Anglican view on the Roman Catholic Church?

[ebia]

How does Anglicans criticize the Pope's leadership when the leader of the Anglicans is the King of England that, amazingly, in the XXI century, cannot marry a Catholic?

The criticism of the Pope is not outlandish, when we see Anglican's own Leadership?

I would like to see a clear response to this as it puzzles me the criticism of the Pope, an exceptional theologian and a man of great integrity!

Am I seeing red or am I missing something.

The monarch is not the head of Anglicanism, only of the Church of England ( and even there its in name only).

 

[Albion]

How does Anglicans criticize the Pope's leadership when the leader of the Anglicans is the King of England that, amazingly, in the XXI century, cannot marry a Catholic?

Well, the ruler of the Roman Catholic Church isn't allowed to marry an Anglican, is he?

I would like to see a clear response to this as it puzzles me the criticism of the Pope, an exceptional theologian and a man of great integrity!

If that were all there was to his position, you probably wouldn't be hearing many objections.

 

[Albion]

Reflection of the Gospels did not stop with the Last Apostles. From then on, much thinking has been done, all of which has got the background on the Gospels. Since then, it was discovered the Solar System, the Universe, the evolution of species and much science.

So....modern man has disproved the Gospels. Is that what you are trying to tell us?

 

[Pfaffenhofen]

<edit>
Would you mind to explain to me the difference between the Church of England and Anglicanism? Who is the Head of Anglicanism?

Thanks.

 

[ebia]

<edit>

Would you mind to explain to me the difference between the Church of England and Anglicanism? Who is the Head of Anglicanism?

Thanks.

The church of England is the Anglican church there. Each country (roughly) is independent, bound together by communion and bonds of affection, not hierarchy. The Archbishop of Canterbury is first among equals.

 

[ebia]

The only thing that stays is that the reigning monarch or monarchs are required to be members of the Church of England.

Except when they are in scotland when they need to be Church of Scotland (Presbyterian)

 

[PaladinValer]

Except when they are in scotland when they need to be Church of Scotland (Presbyterian)

It should be Anglican...

...which reminds me: St. Charles Stuart's feast is this month

 

[ebia]

Thanks for the explanation.

Are you sure? So why the protocol? The rubber stamping of the PM, and so on? For me, it would be unacceptable... Why not discard it all and scra the system

because a if it ain't doing any practical harm the process that would be needed is excessive and
B. It's tied up with establishment. It wouldn't get changed without full disestablishment and many feel that the benefits of an established church outweigh a bit of inconsequential historical non-issue.

Though the Queen does not interfere, it is yet the Head! Theologically, it is unacceptable. No King won over Bishops in the Middle Ages becoming the head of a diocisis and no Emperor ever won over the Pope becoming an Entity over the Pope. I know there were fights during the middle ages, those warriors times, but the Civil Power never won. IT could influence greatly (let's remember that the Church had to built the Conclave, a highly restricted election of the Pope, to avoid totally the influence of the Italian aristocracy!) but never won to the point of becoming an entity on top of the religious one.

in practice English monarchs were appointing most bishops for centuries before the reformation. And many other monarchs telling popes what to do.

 

[PaladinValer]

in practice English monarchs were appointing most bishops for centuries before the reformation. And many other monarchs telling popes what to do.

This needed to be said again.

 

[ebia]

This needed to be said again.

In other words what changed was simply what the articles express as "The Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this Realm of England.". Other than that the Kings role didn't change markedly.

 

[Rurik]

I think that one of the big reasons for Monarch/govermemt aporval of the appoiment of Bishops in England is that a bishop ( in my understanding, remember i am an australian) has a seat in the house of lords. Therfore need to be acceptable to the government of the day.

 

[seeking_perfection]

I think that one of the big reasons for Monarch/govermemt aporval of the appoiment of Bishops in England is that a bishop ( in my understanding, remember i am an australian) has a seat in the house of lords. Therfore need to be acceptable to the government of the day.

Interesting point but I'm not sure that's correct. If anything, I would have thought the Lords Spiritual should not necessarily be to the liking of the Government. I think it has more to do with the Crown's delegated responsibility.

I assume in times past that it would have been down to who the Crown wished to become bishop but now that the church 'advises' and the Crown delegates to the Prime Minister, there's not so much picking involved. Could be wrong though

 

[Rurik]

I think you need to look at them as land holders and not as anything to do with the church.

