Justified Saint Posted April 29, 2004 Author Share Posted April 29, 2004 Isn't the skill of cutting and pasting so liberating? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellenita Posted April 29, 2004 Share Posted April 29, 2004 [quote]The Vatican allows for married Episcopalian priests to become Catholic priests....... I'm not an expert on protestant denominations but isn't Episcopalian and Anglican kinda the same thing? Wouldn't it be possible then for the author to become a Catholic priest?[/quote] Yes, you and Sojourner are both right - episcopalian is the term used for anglicans in the US. He would be able to become a Catholic priest, though I don't think he would be able to become a bishop if he was hoping for that in the future - the married anglican bishop of London who became Catholic was given a different 'title' because he couldn't remain as bishop. I suppose I was also thinking of very practical things like giving up his home, his pension and so on. Reading what he has written it is very difficult to understand why he hasn't become Catholic, except that for anglican priests I think it probably takes time - because of the origins of the anglican church it appears to mirror much of the structure of the catholic church, so I suspect that many anglican priests believe they have apostolic succession - the recognition that this isn't the case must be very painful. I would be surprised if this particular priest doesn't become catholic though - the logic of his own argument is already leading him 'home'! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeWeStCoNvErT Posted April 30, 2004 Share Posted April 30, 2004 [quote]Perhaps, but coming from a Protestant perspective it is very suitable and ideal for interfaith dialogue. Maybe it needs to be in both. [/quote] Are you talking about Dave Armstrong becuase im pretty sure if he is catholic,IF your not talking about Dave ARmstrong than im really lost.Oh FYI im new to the board PAX, Joyce Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CreepyCrawler Posted April 30, 2004 Share Posted April 30, 2004 but weren't the original anglicans all catholic priests but left, just like the orthodox. if the orthodox have the apostolic tradition, why don't the anglicans? just wundrin'... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crusader_4 Posted April 30, 2004 Share Posted April 30, 2004 I am not positive but i believe it has to do with the rites and how the Bishops were chosen later on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crusader_4 Posted April 30, 2004 Share Posted April 30, 2004 This guys site is great. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Katholikos Posted May 1, 2004 Share Posted May 1, 2004 [quote name='CreepyCrawler' date='Apr 30 2004, 04:30 PM'] but weren't the original anglicans all catholic priests but left, just like the orthodox. if the orthodox have the apostolic tradition, why don't the anglicans? just wundrin'... [/quote] The Orthodox were originally Catholic. When they split from the Church, they retained the Apostolic Succession unbroken to this day. So they have validly ordained bishop and priests. And therefore they have valid sacraments. When the Anglicans split, they maintained the Apostolic Succession only until the reign of Edward VI. He was thoroughly Protestant and changed the rite of ordination. Under the "Edwardian Ordinal" it was no longer stated or believed that priests offered sacrifice. No sacrifice, no valid priesthood. Once broken, they couldn't restore it. That's the very definition of a priest: one who offers sacrifice. That's why Protestant clergy are called "ministers" or "pastors." Protestants don't believe in sacrifice. Episcopalians and Anglicans still insist on calling their clery "priests" but they're not. They're just copy-cat Catholics. Anglican/Episcopalian priests are ordained "de novo" (anew, for the first time) if they convert. The need to offer sacrifice is human nature -- buried deep in the human psyche -- and is fulfilled only in the Catholic Church in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. You can read about the sacrifice in the the "Teaching of the 12 Apostles" in the first century. Thomas Seabury brought the beliefs of the Church of England to the U.S. in the 1700s and renamed it "Episcopalian." But there's no allegiance to the Queen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellenita Posted May 1, 2004 Share Posted May 1, 2004 There were also political reasons why the Anglican church had to secure the original split with Catholic church - there had been wholesale ransacking of the catholic church and monastries which had started during Henry VIII's reign, with the result that alot of the men in power owed their fortunes to stolen money. It was important to them that the break with the Pope, and ultimately apostolic succession was total and complete. Thomas Cromwell (a relative of Oliver Cromwell), Thomas Cranmer, (who became arch bishop of Canturbury and re wrote the liturgy) and William Cecil (who was in power under Elizabeth I, and who had Mary, the Catholic queen of Scotland, murdered), were three of the main players who set about systematically destroying the Catholic church in England, to the extent that a priest celebrating Mass could be put