/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>560386

Rome is OK and we like Rome these days. We're even ok with the ordinate. Hopefully we will be in full communion again someday.

>>560389

if you want to be in communion with rome why not become catholic?

I have a question. Where does the Anglicanism legitimacy come form?

>Inb4 rejected divorce

How does that give you legitimacy?

>>560396

The power to bind and loose is held by the bishops and is given to priests in their stead.

>>560393

I really don't think the denominational catfight helps anyone. We're close theologically - ARCIC has done good work. If we could return to the pentarchy with Rome as first among equals, it would be a miracle. Let's all pray for that day.

>>560389

>Rome is OK and we like Rome

Lad…

>>560396

Well Anglicanism isn't just the "divorce church." It's history comes from The Catholic Church in England and Wales, founded by St. Augustine of Canterbury. King Henry VIII didn't want a divorce for no reason, he believed he had a scriptural and canonical argument to get an annulment. When Rome denied it, he split from it but kept it as the Catholic Church not in communion with Rome, like the Old Catholics or the Augustana Catholic Church. It was brought back into communion with Rome by Queen Mary, but her persecutions of protestants lead to her downfall. It was then that Elizabeth turned the Catholic Church in England and Wales into the Church of England, a completely Protestant Church, that had a valid claim to apostolic succession due to the clergy having followed and continuing to follow the proper formula of ordination. Of course, many branches in the CoE have lost apostolic succession due to invalid ordinations of women, for example and groups like the low church puritans never followed valid ordinations, but in large part the Anglican Church continues to have Apostolic Legitimacy and often participates in ecumenicism with both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. This is contrast to the Lutheran Church, which does not have valid apostolic succession because the priests and bishops were just guys Luther agreed with that were never given valid ordinations by any Apostolic Church

>>560422

It should be noted, regarding the last point, that certain Lutheran churches, especially in Scandanavia, have preserved episcopal polity and pass on Apostolic Succession through the laying on of hands, so there are some Lutheran groups with Apostolic Succession like the Anglicans, Orthodox, or Catholic. However, most Lutheran churches, especially the ones in Germany that Martin Luther was involved with, do not have any valid claim to Apostolic Succession.

>>560436

Well you're unfortunately giving me more credit then I'm due right now. I only recently became interested in studying church history. I've been saving reading lists and such, and I hope to continue learning about it. Who knows, I might be forced to begome cause of what I find. I'll make a post about it if I do. Thank you, may God bless you too!

>>560386

I've been contemplating this more and more of late, anon. Don't want to turn this in to a blog post so I'll try and keep it short.

I've experienced the Anglican church in two countries: Sri Lanka and Australia. With regards to the former, the formula of the service/mass mirrors that of the Catholic church very closely, and in general we had a cordial relationship with Catholics.

In Australia the Anglican church is pretty much low church evangelical, and one that harbors strong animosity towards the Catholic church and the Catholic roots of our tradition, or is simply unaware of them. Theology is strongly Calvinist. So yeah, this difference across countries is a bit unsettling.

I guess what saddens me the most about modern day Protestantism is the complete lack of a mystical tradition. I've been reading St John of the Cross and Teresa of Avila and it's something special. Newman's Apologia Pro Vita Sua is another powerful autobiographical testimony that's got me thinking about the Catholic church.

Guess I haven't answered your question… But those are my thoughts at the moment.

>>560400

Article 25 of the Anglican Church denies sacrament of ordination thus you have no apostolic succession nor bishops priests nor binding n loosing

>>560494

are you sri lankan anon?

>>560505

Anglo-Catholics are allowed to and do ignore The 39 Articles

>>560526

No they don't. Their confession is nominal and they also larp women ordination and subject themselves to women bishops.

Anglo-catholicism is the biggest larp around and just a stepping stone before going to Rome or East

t. Ex anglo-catholic

>>560527

Don't get me wrong, the larping was fun and the churches beautiful but it was all style and no substance.

