. As for mentally, well that changes from day to day. Today was not a bad day.

John

Don Quixote Syndrome? ;) I think it is as balanced as it can be.

I am terribly sorry to hear that about your health. I truly and sincerely am, John. :hug: I pray that any decline will be long and slow and imperceptible.

[ContraMundum]

I think there is a such thing as "The Fallacy of appealing to the list of Fallacies".

[VincitOmniaVeritas]

I think there is a such thing as "The Fallacy of appealing to the list of Fallacies".
especially if you misapply them.

[ContraMundum]

especially if you misapply them.


Amen to that!

[karen freeinchristman]

So you have made a decision Karen about the ordination of practicing homosexuals?

If I am not mistaken you were on the fence for a very long time were you not?
Oh, my post wasn't very clear. I was referring to homosexuals, not practicing homosexuals.

[Secundulus]

If the Church of England was not Roman Catholic, why did Henry VIII seek the Pope's permission to have his marriage annulled?

When he did not receive this permission, why did he declare the church separated from Rome?

Why did he have to separate that which was not joined to begin with?

[No Swansong]

That would be the Fallacy of Appealing to Authority then.



Does "most of the time" mean it is right to do?



Wrong? Maybe. Or perhaps they are simply missing elements that constitute a greater whole. Or perhaps their focus on one key issue is what influences their position.



You are welcome to go back in the archives.



Which begs then, after quantity, how many are quality.



That has nothing to do with it.

Furthermore, since it is a historical issue and not one of theology, then an expert in history trumps one of theology.



You might be surprised what classes they offer these days then.



When did I make said claim?

Reread my request. Your conclusion is a Straw Man.



A fascinating category, by the way.



The point is this:

History is not just "dry facts" but also about interpretation. There are many dry facts that are all elements to what led to the deaths of those women and man. Historians acknowledge the dry facts but they disagree in their interpretation.

Therefore, it is not at all "revisionist" to hold a different perspective when you look at all the dry facts. Indeed, even your and your son's accusations of "revisionism" are warranted when, and this does occur at times, new elements related to the senario are (re)discovered.

The truth is, no one really knows what caused the Salem Witch Trials. All that is known are a lot of dry facts that can be interpreted in a myriad of ways that are just as logically valid and potentially sound as another one. Usually what separates these theories is simply emphasis on one or a few of these dry facts.

When I look at the history of the Christian Church in the British Isles, I see a lot of dry facts. I examine them, I evaluate them, and I draw theories based upon them. My conclusion is that the Pope never had true juristiction. Could someone counter that? Sure, but to call mine "revisionist" simply due to a different evaluation of the evidence is simply not true. One can argue that emphasis should be redirected or that one should observe evidence either (re)discovered or overlooked, but then again, that would warrant a revision.
I agree history is about facts and interpretation. That is why I go not only deeply but broadly in my approach when I am interested in something. As for the texts that I own I assure you I rarely waste time on books about Church History that have not been reviewed by Church Historians and most are or have been used in Seminaries. Again there is no question by the large majority of Church Historians (including Anglicans)that the Church in England was Roman Catholic during the period of time roughly from 700 to 1500 AD. You have given no credible reason to believe otherwise, or any reason that I should doubt the majority of recognized, published and tenured Church Historians.

[No Swansong]

I also wanted to address the issue of whether or not you claim to be a professional Historian. Indeed by claiming to be an Historian and offering your "professional" opinion, you have indeed made the claim that you are a professional Historian.

And no I am still convinced having researched a number of M.Div programs that most M.Div's have considerably more education in Church History than your average Bachelors degree in History program.

[Albion]

If the Church of England was not Roman Catholic, why did Henry VIII seek the Pope's permission to have his marriage annulled?

Not because he was required to, if that is what you are thinking. It was because of the prestige factor. The Pope did have sufficient standing to be used to justify an annullment that was otherwise controversial. In addition, the Queen's family was probably the most important Catholic family in the world, and she did not want the annullment. Therefore, if the Pope were to approve of it--as the Papacy had earlier done in the case of the French king--it could do a lot to tip public opinion in the King's direction.

When he did not receive this permission, why did he declare the church separated from Rome?

Frustration? Frustration with Wolsey not getting the job done. Frustration at being right but the Pope not coming across for purely political reasons.

Why did he have to separate that which was not joined to begin with?

It was "joined," depending upon what you mean by the word. The historically autonomous British church had, in increments, agreed to be joined--in some ways but not all--with Rome. Henry merely reasserted the church's historic position. I agree that he wouldn't have had to do that in order to have his way with his marital situation, but the course he took was logical too, in its own way.

[higgs2]

Not because he was required to, if that is what you are thinking. It was because of the prestige factor. The Pope did have sufficient standing to be used to justify an annullment that was otherwise controversial. In addition, the Queen's family was probably the most important Catholic family in the world, and she did not want the annullment. Therefore, if the Pope were to approve of it--as the Papacy had earlier done in the case of the French king--it could do a lot to tip public opinion in the King's direction.