to death. Many were martyred. Hilaire Belloc writes about the central players in his book 'Characters of the Reformation' - it's a good read! It's also helpful in understanding why the anglican church came about. It's interesting that he says that Pope Clement VII, when faced with making the decision about granting Henry VIII the divorce could have played politics which would have meant that England would have remained Catholic, but it would also have resulted in ultimately undermining the authority of the Pope and the Catholic church. Belloc says as a historian he is loathe to use the term 'supernatural intervention' but in this case he is convinced that God intervened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RandomProddy Posted May 2, 2004 Share Posted May 2, 2004 [quote name='Ellenita' date='May 1 2004, 01:55 PM'] It's interesting that he says that Pope Clement VII, when faced with making the decision about granting Henry VIII the divorce could have played politics which would have meant that England would have remained Catholic, [/quote] Whether England would have given birth to the Industrial Revolution and the British Empire under Catholic rule is a different matter.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellenita Posted May 2, 2004 Share Posted May 2, 2004 Agreed, RandomProddy .......however I might not argue that they were necessarily good things......the pay off was too great and sadly we see the fruits of it now, increasing secularisation on one hand and the growth of Islam on the other - will we even be a Christian country in 50 years time?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RandomProddy Posted May 4, 2004 Share Posted May 4, 2004 [quote name='Ellenita' date='May 3 2004, 12:51 AM'] Agreed, RandomProddy .......however I might not argue that they were necessarily good things......the pay off was too great and sadly we see the fruits of it now, increasing secularisation on one hand and the growth of Islam on the other - will we even be a Christian country in 50 years time?! [/quote] 50 years? I don't think this country is Christian today.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PedroX Posted May 4, 2004 Share Posted May 4, 2004 Random Proddy, The UK allowed Catholicism in order to build the Industrial Revolution and the Empire. It needed more men to fight in the army, and produce capital. Without Catholics, I'm not sure it could have been accomplished. Another question would be: Could England have become the first representative democracy if the monarchy had remained Catholic? peace... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RandomProddy Posted May 4, 2004 Share Posted May 4, 2004 [quote name='PedroX' date='May 4 2004, 02:46 AM'] Random Proddy, The UK allowed Catholicism in order to build the Industrial Revolution and the Empire. It needed more men to fight in the army, and produce capital. Without Catholics, I'm not sure it could have been accomplished. [/quote] As the saying goes up in the North of England: "the English design it and the Irish build it". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RandomProddy Posted May 4, 2004 Share Posted May 4, 2004 [quote name='PedroX' date='May 4 2004, 02:46 AM'] Another question would be: Could England have become the first representative democracy if the monarchy had remained Catholic? [/quote] We started it under Catholicism. "1. In the first place we have granted to God, and by this our present charter confirmed for us and our heirs forever that the [b]English Church[/b] shall be free, and shall have her rights entire, and her liberties inviolate; and we will that it be thus observed; which is apparent from this that the freedom of elections, which is reckoned most important and very essential to the English Church, we, of our pure and unconstrained will, did grant, and did by our charter confirm and did obtain the ratification of the same from our lord, Pope Innocent III, before the quarrel arose between us and our barons: and this we will observe, and our will is that it be observed in good faith by our heirs forever. We have also granted to all freemen of our kingdom, for us and our heirs forever, all the underwritten liberties, to be had and held by them and their heirs, of us and our heirs forever." first clause from the "Great Charter" (Magna Carta), which layed down some of the law of the land to which the King couldn't contradict. This was dated.... .. 1215 [url="http://www.cs.indiana.edu/statecraft/magna-carta.html"]http://www.cs.indiana.edu/statecraft/magna-carta.html[/url] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PedroX Posted May 4, 2004 Share Posted May 4, 2004 Random Proddy, Good Call on the Magna Carta, but not quite what I was asking. The Magna Carta did not really establish a representative democracy, or better yet a parlimentarian monarchy. Do you think that the development of representative parliament and the comparative decline of the monarchy were a result of a Protestant Reformation? I have long puzzled over this, and am uncertain whether the seeds were indeed sown by the Magna Carta, or by the Reformation. Any thoughts? Any other blokes want to weigh in on this? (Adeotious, Ellenita, Don John?) peace... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now