Anglo-Catholic?

[PaladinValer]

Then what are you complaning about?

Do you think it is right for someone to say "I've never met an X who didn't believe in 1, 2, 3, and 4" when he knows otherwise...and such can be proven?

Would Open Evangelicals like it if I said "I didn't know one Open Evangelical who didn't believe in the abolition of bishops, the forced removal of vestments, the replacement of the BCP, and the end of liturgy"? Forget the idea of "turning the other cheek" for a second; is it morally correct for me to claim such? For the record, I do know of many Open Evangelicals who would have serious problems if those things were to come to pass...

The point of the matter is one of principle. I wouldn't say my example above because I know it isn't true because I've seen otherwise...and there are those here who would call me on it if I were to...and they'd be right to do so.

The other point is one of an implied accusation. Anglo-Catholicism is about the emphasis on the Catholicity of the Church. I am an Anglo-Catholic. I reject the College of Cardinals, I reject Papacy, I reject Papal Infallibility via ex cathedra, I reject transubstantiationism, I reject their idea of purgatory, I reject the dogmatization of the Assumption (and the belief itself), I absolutely reject the Immaculate Conception of St. Mary the Theotokos, and I reject the idea that one must follow the Roman liturgy, 3rd Edition Missal or the Extraordinary Form, in order to have a valid or even "right" liturgy and sacraments. Some might even say "well that's just "Old School" High-Churchship then, not real Anglo-Catholicism, and that's also incorrect because it IS Anglo-Catholicism.

My point is, equating Anglo-Catholicism with Anglo-Papism is just as wrong as equating Open-Evangelicalism with Crypto-Calvinism/Presbyterianism. It just isn't right.

 

[Rurik]

Wow, I ask you what you think the big topic should be. You give me an answer and I asked you what you are going to do about it. Then you go on with a tirade about evangelical vs anglo catholicism. You have the power to change the topic of converstation but for what you think the big issues are but you continue with this debate.

 

[PaladinValer]

Wow, I ask you what you think the big topic should be.

You asked me a question about what my issue was and I gave it, which, by the way, is in part how pointless the Open-Evangelical/Anglo-Catholic debate it. The other part was why it is, and offered an illustration of its unfortunate continuation through misapplication of definitions and terms.

You give me an answer and I asked you what you are going to do about it. Then you go on with a tirade about evangelical vs anglo catholicism. You have the power to change the topic of converstation but for what you think the big issues are but you continue with this debate.

My questions for you remains unanswered: Do you believe Albion's mislabeling is right? Based solely on principle, do you believe that I have a point on why the entire Open-Evangelical/Anglo-Catholic (when the terms are used rightly and correctly and when the individuals are truly thinking in line with those terms) is ridiculous.

I have no problems with people explaining the difference between the two. That's a valid and important...even vital discussion. I do believe, however, that the entire quest to say "well this is what they really believe" is nothing more than the regurgitation of 19th century venom from either side.

Also, I don't have the power to change the topic. The topic is set by the OP, who merely asked what it is when Eastern Christian thought is brought into the equation. I answered and then rebutted an incorrect accusation, and now, I am explaining why and I am leaving it at that.

 

[Anna Scott]

. . . .Also, I don't have the power to change the topic. The topic is set by the OP, who merely asked what it is when Eastern Christian thought is brought into the equation. I answered and then rebutted an incorrect accusation, and now, I am explaining why and I am leaving it at that.

PaladinValer,

Agreed. The topic is set by the OP. The thread took a turn in the wrong direction, when assumptions and inappropriate comments were made about Anglo Catholics--which we've answered.

I agree that we should leave it at that and return to the OP:

The thread about similarities between Anglicanism and Orthodoxy got me thinking. Is it possible to be an Anglo-Catholic while having Orthodox beliefs about sacraments, sin, the role of Mary etc.? Or is an Anglo-Catholic defined as one who is theologically very close to Rome? Would this hypothetical Anglican be in a different category? Just curious.

Anna

 

[Rurik]

You asked me a question about what my issue was and I gave it, which, by the way, is in part how pointless the Open-Evangelical/Anglo-Catholic debate it. The other part was why it is, and offered an illustration of its unfortunate continuation through misapplication of definitions and terms.