 

[luckyfredsdad]

[/quote]in practice English monarchs were appointing most bishops for centuries before the reformation. And many other monarchs telling popes what to do.[/QUOTE]

The English Monarch was the Chief Magistrate in this country and as such he had a duty to see that the Church in Britain, or later England lived up to the laws of the land. This was no different in the lands were the Pope was chief magistrate in the North of Italy, or indeed in the city of Rome.
The Bishop of Rome gained his authority, apart from that inherent in his status as a Catholic Bishop, from being leg man, or runner to the Roman Emperors, i.e. Constantine and the Valentinians. Asa trade off for the popes assistannce in Governing, he was allowed to use the Roman Stasi! In S.Leo's time that man had a Doctor of the Church arrested and carted over the Alps by the Civil Police. Luckily the Doctor from Lerins escaped.

In Britain the attitude to the Bishop of Rome scarcely changed till the middle ages and is reflected in the words attributed to S.Dinooth and aimed at Augustine the Monk.
"Be it known and declared that we all, individually and collectively, are in all humility prepared to defer to the Church of God and to the Bishop of Rome and to every sincere and Godly Christian, so far as to love everyone according to his degree, in perfect charity and to assist them all by word and in deed in becoming the Children of God.But as for any other obedience, we know none that he, whom you term the Pope, or Bishop of Bishops, can demand . The deference we have mentioned we are ready to pay to him as to every other Christian, but in all other respects our obedience is due to the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Caerleon, who is alone under God our ruler to keep us in the way of salvation."

Spelman. Conciia ,pp 108/109. Haddon & Stubbs Vol! .p122 .

From Saxon times the Roman Pontiff has had no authority in either scripture ,tradition or history to intrude his ecclesiastical authority on this country!
He could not send legates, Bulls, or any commission without the authority of the state and England wasn't the only country either, the powers of the poe waere severely restricted in many countries. Mark you, his spiritual authority as a Catholic bishop was respected fully, but according to the Canons of the Seven Councils the Bishop of Rome has no authority outside his own Jurisdiction except that given by the Emperor or the Seven Councils.

 

[Albion]

in practice English monarchs were appointing most bishops for centuries before the reformation. And many other monarchs telling popes what to do.

Exactly. That was particularly true in the pre-Reformation German states, and it took the Papacy a long time before a compromise was efffected in which the princes STILL made the decision as to the pool of candidates from which the Church would choose the next bishop. The easy-answer "Anglican bishops are not valid because of Henry VIII" crowd hasn't the first inkling of these facts or the others you outlined here.

 

[elahmine]

<edit> Look, the RC and the Anglican Communion disagree. If they didn't disagree, we would be one church. At present time, there is not much getting around this. However, the way you are speaking about our church is offensive. It is also against CF rules to debate against our theology here. I don't think you like any better some of the insults hurled at the RC church. I heard one, that I don't agree with from what an RC priest heard, that RC was the lady (don't want to use the other word) of Babylon mentioned in Revelation.

 

[Pfaffenhofen]

Look, the RC and the Anglican Communion disagree. If they didn't disagree, we would be one church. At present time, there is not much getting around this. However, the way you are speaking about our church is offensive. It is also against CF rules to debate against our theology here. I don't think you like any better some of the insults hurled at the RC church. I heard one, that I don't agree with from what an RC priest heard, that RC was the lady (don't want to use the other word) of Babylon mentioned in Revelation.

