Like our Orthodox and RC friends, we have apostolic succession, 7 sacraments, a valid Eucharist, the three-fold ministry, some of us venerate Mary and make use of intercessory prayer, etc. Apostolic succession, the valid Eucharist, and the three-fold ministry are the main points that make us "catholic".
Like our Orthodox and RC friends, we have apostolic succession, 7 sacraments, a valid Eucharist, the three-fold ministry, some of us venerate Mary and make use of intercessory prayer, etc. Apostolic succession, the valid Eucharist, and the three-fold ministry are the main points that make us "catholic".
We also have all this stuff:
DOES IT? I thought Catholic meant "of the whole" or universal. Protestantism in its many forms(Even high Anglican protestants) do not have visible real universal unity on doctrine. There are high anglicans who endose 7 sacraments and low anglicans who endorse two. Look at those anglicans who are upset with the "Bishops" that allow homosexual "union". Many Anglicans and High Episcopalians are breaking away to start their own churches. Many However are coming into the Catholic faith because we have true unity(in both east and western Catholic rites universally under one Catechsim and one Authority who has the Keys of Peter) under The Holy Pontiff.
I invite you to look into this as many converts from anglican communion(Such as John Henry Cardnial Newmann) saw this truth historically and biblically.
True Catholicism and unity always has rested with The Pope by Christ command. Anything else is not universal but fractioned radically (as we see with Eastern Orthtodoxy and protestant sects like Anglicanism) and these fractions and churches and will crumble and divide even more as time goes on as we are startimg to see in the Anglican communion!
The farther you get away from the bark of Peter the farther you loose your true "Catholic" identity.
The unity of catholicism is manifested in the episcopate, not in the submission to "doctrine". We Anglicans certainly have a valid episcopate that exercises its teaching office, and as such are thoroughly "Catholic" with the inclusion of a valid Eucharist. The notion of a universal primate (IE the keys of Peter) is a thoroughly medieval, ultramontane notion. For much of the early church, it was understood that the Bishop of Rome, in addition to the other major Bishops in Antioch, Jerusalem, etc., held a place of honor, but not necessarily one of complete authority. Let us not forget about the collective issue of authority to all the apostles in Matthew 18:18. This was the standard of thinking throughout the early church, and the rise to power of the Roman Church because of political and cultural acceptance, etc., along with the growing cultural divide between the singular Latin Church and the other Eastern Sees (Antioch, Jerusalem, etc), led to the schism and proliferation of the idea of Petrine primacy.
Also, the unity of doctrine argument is a little short-handed. Catholicism has certainly had its fair share of splintering and internal quibbles (ie. conciliarism vs. ultramontanism, etc.). The early universal church was also divided on doctrine: the Church of Rome in its early history was the only historic See to teach a doctrine of eternal damnation. The other major Sees professed variants of universal salvation. Was the universal church then "unified" in doctrine up until the Great Schism?
Catholicism is a bigger tent than many are willing to admit (or feel comfortable with).
The unity of catholicism is manifested in the episcopate, not in the submission to "doctrine". We Anglicans certainly have a valid episcopate that exercises its teaching office, and as such are thoroughly "Catholic" with the inclusion of a valid Eucharist. The notion of a universal primate (IE the keys of Peter) is a thoroughly medieval, ultramontane notion. For much of the early church, it was understood that the Bishop of Rome, in addition to the other major Bishops in Antioch, Jerusalem, etc., held a place of honor, but not necessarily one of complete authority. Let us not forget about the collective issue of authority to all the apostles in Matthew 18:18. This was the standard of thinking throughout the early church, and the rise to power of the Roman Church because of political and cultural acceptance, etc., along with the growing cultural divide between the singular Latin Church and the other Eastern Sees (Antioch, Jerusalem, etc), led to the schism and proliferation of the idea of Petrine primacy.
Also, the unity of doctrine argument is a little short-handed. Catholicism has certainly had its fair share of splintering and internal quibbles (ie. conciliarism vs. ultramontanism, etc.). The early universal church was also divided on doctrine: the Church of Rome in its early history was the only historic See to teach a doctrine of eternal damnation. The other major Sees professed variants of universal salvation. Was the universal church then "unified" in doctrine up until the Great Schism?
Catholicism is a bigger tent than many are willing to admit (or feel comfortable with).
Actually you are wrong. The unity of Catholicism is manifested in both doctrine and the episcopate as attested to by the fathers such as St Ireneaus, Athanasius, Augustine, the ecumenical councils and the creeds. Many Heresies that were condemned had true ordinations but they taught false doctrine and were condemned as being not Catholic for that! That was the whole point of the Nicean-constantinople Creed and councils!
Eastern Orthodox have true apostolic succession and valid sacraments. Anglicans used to have true apostolic succession and sacraments but most of them no longer do because of the Change in their ordination rite years ago. They since fixed that change but by that time it was too late. There are "some" Anglicans in Europe that do hold valid orders because they were ordained by Orthodox Bishops. But most do not.
Here is a article from The Holy Father Explaining this!
And here is a simpler article explaining the invalidation of orders and Eucharist in the Anglican and Lutheran protestant chruches from a Catholic scholar:
The Anglican Communion's and the Archbishop of Canterbury's response is called Saepius Officio. The gist is this: the Roman argument for the invalidity of Anglican orders rest upon the language of the ordination rite that presents the priest role in the Mass as a sacrificial one was the language that caused the "invalidity of orders". The problem is that, as stated in the article, many of the rites recognized in the Roman church at the time did not contain such language, and the Eastern Orthodox rites never have. At what point then does Rome have a valid point against our apostolic succession? None really. The language was restored in the 1662 Prayer Book. The same Roman Catholic bishops that were in England at the time of the English Reformation recieved valid and licit ordination. You can't just lose true apostolic succession based on schism, and it was these same bishops that ordained CoE priests and bishops. For the Episcopal Church in the US, the matter is moot anyway. Our apostolic succession has been traced through the Scottish Episcopal Church, the pre-English Reformation Church in England, and through Old Catholic succession lines (which, by the way, is considered valid apostolic succession by the Holy Father).