You gave me an answer and I asked you what are you doing to do about it. You are the one who continued to flog the dead horse.

My questions for you remains unanswered: Do you believe Albion's mislabeling is right? Based solely on principle, do you believe that I have a point on why the entire Open-Evangelical/Anglo-Catholic (when the terms are used rightly and correctly and when the individuals are truly thinking in line with those terms) is ridiculous.

I have not enterd that debate and chose not to. There is no point in me entering it and I am not going to.

I have no problems with people explaining the difference between the two. That's a valid and important...even vital discussion. I do believe, however, that the entire quest to say "well this is what they really believe" is nothing more than the regurgitation of 19th century venom from either side.

I agree.

Also, I don't have the power to change the topic. The topic is set by the OP, who merely asked what it is when Eastern Christian thought is brought into the equation. I answered and then rebutted an incorrect accusation, and now, I am explaining why and I am leaving it at that.

You can change the topic. It is called start a new thred.

 

[mark46]

I agree with almost all that you have posted.

Please clarify your emphasis on the RCC dogma of the Immaculate Conception. For our Eastern brothers, this dogmatic error is simply a silly one. For me, once one rejects the Western understanding of ancestral sin, the very idea of Immaculate Conception becomes irrelevant. I agree that it is doctrinal error and an addition by the RCC, but this dogma to me is a small matter. I view the Assumption of Mary in a similar way. Yes, the RCC view is impaired compared to that of the East, but that is a small difference compared to the views of most Anglicans, many of whom have little place for Mary in their theology, liturgy or practice.

You reject the Roman view of purgatory, and embrace the view of our Eastern brothers. You reject transubstantiation (an unnecessary explanation of the mystery). It seems that this list is a list of where you disagree with the RCC. That's fine. You clearly have as many differences from many/most Anglicans. The only reason you seem more "orthodox" Anglican is because there is nothing generally agreed on in Anglicanism to disagree with, other than the ant-RCC positions you mention.

I have left the issue of patriarchs for last. Clearly the RCC overstepped in making any dogmatic additions. The papal dogmas are the most offending, and as stated, the most wrong.

For me, the pope is the Patriarch of Western Europe. It was so for 1500 years. If the ABC were accepted as the Patriarch of the English Church, I think that we would see our differences are less severe than they seem at first. Who is the first among equals? The RCC claims more for its Patriarch. Is there a first among equals? I think it reasonable for an apostolic Church to have a first among equals at any given point in the history of the Church. If the first among equals were the Patriarch of Constantinople, perhaps this ideas wouldn't provide such offense.

just my 2 cents.

The other point is one of an implied accusation. Anglo-Catholicism is about the emphasis on the Catholicity of the Church. I am an Anglo-Catholic. I reject the College of Cardinals, I reject Papacy, I reject Papal Infallibility via ex cathedra, I reject transubstantiationism, I reject their idea of purgatory, I reject the dogmatization of the Assumption (and the belief itself), I absolutely reject the Immaculate Conception of St. Mary the Theotokos, and I reject the idea that one must follow the Roman liturgy, 3rd Edition Missal or the Extraordinary Form, in order to have a valid or even "right" liturgy and sacraments. Some might even say "well that's just "Old School" High-Churchship then, not real Anglo-Catholicism, and that's also incorrect because it IS Anglo-Catholicism.

My point is, equating Anglo-Catholicism with Anglo-Papism is just as wrong as equating Open-Evangelicalism with Crypto-Calvinism/Presbyterianism. It just isn't right.

 

[MKJ]

For me, the pope is the Patriarch of Western Europe. It was so for 1500 years. If the ABC were accepted as the Patriarch of the English Church, I think that we would see our differences are less severe than they seem at first. Who is the first among equals? The RCC claims more for its Patriarch. Is there a first among equals? I think it reasonable for an apostolic Church to have a first among equals at any given point in the history of the Church. If the first among equals were the Patriarch of Constantinople, perhaps this ideas wouldn't provide such offense.

Mark, I have heard you mention numerous times that the ABC should be the patriarch of the English Church. Where do you get this from? There is absolutely no historical reason this should be the case other than the fact that Rome is in error.

The English Church has always been part of the Western Church, and it recognized that itself.