I have heard that insult before.
Well, I stay. I have been warned before and I thanked every bit of critics they have done for they were right. They were very precise on what I did wrong what helped to know myself.. I try to follow the rule. If the moderators expel me, they have a right to do so. It is their place, I did not pay anything to be here, so I cannot complain. I am in CAF but If I want to know Protestant, I must be where they are. If I am unwelcome, be it...I have no rights, I know...
Once upon a time, before Luther, we agreed, right? The, we disagreed, right? Then we can change positions. So, we can agree again, right? We are not statues, immutable. Jesus said: "That they will be one flock and one Shepherd". Jesus wants Unity. St Paul cried: "Is Christ divided?. How come one says that one if of Paul another is of Peter?". Since the beginning there were 2 forces: separation and unity. Unity must win, that is what Jesus wants.
Now I tell 2 stories to explain you why I am talking this way.
I was in Camden Town 1 month in London. On Sunday, I went to a mass and saw the timetable in a beautiful Gothic Church. It was time, so we went on. We followed a limping lady. She entered and we too. Inside, there was a gentleman and a lady. The limping lady asked: "Is this a RCChurch?" The gentleman said no and she replied: "I am exhausted. God is the same. I stay here". I was deeply embarrassed for I knew I was in the wrong door. I asked the same question and the gentleman very gently showed me the way to the RCChurch nearby. We left that amazing Gothic Church on the time of the mass with the Pastor and one person to the Mass. We got to the Catholic Church, an horribly ugly building which was full of people singing and praying. I was surprised for I thought all English were Protestant.
The next Sunday we went to center of London and passed through the beautiful Westminster Abbey which, for my surprise, was almost a museum. And then we sent to Westminster Cathedral, a dubious style (byzantine) uncompleted Cathedral where I participated in the most beautiful mass I ever participated in my Life. The organist was so full of enthusiasm that blew the trumpets too much and a lady in front of me stared up looking if he had gone mad. My wife still mentions that mass and we have been all over Europe: Rome, Madrid, Paris (Notre Dame).

That is why I told that sentence.

 

[ebia]

I have heard that insult before.
Well, I stay. I have been warned before and I thanked every bit of critics they have done for they were right. They were very precise on what I did wrong what helped to know myself.. I try to follow the rule. If the moderators expel me, they have a right to do so. It is their place, I did not pay anything to be here, so I cannot complain. I am in CAF but If I want to know Protestant, I must be where they are. If I am unwelcome, be it...I have no rights, I know...
Once upon a time, before Luther, we agreed, right? The, we disagreed, right? Then we can change positions. So, we can agree again, right? We are not statues, immutable. Jesus said: "That they will be one flock and one Shepherd". Jesus wants Unity. St Paul cried: "Is Christ divided?. How come one says that one if of Paul another is of Peter?". Since the beginning there were 2 forces: separation and unity. Unity must win, that is what Jesus wants.
Now I tell 2 stories to explain you why I am talking this way.
I was in Camden Town 1 month in London. On Sunday, I went to a mass and saw the timetable in a beautiful Gothic Church. It was time, so we went on. We followed a limping lady. She entered and we too. Inside, there was a gentleman and a lady. The limping lady asked: "Is this a RCChurch?" The gentleman said no and she replied: "I am exhausted. God is the same. I stay here". I was deeply embarrassed for I knew I was in the wrong door. I asked the same question and the gentleman very gently showed me the way to the RCChurch nearby. We left that amazing Gothic Church on the time of the mass with the Pastor and one person to the Mass. We got to the Catholic Church, an horribly ugly building which was full of people singing and praying. I was surprised for I thought all English were Protestant.
The next Sunday we went to center of London and passed through the beautiful Westminster Abbey which, for my surprise, was almost a museum. And then we sent to Westminster Cathedral, a dubious style (byzantine) uncompleted Cathedral where I participated in the most beautiful mass I ever participated in my Life. The organist was so full of enthusiasm that blew the trumpets too much and a lady in front of me stared up looking if he had gone mad. My wife still mentions that mass and we have been all over Europe: Rome, Madrid, Paris (Notre Dame).

That is why I told that sentence.

You'll also find Anglican churches that are vibrant and thriving.

The CofE has, because of history, way more buildings than it needs - absurdly many in London.

The Abbey is effectively the state chapel. That's it's peculiar legal position. St Paul's is one of the world's most famous tourist attractions. Neither are suitable places to judge the state of the CofE.

Btw I love Westminster Cathedral - especially the building.

 

[Pfaffenhofen]

No one has a problem with you being here and asking questions; however, you have been coming off as insulting. Please be more careful in the future.

This week I was remembered that the Pope was the harlot of Babylon. I did not feel insulted, for the Pope is always insulted and Jesus was crucified.

Sorry, for me, I am not insulting. But if you feel so, I do not want to go on hurting people. Moreover, hurting people without intention. It is meaningless...

I feel like a bull in a crystal shop...

 

[elahmine]

This week I was remembered that the Pope was the harlot of Babylon. I did not feel insulted, for the Pope is always insulted and Jesus was crucified.

Well, I probably shouldn't have mentioned it all anyway. Sorry. However, I made it very obvious that I totally disagreed with the idea. I was just pointing out that making statements like that is hurtful on both ends. I did not actually made an insult. I was trying to make an argument against insults.