Frustration? Frustration with Wolsey not getting the job done. Frustration at being right but the Pope not coming across for purely political reasons.



It was "joined," depending upon what you mean by the word. The historically autonomous British church had, in increments, agreed to be joined--in some ways but not all--with Rome. Henry merely reasserted the church's historic position. I agree that he wouldn't have had to do that in order to have his way with his marital situation, but the course he took was logical too, in its own way.


Albion, in what ways was the British church historically autonomous? In what ways was it joined with Rome? I find this really interesting.

[Albion]

Albion, in what ways was the British church historically autonomous? In what ways was it joined with Rome? I find this really interesting.

Unfortunately, that is such a big subject, one that requires studying many centuries of historical development, that it's hard to answer quickly. However, we can summarize. The Church in Britain clearly was planted there by someone--Apostles, Roman soldiers, Eastern Christians, or someone else depending upon which theory one finds most compelling--but not by the church at Rome. According to historians, the Christians of Britain had no known connection to or interest in the Diocese of Rome for some time. When Augustine was sent to Britain on an evangelizing mission and at Pope Gregory's request, he was greeted by Christians there.

In the early Middle Ages, and by the Council of Witby, it was agreed to accept certain of the Roman ways of doing things, for example, the calendar, liturgical style, and so on. This represented a blow to Celtic Chrisitianity, but it was not, as some think, a complete capitulation to Rome.

Under the unusually weak King John, more concessions were made, but at virtually the same time, Magna Carta declared the Anglican Church free. So we are seeing a mixed situation. Even when England seemed just like any other part of the Catholic world in the High and Late Middle Ages, there remained important legal principles in effect in England and by English law that represent a "separation" or degree of independence, whatever one would call it.

The Constitutions of Clarendon (1164), for another example of a long process, prohibited clergy from fleeing to Rome for protection from English law, required every bishop to do homage to the king (not the Pope) before being consecrated, and generally allowed the King to oversee Church operations. This sort of thing simply did not exist in most of Christian Europe. What Henry VIII was do do in the 1500s was self-serving, to be sure, but it was hardly unprecedented.

[Iosias]

When did the Church of England begin? (http://churchsociety.org/crossway/documents/Cway_105_CofEBegin.pdf) David Phillips

[higgs2]

Unfortunately, that is such a big subject, one that requires studying many centuries of historical development, that it's hard to answer quickly. However, we can summarize. The Church in Britain clearly was planted there by someone--Apostles, Roman soldiers, Eastern Christians, or someone else depending upon which theory one finds most compelling--but not by the church at Rome. According to historians, the Christians of Britain had no known connection to or interest in the Diocese of Rome for some time. When Augustine was sent to Britain on an evangelizing mission and at Pope Gregory's request, he was greeted by Christians there.

In the early Middle Ages, and by the Council of Witby, it was agreed to accept certain of the Roman ways of doing things, for example, the calendar, liturgical style, and so on. This represented a blow to Celtic Chrisitianity, but it was not, as some think, a complete capitulation to Rome.

Under the unusually weak King John, more concessions were made, but at virtually the same time, Magna Carta declared the Anglican Church free. So we are seeing a mixed situation. Even when England seemed just like any other part of the Catholic world in the High and Late Middle Ages, there remained important legal principles in effect in England and by English law that represent a "separation" or degree of independence, whatever one would call it.

The Constitutions of Clarendon (1164), for another example of a long process, prohibited clergy from fleeing to Rome for protection from English law, required every bishop to do homage to the king (not the Pope) before being consecrated, and generally allowed the King to oversee Church operations. This sort of thing simply did not exist in most of Christian Europe. What Henry VIII was do do in the 1500s was self-serving, to be sure, but it was hardly unprecedented.
Thank you.

[Colabomb]

Who appointed England's Bishops?

Who declared excommunications, excommunications that were upheld by English Bishops?

If the church was autonomous as many say it was, wouldn't they appoint their own bishops? Would they really care who the pope did or didn't excommunicate?

If we were not roman, there would be no need for reformation. There would be no reason to claim their independence, if they were already independent.

I am a proud and happy Anglican. But i'm not going to accept some revised version of history, because it sounds romantic. We were subjugated to Rome. Through an act of God, we threw off Rome.

But we cannot Throw off, that which is not already upon us.

The only place I have heard these theories from, are from Anglo Catholic Anglicans. I have never heard them from an unbiased source. All the unbiased sources, those with no allegiences to Rome or Anglicanism, claim we were under Rome.


If were were independent from Rome, The English Reformation would be like the United States declaring its independance from Britain tomorrow Morning.

Or more accurately, it would be like Spain declaring its independence from Britain tomorrow morning.

[DarkNLovely]

Who appointed England's Bishops?

Who declared excommunications, excommunications that were upheld by English Bishops?

