Anyone on here Catholic?

Dear Friend?
You are wrong in your view about Baptism , it is the entry in to the Church, unless the tutors in your church are telling lies!
I took lessons about 50 yrs ago for three months. That was just to marry a Roman Catholic Lady!I might have told you before, but every papist church or school around here bears the legend ROMAN CATHOLIC! What are we to think? Also I received a missive from a dept.,of the Vatican on Anglicans moving to Rome.It was headlined ,'Holy RomanChurch.'?
Not only baptism, but we need to hold the Catholic Faith, which our Communion has taught for two thousand years and which we hold with pride and hopefully dignity. We do however hold the faith and up to recently Anglicans have neither added to it, or diminished it. We follow the injunctions of S.Paul, whereas Rome not only split the Church at Trent, but made additions to the Nicene Creed. , but We've held the name Catholic & the Faith for two thousand years, our Bishops were in at the formative events, (Niceae), .
Now you are quite right to hold your own views, but ask your tutor for something with a little depth in it.I wish you well in your transfer to the Ruthenian Church! But? Do they not owe allegiance to Rome?
Don't take offence, there's none at all intended!
God Bless!

 

So, you decide to insult me now using the term "Papist?" Brother, you seem not to understand. As I have said, the Roman Church is the largest Church in the Catholic Church. The majority of Catholics belong to the Roman Church, especially in the Americas. But in places like Ukraine, the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church is present. In Lebanon, most Catholics are apart of the Maronite Catholic Church. In Israel, most belong to the Melkite Greek Catholic Church. In Egypt, many Catholics belong to the Coptic Catholic Church. They are not apart of the Roman Church. They have their own code of canon law, their own heiarchy, their own traditons. But they are in full communion with the Roman Church, as with other Catholic Churches. We are a communion of 23 different Churches in full communion with each other with the same faith. The Church only reaffirms her teachings at Trent, she never "separated" as you say. For she is the one Catholic Church, there are no others. The Catholic Church is one. She is not many. How could Anglicanism even be apart of the Church when he holy orders are invalid?

 

Now why should I insult you, you are a papist. IT isn't my fault if you find the Holy Roman Church distasteful? Or it's name!
When I studied Religion at school, I was taught about Trent by Anglo Catholics and I was led to understand that they were reforming the Church and it was to lead to a total reform,a new outlook for Christians. (They said the same over VAT II!)
When I went deeper in to Trent, I discovered, through reading the view's and outlook of my Anglican Fathers, that the Council of 1564, was not a Catholic Council, it was a Robber Council, to use a phrase of S.Leo and it grossly misled honest Catholics. It wasn't a genuine Ecumenical Council, it didn't fulfil the Church's criteria. It was simply a Council of the Roman Church! It wasn't even valid in that it cost the vatican millions. (Simony, Bribery.)Further, in my opinion it caused a rent, in Christ's seemless garment, in that it led to the Bishops who attended abandoning their responsibilities on to the Bishop of Rome's shoulders. They became servants to an institution, that grew like an ulcer on Christ's Spiritual Body, the Holy Church. Further more , they took steps to pass, or accept, additions to the Ancient Creed of Niceae. So for many years I didn't consider Romans as Catholics.
It was reading the Anglican fathers, that taught me that Rome remained Catholic, all the things I'd worked out for myself , was a result of heat and not enough thought on my part. How-and - ever , the great Vicar of Leeds, Father Hook showed me that Rome was indeed Catholic, her fault was not that she dropped the faith, but added to it! She is in my opinion, after much thought, study and guidance ( I haven't much originality) I came to the conclusion, agreeing with FR,Hook that the Church of Rome is a Catholic Sect!
When I looked up in my Funk & Wagner, Encyclopaedia, what a sect was,( I found shamefully pleased,) that a sect is a group or body, ususally religious, that split from the parent body on a single issue.
The issue in this case was the papacy.
You have not told us, why , you are leaving the Roman Church to join another catholic group. I have no complaint about your action and wish you well. I was lucky in that two weeks after my birth, I was baptised at my local Church in England and was brought up in my youth in her schools. I'm already a Catholic and know why. You have thinking to do!

 

A Catholic sect... out of all the things I thought I never hear... the Catholic Church is one! Rome only adopted Catholicism when the first Christians got there around 40 to 45, maybe 50 A.D. She is the head of the entire Catholic Church and anyone who rejects this is in schism. "Peter answered Him, 'Lord, to whom will we go?'... Peter, on whom the Church was to be built...taught and showed in the name of the Church that a rebellious and arrogant multitude may depart from the Church. I speak of those who will not hear and obey. However, the Church does not depart from Christ. And the Church consists of those who are a people united to the priest. It is the flock that adhere to its pastor. Therefore, you should know that the bishop is in the Church and the Church is in the bishop. If anyone is not with the bishop, he is not in the Church.... The Church is Catholic and is one. It is not cut or divided. Rather it is connected and bound together by the cement of priests who cohere with one another." St. Cyprian of Carthage, "The Unity of the Catholic Church," c. 250 A.D.