Anglo-catholarps also tend to have the most abhorrent theology which they carry like a plague with them when they inevitably decide to become catholic, such as denial of the church as body of Christ and authority of seat of peter and ecumenical council…

>>560526

So they're a part of a church and pretend that the rules of the church don't apply to them? They're just as illigitimate as any other Anglican priest.

As other anon said, just because you're larping as a Catholic doesn't make you legitimate.

>>560427

>>560422

I was sincerely impressed, I didn't continue this deep into it. Will have to continue further into apostolic succession.

>>560427

Bless you and your studies brother.

>>560505

Do you think it denies the sacrament of marriage too? Article 36 explicitly affirms consecration and the threefold order. 25 means there are some sacraments of the grace of our Lord and some of the life of the church and its people.

>>560566

Yes it denies all sacraments apart from baptism and "the lords supper" whatever that fluff means. However the church does not administer the sacrament of marriage but the couple thus protestants and pagans can still have sacramental marriages.

If they deny the sacrament of ordination then it is meaningless to state orders are possible because orders are only made possible by their sacramental nature: being granted by Christ himself. Without Christ derivation and authority, an order is meaningless. I could ordain myself a bishop, doesn't mean I am one.

>>560579

Shouldn't the article 25 logic apply to this as well then, making all Anglican marriages natural bond due to defect in intent?

>>560647

They are somewhat defective and need to be "re" blessed in the catholic church if I'm not mistaken, just like all civil marriages must be. Does not mean they are invalid because even pagans can marry and the spouses are the ministers of the sacrament not the priest unlike ordination where the bishop is the minister and must intend to sacramentally ordain

>>560519

Yeah, although I only lived there for 3 years. I used to go back frequently though, whenever we had school holidays.

>>560389

>women priest r OK

>mooslims r OK

>canonizing Fisher and More after putting them to death and persecuting Catholics literally making it a death sentence to own De Controversiis, not acknowledging that Fisher and More did and will always oppose your abomination is OK

>dnt wrry gays will be OK one day too just like in Sweden.

>>560411

>we are close theologically

No, honey.

Just one example:

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/leo13/l13curae.htm

>>560783

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/paul06/p6marial.htm

>In the first place, in venerating with particular love the glorious Theotokos and in acclaiming her as the “Hope of Christians,”[94] Catholics unite themselves with their brethren of the Orthodox Churches, in which devotion to the Blessed Virgin finds its expression in a beautiful lyricism and in solid doctrine. Catholics are also united with Anglicans, whose classical theologians have already drawn attention to the sound scriptural basis for devotion to the Mother of our Lord, while those of the present day increasingly underline the importance of Mary’s place in the Christian life. Praising God with the very words of the Virgin (cf. Lk. 1:46-55), they are united, too, with their brethren in the Churches of the Reform, where love for the Sacred Scriptures flourishes.

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/greg16/g16summo.htm

>Finally the same dogma is also expressly mentioned in the profession of faith proposed by the Apostolic See, not only that which all Latin churches use, but also that which the Greek Orthodox Church uses and that which other Eastern Catholics use. We did not mention these selected testimonies because We thought you were ignorant of that article of faith and in need of Our instruction. Far be it from Us to have such an absurd and insulting suspicion about you. But We are so concerned about this serious and well known dogma, which has been attacked with such remarkable audacity, that We could not restrain Our pen from reinforcing this truth with many testimonies.

Getting ecumenist if you look at the right parts.

I don't mean to say that this text is ecumenist(It only praises those churches as far as they follow the Catholic order), but still.

Are Anglo-Catholics in communion with the super pozzed churches in the Anglican Communion like the Episcopals? If so why?

>>561060

Yes. Anglo-catholic are just as pozzed with sodomite and women orders, they just larp as catholics

>>561077

We are all Christians. All that separates us is your sanctimony.

>>561633

So you're saying Catholics are holy and Anglicans aren't? Interesting…

>>561637

>sanctimony:

> pretended, affected, or hypocritical religious devotion, righteousness, etc.

>Obsolete. sanctity; sacredness.

I don't know what kind of soylent they're feeding you over there in papist town but sanctimony is not a good thing.