If the church was autonomous as many say it was, wouldn't they appoint their own bishops? Would they really care who the pope did or didn't excommunicate?

If we were not roman, there would be no need for reformation. There would be no reason to claim their independence, if they were already independent.

I am a proud and happy Anglican. But i'm not going to accept some revised version of history, because it sounds romantic. We were subjugated to Rome. Through an act of God, we threw off Rome.

But we cannot Throw off, that which is not already upon us.

The only place I have heard these theories from, are from Anglo Catholic Anglicans. I have never heard them from an unbiased source. All the unbiased sources, those with no allegiences to Rome or Anglicanism, claim we were under Rome.


If were were independent from Rome, The English Reformation would be like the United States declaring its independance from Britain tomorrow Morning.

Or more accurately, it would be like Spain declaring its independence from Britain tomorrow morning.
Who were you responding to?

[Colabomb]

Who were you responding to?

The people stating that the Church in England was not subject to rome for 1000 years.

[DarkNLovely]

The people stating that the Church in England was not subject to rome for 1000 years.
But...it was. Right? I mean, that's what King Hnery's whole deal was right? That he was head of the Church IN England?

[Iosias]

But...it was. Right? I mean, that's what King Hnery's whole deal was right? That he was head of the Church IN England?

The argument runs that for x years the church in England was not Roman, then for y years it was under the authority of the Pope, then Henry VIII used ancient rights to remove the Pope as head of the Church in England and take upon himself his rightful place. :)

[Colabomb]

But...it was. Right? I mean, that's what King Hnery's whole deal was right? That he was head of the Church IN England?

From the earliest days of the Church, there was an autonomous church of England, most likely planted by the eastern Christians, that had its own liturgy and rituals etc.

However, in the 600's Rome supplanted the English church and the Christian Church in england was Roman Catholic, just as the Church was in most of the Western world.

Some disagree with this, and paint a more romantic view where british Christianity was always independent, when it is obvious that it was not.

Really the whole argument is irrelevant. Christ and His Gospel is what legitimizes a church, not petty politics. Some fear that if the English Church was not distinct since the time of Christ, that it loses its legitimacy. This is not so, as God blesses and honors any Church that Preaches His Gospel.

[DarkNLovely]

From the earliest days of the Church, there was an autonomous church of England, most likely planted by the eastern Christians, that had its own liturgy and rituals etc.

However, in the 600's Rome supplanted the English church and the Christian Church in england was Roman Catholic, just as the Church was in most of the Western world.

Some disagree with this, and paint a more romantic view where british Christianity was always independent, when it is obvious that it was not.

Really the whole argument is irrelevant. Christ and His Gospel is what legitimizes a church, not petty politics. Some fear that if the English Church was not distinct since the time of Christ, that it loses its legitimacy. This is not so, as God blesses and honors any Church that Preaches His Gospel.
Well, that makes sense. I don't see how that would cause it to lose legitimacy.

[Colabomb]

To clarify my point, it is proper that the national Churches are independent. And it is good that the English Bishops (and Henry) took control of their own diocese from the Bishop of Rome who seems to think he has more Power than God has Granted him.

[DarkNLovely]

To clarify my point, it is proper that the national Churches are independent. And it is good that the English Bishops (and Henry) took control of their own diocese from the Bishop of Rome who seems to think he has more Power than God has Granted him.
Very true. Now here is another question. Do Anglican consider themselves Protestans?

[Ebor]

From the earliest days of the Church, there was an autonomous church of England, most likely planted by the eastern Christians, that had its own liturgy and rituals etc.


May I ask please, what is your source material for this? Thank you in advance. Have you read Bede's "Ecclesiastical History"? The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle is also available in translation from the Old English and is very important as a historical document from the period.


However, in the 600's Rome supplanted the English church and the Christian Church in england was Roman Catholic, just as the Church was in most of the Western world.


St. Patrick was Roman-British and after escaping from slavery in Ireland he went to a monastery at Auxerre in Gaul before returning to try again in bringing Christianity to the Irish. It was Pope Celestine I who sent Patrick to Ireland after Palladius tried and left. Christianity then spread from Ireland to Scotland with the work of St. Columba and his companions (they established Iona). There was Christianity in the British Isles, it was to the Angles and Saxons that Augustine was sent. (They had invaded England with the Jutes in the 5th Century.)

I would submit that in the early centuries there was no "Roman Catholic" or for that matter "Eastern Orthodox", but Christendom spreading and growing with a variety of rites and customs and missions under the various patriarchs.


Really the whole argument is irrelevant. Christ and His Gospel is what legitimizes a church, not petty politics. Some fear that if the English Church was not distinct since the time of Christ, that it loses its legitimacy. This is not so, as God blesses and honors any Church that Preaches His Gospel.

On this I think we agree. :)

Ebor

[Ebor]

Oh, and the reason Henry VIII as