She is not a sect, she was founded by Jesus Christ on Peter, the rock, the apostles, and the prophets. Now, the Latin Church is actually the name of the Church that has the Pope as its patriarch. I mean, I have no problem with you calling it Roman since most Latin Church Catholics use the Roman rite. There are alot of different rite in the Latin Church, the Roman rite being one of them and the most used. How ever, I am leaving the Latin Church completley for the Ruthenian Church which uses the Byzantine rite. Of course, I am not converting, nor am I leaving the Catholic Church in anyway. The Ruthenian Church is in full communion with the Pope, as are the 21 other Eastern Catholic Churches.

By your logic of the filioque, you also condemn the Couuncil of Constantinople in 381 A.D which added the words, "the Lord, and Giver of Life, Who proceeds from the Father, Who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, Who spoke by the Prophets; And we believe in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins. We look for the Resurrection of the dead,
And the Life of the age to come. Amen."

Your Anglican fathers are either schsimatics, heretics, or both! They do not have Christ as their mouthpeice, unlike the Catholic Church which does. The Catholic Church only reaffirmed her doctrines as the Council of Trent. She never added nor removed. For the council was in response to the Protestant heresy. The Protestant heresey, alongside Gnosticism, is one of the greatest heresys to impact the Catholic Church.

 

I'm sorry, you are exersised over my comments, it's hardly the way to win friends and influence people I admit!
It is however frustrating to see you criticising Anglican Orders, when you make very positive allegations and ignore the fact that The Orthodox Church, not all of them , but a large section admitted their satisfaction with what information had been given to them. They could do no more. However, I was quietly pleased when last in Jerusalem on Pilgrimage, the party of Anglicans, I was with, were offered an altar in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre? Regarding the ,'additions,' you mention at Constantinople 381 AD.. If they were accepted by an Ecumenical Council, I would dutifully accept.
I don't know who you your teacher or tutor is, he should however be ashamed of himself. S.Cyprian, was a Councilist and eschewed the Roman Bishop's attempts to build up another Roman Empire of his own. So much so that two Carthage Councils rejected attempts by POPES, to foist Bishops on to the African Bishops. S.Cyprian was a leader in the first of the Councils and S. Augustine was a member of the second. events decended to a very low level when it was shown that the Roman claims were founded on trickery by the pontiff , who was trying to substitute False documents off as coming from NICE. He believed that Authority was with all bishops collectively preferred and as individuals as necessary
Regarding Trent?
The nextt town tto where I live, nine miles south, is a town that gave hundreds, if not more, copies of Trent Creed out, I've got a copy, but I noticed one on the Computer the other day with additions in italic.
All good wishes to you in your Ruthenian venture!
God Bless!

 

So, here we have two forum members each claiming that their branch of the church is the only one true Catholic Church. If we could get a representative of Eastern Orthodoxy in on this, then we could have three branches being claimed as the one true Catholic Church.

 

I think you misrepresent Highchurchman's position Celtic1. He did not say that Anglicanism is the ONLY true church, in fact he said just the opposite. He spoke about how he and his Anglican mentors viewed the Roman Catholic Church as a truly catholic (but deeply erring) church and that it shared the marks of Catholicism in common with Anglicanism and presumably the Orthodox communions; a sentiment that our expectantly Ruthenian Catholic friend here refuses to reciprocate. Perhaps that subtle difference in the stances of the two posters has gotten lost in the rhetoric, but I assure you, it is there.

 

The additions to the creed were accepted at the Couccil of Chalcedon.

Regarding Cyprian, first of all, we are not focusing on Papal primacy, simply we are focusing on how the Church is one. But regarding your comments, Saint Cyprian actually did accept the Popes authority and did rebuke the bishops who would not. The controversy was over wether heretics needed to be rebaptized or not. Cyprian disagrees with the Pope, yet still acknowledge his authority. I believe I already quoted him somewhere in our debate a few pages back. The bishops who rejected the Pope were angry with his views on baptism. Besides, even if you reject papal primacy, you must acknowlege that north africa was apart of the western Church and was under authority of the Pope as its patriarch. And indeed, he does see that in the bishops but the Catholic Church does as well.

 

Sorry, I'm still cracking up over the papist comment. My most devout RC friends love the term and are happy to be "insulted" in this way! Because it's truth, my dear CR.

 

Okay.