Second: No, you are still wrong about the unity issue based on particulars. We Anglicans accept all of the Ecumenical Councils and profess the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds, as the universal church did until Rome's schism. So those heresies that you speak of have nothing to do about the doctrine of the Anglican Communion because we accept those Councils as well as the Creeds. So we still hold to the true episcopate as well as the universal decrees of the undivided church.
In the same stroke, you do realize that the church fathers that RC's like to use as evidence of the Petrine Doctrine are actually self-refuting when read in their entirety? It seems that Rome was preaching a false doctrine in the Petrine primacy doctrine when compared to the early church.
The Anglican Communion's and the Archbishop of Canterbury's response is called Saepius Officio. The gist is this: the Roman argument for the invalidity of Anglican orders rest upon the language of the ordination rite that presents the priest role in the Mass as a sacrificial one was the language that caused the "invalidity of orders". The problem is that, as stated in the article, many of the rites recognized in the Roman church at the time did not contain such language, and the Eastern Orthodox rites never have. At what point then does Rome have a valid point against our apostolic succession? None really. The language was restored in the 1662 Prayer Book. The same Roman Catholic bishops that were in England at the time of the English Reformation recieved valid and licit ordination. You can't just lose true apostolic succession based on schism, and it was these same bishops that ordained CoE priests and bishops. For the Episcopal Church in the US, the matter is moot anyway. Our apostolic succession has been traced through the Scottish Episcopal Church, the pre-English Reformation Church in England, and through Old Catholic succession lines (which, by the way, is considered valid apostolic succession by the Holy Father).
Second: No, you are still wrong about the unity issue based on particulars. We Anglicans accept all of the Ecumenical Councils and profess the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds, as the universal church did until Rome's schism. So those heresies that you speak of have nothing to do about the doctrine of the Anglican Communion because we accept those Councils as well as the Creeds. So we still hold to the true episcopate as well as the universal decrees of the undivided church.
In the same stroke, you do realize that the church fathers that RC's like to use as evidence of the Petrine Doctrine are actually self-refuting when read in their entirety? It seems that Rome was preaching a false doctrine in the Petrine primacy doctrine when compared to the early church.
Ok you may beleive this if you want to. But your wrong.
Ok you may beleive this if you want to. But your wrong.
LOL, well please enlighten me (and I'm not being snarky with that comment). This is a good discussion and a valid one to have. I believe it's a testament to our faith that we can have a good discussion about such things. Saying "you're wrong" and leaving it at that doesn't leave it open to much discussion. I have great respect for my RC brothers and sisters as we have much in common (I almost became one myself), so please don't take it as an attack. I think all of us can learn from such talks.
LOL, well please enlighten me (and I'm not being snarky with that comment). This is a good discussion and a valid one to have. I believe it's a testament to our faith that we can have a good discussion about such things. Saying "you're wrong" and leaving it at that doesn't leave it open to much discussion. I have great respect for my RC brothers and sisters as we have much in common (I almost became one myself), so please don't take it as an attack. I think all of us can learn from such talks.
Sure I will. Take a look at your previous answer to mine and tell me where you think the holes lie in your argument. Be critical of yourself. In other words in your answer to me what did your argument not touch on or not answer? Think about this and evaluate our conversations. Then tell me what you think. Lets make this fun.
OK, sure, as long as you do the same with your posts.
I feel like I addressed the issue of the validity of our episcopate well as far as licit ordination goes. That was the crux of my argument.
You did mention those with valid ordinations preaching heresy in relationship to the universality of the Ecumenical Councils and Creeds. In response, I noted that we Anglicans do adhere to the Ecumenical Councils and the Creeds. So, maybe you were implying that the teaching offices of Anglican bishops (currently) were heretical and thus not Catholic? Is that what you were implying, because if so, I didn't address that. That is certainly another big issue to take on.
OK, sure, as long as you do the same with your posts.
I feel like I addressed the issue of the validity of our episcopate well as far as licit ordination goes. That was the crux of my argument.
You did mention those with valid ordinations preaching heresy in relationship to the universality of the Ecumenical Councils and Creeds. In response, I noted that we Anglicans do adhere to the Ecumenical Councils and the Creeds. So, maybe you were implying that the teaching offices of Anglican bishops (currently) were heretical and thus not Catholic? Is that what you were implying, because if so, I didn't address that. That is certainly another big issue to take on.
What else?
Scott your are doing well. And your done this humbly. Amen! Very perceptive. You have touched on a good point of divide between us and some crucial areas. Yes your teaching offices and its doctrines are one of the main doctrinal points and have been. And yes that is quite a big area for discussion. The question is did the Anglicans teaching authority(Their bishops apart from the Holy Father) have the authority to not beleive the mass was sacrificial at one point(Which some low church anglicans today still hold to). The orthodox and eastern rites have always held to it as sacraficial. The other relates to this and the first about Early Heresies having true ordinations but teaching false teachings therefore their Catholicity is nulled. This is interesting indeed given that there are some episcopal and and low church Anglicans who do not hold to the same doctrines or universal teachings and fgiven that even many anglicans and historians would admit they were protestant and not Catholic. Henry protested agains the Pope because he could mnto get a divorce. Its a shame becauese Henry was once great a defender of the Catholic Church before his version of the english reformation took place.
Linear Mode