On what basis do you say that if Rome had itself in order, the English Church wouldn't fall under the jurisdiction of the Patriarch of the West?

 

[PaladinValer]

Mark, I have heard you mention numerous times that the ABC should be the patriarch of the English Church. Where do you get this from? There is absolutely no historical reason this should be the case other than the fact that Rome is in error.

The English Church has always been part of the Western Church, and it recognized that itself.

On what basis do you say that if Rome had itself in order, the English Church wouldn't fall under the jurisdiction of the Patriarch of the West?

Well, it doesn't help when that very ancient ecclesiastical title has been dropped by the Bishop of Rome.

Quite honestly, Canterbury is an older see than Moscow or Kiev. Given its long history, it could easily qualify to be given patriarchal status by a future Ecumenical Council.

 

[mark46]

You seem to accept the Bishop of Rome as head of the Western Church. If we agree on such, then we are but petulant schismatics and should go home to Rome.

As PV points out, in an Ecumenical Council, the ABC should get a seat the same as any of the Eastern patriarchs.

Why would you accept the several eastern patriarchs and only one patriarch in the West?

Mark, I have heard you mention numerous times that the ABC should be the patriarch of the English Church. Where do you get this from? There is absolutely no historical reason this should be the case other than the fact that Rome is in error.

The English Church has always been part of the Western Church, and it recognized that itself.

On what basis do you say that if Rome had itself in order, the English Church wouldn't fall under the jurisdiction of the Patriarch of the West?

 

[mark46]

In the end, if the Bishop of Rome is indeed the Patriarch of the West, including England and the Americas, then we should accept him as our Patriarch. Whether he also has authority over Constantinople is of relatively little consequence to us. Surely, this nuance cannot be a reason to have a separate Church.

Of course, the answer is that we do not accept the Bishop of Rome as our Patriarch.

See below for English Church history from an Orthodox perspective.

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Timeline_of_Orthodoxy_in_the_British_Isles

 

[MKJ]

In the end, if the Bishop of Rome is indeed the Patriarch of the West, including England and the Americas, then we should accept him as our Patriarch. Whether he also has authority over Constantinople is of relatively little consequence to us. Surely, this nuance cannot be a reason to have a separate Church.

Of course, the answer is that we do not accept the Bishop of Rome as our Patriarch.

See below for English Church history from an Orthodox perspective.

Timeline of Orthodoxy in the British Isles - OrthodoxWiki

This is not new information, and it doesn't support your position. They synod of Whitby recognized the Bishop of Rome as its legitimate patriarch.

A patriarch doesn't exist because someone thinks it should. It just doesn't. They exist as historical positions, and there have been ways to create new ones, but that was never done for the English Church. Could it be done in the future? Who knows? It hasn't been done.

It doesn't have anything to do with whether it is "fair" for the East to have several patriarchs and the West to have only one. That is the way it is, no one, including the modern Orthodox Church, has ever created another Western patriarch. You don't just say you want your own patriarch and then you get one.

The Synod of Whitby - an English synod - recognized, with very little fuss, the authority of the Bishop of Rome as their patriarch. The bishops of England have always and historically recognized the bishop of Rome as their patriarch. When they stopped recognizing him it was because they believed he was in serious error in the kind of power he was claiming as patriarch - that is, there was cause for schism. Not that there was no historical claim to the title of patriarch of the West.

To try and claim otherwise is just historical imagination. It didn't happen. That is not how the system of patriarchs works or ever did work.

If that is your justification for being in schism from Rome, you have a problem, because it is a castle in the sky. It is an invention.

If you want to believe that the ABC is rightfully the patriarch of the CofE you will have to show a pre-Reformation example of where he was ever addressed or recognized as such, or was made such, and you will have to explain away the Synod of Whitby and all the years where the Entire Church including the English Church recognized the Bishop of Rome as the legitimate and sole patriarch of the West.


Yes, we are schismatics. That is why we are in schism from Rome and the East, and I am not sure how you could have overlooked that. The question is whether the schism is justified. It continues to flummox me that some Anglicans manage to tell themselves we are just a branch of the one unified apostolic Church when they know they can't go into a Roman, Orthodox, or Coptic Church on any given Sunday and communicate.