>>560386

We won the war

>>561633

Your apostasy and secularisation under the guise of tolerance and buddy Jesus is what separates us friend. Also your lack of holy orders.

Funny how I am always being accused of being self-righteous by offended Anglicans for merely practicing the laws of Christ. It's almost like it is too hard for them to hear.

>>561698

Your apostasy and secularisation under the guise of tolerance and buddy Jesus is what separates us friend. Also your lack of Turks

Funny how I am always being accused of being self-righteous by offended Latins for merely practicing the laws of Christ. It's almost like it is too hard for them to hear.

>>561633

>I have no argument yet I must REEEE

>>561707

>Doesn't follow traditions of the apostles

>Had a break in ordinations running back to the apostles

>Is apostolic

To call Anglicans apostolics you would need to be retarded enough to think Baptists aren't Protestants

>>561649

>From Middle French sanctimonie, from Latin sānctimōnia (“sanctity, sacredness; purity, chastity”), from sanctus (“holy”) + -monia (“action or result of an action”).

>>561739

You can't just look up the roots of a word and use that as the current definition of the word.

>>561709

Rome disagrees.

http://www.thetablet.co.uk/news/7068/0/anglican-orders-not-invalid-says-cardinal-opening-way-for-revision-of-current-catholic-position-

>>561945

Anglican orders have been stated to be utter invalid twice ex cathedra. That is Rome's dogmatic proclamation. One cardinal's opinion on something fluffy does not count as what Rome says.

>>561945

>Pope Leo XIII remark[ed] that Anglican orders are “absolutely null and utterly void”

<Rome disagrees

Can you read?

>>562208

I read the article, it indicates modern Rome is trying to find a loophole to what Leo XIII daid. It wouldn't be the first time the Catholic church interpreted things differently than previous popes. Schismatics used to be damned, etc. Rome changes with the times to please people.

>>562223

*said

>>562223

>the article indicates…

The article indicates one or two bishops are looking for a loophole. The Holy See itself is not. You can't take the word of two individuals and apply it as true across the whole–that's fallacious reasoning.

>It wouldn't be the first time the Catholic church interpreted things differently than previous popes. Schismatics used to be damned, etc. Rome changes with the times to please people.

You know, just because you repeat a false statement more and more doesn't make it true.

>>562269

>You know, just because you repeat a false statement more and more doesn't make it true.

“The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.”

Pope Eugene IV, Papal Bull Cantate Domino (1442) Promulgated during a solemn session at the Ecumenical Council of Florence, using the strongest authoritative language seemingly fulfilling Vatican I’s criteria for infallibility.

>>562351

extra ecclesiam nulla salus

Nothing changed, brah

>>562512

Why are all the Catholics on this board convinced 'orthobros' may go to heaven when the pope said all of them are going to hell?

>>562528

Not all "orthobros" are schismatics, in fact I would hazard that most are ignorant of the schism or desire union with Rome but they have no Roman parish nearby. They are still part of the catholic church thus are saved and are not committing the sin of schism. Those who commit the mortal sin of schism and protest Rome however go to hell.

>>562552

>I would hazard that most are ignorant of the schism or desire union with Rome but they have no Roman parish nearby

Seems like a huge assumption and pretty unlikely IMHO. Most orthos on this board for example are surely aware of the schism and show no interest in becoming Catholic. Yet the attitude of Catholics on this board is that the orthos here are pretty much on good terms with God.

>>562660

It is indeed an assumption and I was thinking more of the average Greek or Russian native parishoner who probably has no concept of church hierarchy beyond his priest. Indeed the majority of easterners on this board do outright reject the Pope thus are destined for hell unless they repent their schism

>>562351

Salvation is from the free gift of God, by grace alone through faith. This is the clear conclusion of the NT. Take great care on this point.

>>562552

>They are still part of the catholic church thus are saved

No they aren't.

>>562887

OK, justify why they aren't.

As we know from St Ignatius of Antioch the church in its wholeness and universality exists with the bishop. This is because of the ability of the bishop to consecrate the Eucharist which IS the Catholic church. Eastern orders and Eucharist are valid, how can the Eucharist exist outside of the catholic church?