 

That the Church is one, I agree and believe entirely, it is however one through our being,' Members of Christ,' or Members through Baptism of the One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. One becomes a Catholic principally through baptism, i.e.by Water and by Words;the Words, we receive being the Gospel of Christ, presumably from a Bishop or his deputy.In due course the Gospel was entered in to scripture and interpreted by the Bishop's in Council. One has to intend doing what the Church does and what the Church believes. As one understands, this is what is meant by Apostolic Succession. Roman Novelties, as our Anglican fathers tell us are not part of the Deposit.
I have not after many years study ever found any claim by a Pope to superior status till , the time of S. Leo ,yet even he, though he sent great his contribution to the Council of Chalcedon for acceptance, it had to be studied by the fathers against a letter to an earlier Council by S.Cyril before it was accepted.

I understand Cyprian held the Bishop of Rome as a Brother Bishop and his letters to all the great leaders of the Church are pretty well standard as are those he receives in return." i.e. when the clergy at Rome write back to Cyprian, they address it/ him, thus,' Most blessed and most glorious pope, we bid you ever heartily farewell in the Lord'. When these same clergy write to the African Clergy in regard to Cyprian, they finish, or conclude it this way,'We have learnt.....that the blessed Pope Cyprian has for a certain reason retired.' It was the custom ,certainly amongst the clergy, to use such language, I have somewhere a note where one Bishop addresses another by the term,'Your Religiousnes's,! They certainly do not warrant the position for a Catholic bishop that you draw for them.
You are right in rebuking my blunder regarding a major controversy between Cyprian & Steven. I stand corrected, but in fact it alters nothing ,other than I was sloppy in writing. Cyprian adresses the Bishop of Rome as one senior bishop to an another and no more. Mind you as P.Benevot, a Roman Historian tells us, "Cyprian Never held that the pope held universal jurisdiction, but he never had to deny it either,in truth, he never asked himself the question about authority in the Church".
Why ? because it was never raised regarding the extremes we discuss now.


"None of us may set himself up to as Bishop of Bishops, nor compel his brothers to obey him; every bishop of the Church has full liberty and complete power: as he cannot be judged by another, neither can he judge another!"

(Council of Carthage. Cyprian.pp 329-330. Benedictine ed.)

On the question of Primacy? Both Rome and Constantinople held primacy over the Church ! It was given to Old Rome and New Rome, by the fathers, as a means of improving organisation! It was not assumed to be the gift of God, but because both Bishops held the position of parish Priest to the Emperor!

 

Thank you good friend, just what I intended to say before choler and age set in! In fact I believe the Anglican outlook to be such, That there is only one Church, The Holy Catholic and Apostolic One, The Body of Christ. We are entered in as catholics , By our baptism!
As Anglicans we do not claim to be the whole of the Church, but are a Catholic Community within , no less and no more.

 

I post the following without comment, except to say that facts don't need comment:

http://www.christian-history.org/roman-catholicism.html

http://www.christian-history.org/roman-catholic-one-true-church.html

 

For historical purposes and references, here is a good article on Orthodoxy:

http://www.christian-history.org/orthodox-church.html

 

I went to an Orthodox Church once to take lessons, or, as they do say, to see what was up?I found it exciting and interesting.
Trouble was, for the priest, catholicity in this country finished with the rift with the pope in 1054, AD.
I finished the course, which was interesting and exciting, I think he expected me to join, there had however never been a chance of that. I had been reading a lot of Palmer's books and felt enormous frustration and felt shocked in many ways but have always felt that the struggle of the Anglican Church to remain catholic was worthy of support and still do. If I hadn't come across the A.C.C., I think I might have gone to Western Orthodoxy in the 1980's. On the whole, inspite of some views and attitudes coming on to this board has helped me to stay sane though there's a lot yet todo!

 

Just curious, did you find any Orthodox doctrines and practices that you did not agree with?

 

It was about 1955 when I received the tuition , I've read other literature since and I've talked with Orthodox priests and laity, I could well become a member of Orthodoxy.The answer to your question is none! None that I can think of at the moment!
How-and-ever? I believe that the teachings of the Church in Britain, known as the Rule of Faith,i.e. Gospel,Scripture and Councils are held to ,that Anglicanism, as taught and received for instance on this board, is western orthodoxy. Certainly as presented by the ACC., and Archbishop Haverland, I have no fears.

 

You do realize that several pages of argument could have been avoided by simply understanding that the Catholic Church with the Big "C" is the 1.2 billion member church, subject to the Pope (both eastern and western rites), the largest Christian church, etc... And that the Anglican Churches, Catholic Churches (both Roman/Western and Eastern) and Eastern Orthodox Churches are all catholic churches with the small "c" as in the Universal Church and church as it is referred to in the Nicene Creed.

The Catholic Church, both Eastern and Roman, are just one very large branch of the overall catholic church of which Anglicanism is another branch.

 

I do so miss HC's posts...not to mention the reverend father himself...

 

May he rest in peace... he held on to the faith of the apostles and the saints, in England, unto his last day when he died and his posts ceased appearing here