I don't believe that some sort of anti-Romanism is a major thread of this site. We acknowledge the same sacraments, the same orders of ministry, the historic episcopate, and the New and Old Testament canon, and all three Creed recognised in the RCC are recognised in the Anglican Church. However, some of our members have wisely (in my opinion) dropped the filioque from the Nicene Creed. Indeed the real nexus of the split between RCC and the Anglican Church in the 16th Century was about Papal authority, especially in terms of meddling in the affairs of a nation. The phrase you might remember was The Bishop of Rome hath no authority in England. This is quite different from the nature of the splits that came later on the continent, and they had a much more doctrinal flavour. Some wags have said If Popes had acted less like Princes, Princes would have acted less like Popes. The nature of Papal authority is not simply a problem for Anglicans, the Orthodox have similar concerns dating back probably to Photos but certainly to the period between 1014 and 1054. It has also been a problem for many others, including the OOC, the Mar Thoma Church, and the Brazilian Catholic Church, and several RCC Theologians have also struggled with it. Other doctrines have been highlighted in the divide, and the Anglican position has certainly developed. The separation found its form in several acts of the English Parliament, perhaps the Act of Supremacy of the 11th of February was the most significant, though there were several acts of Parliament by which it was achieved. As such I would normally not refer to a member of the RCC as a heretic, though I would acknowledge that there are several issues about which some of our respective views might vary. While this is true, we agree strongly on One Church, One Faith, One Baptism and One God and Father of us all. If you believe that the RCC has been misrepresented here, the nature of the forum is that you may respectfully offer some material to correct the understanding. You should avoid promoting and proselytising the RCC position here, as that clearly contradicts the purpose and nature of this forum.
Splendid. Personally I jump at the opportunity - particularly with fundamental-ish Protestants - to “unlearn” certain Roman “knowns” relative to us in the AngloCatholic faith. It’s fun to watch them either have the “a-ha! moment” or for them to double down their position. Absent certain RC dogma (which at best is questionable), I see how we two traditions could reunite once again as One.
@Botolph, nice reply. I have not checked but has the filique had its own thread? I certainly have my opinions but would love to learn more from both sides.
I have taken the liberty of highlighting a key phrase in you comment. And I say, "Aye, there's the rub." I ask all readers to consider these questions: 1. what is the content of the Gospel? 2. what is the means of salvation, according to the Gospel? I believe the Gospel and the means of salvation can be summed up in this manner: a] All have sinned and fallen short of God's standard of perfection, and without Christ all would be doomed to spend eternity separated from God. b] But God, in His great love, sent His Son to make full propitiation on the cross to redeem us from all of our sins. c] The way God has designated for any of us to receive His gift of saving grace (and His righteousness imputed to us) is: faith that Christ's propitiation is fully sufficient for the complete forgiveness of all of the person's (past, present, and future) sins. Scriptural support: Jas 2:10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. Gal 3:13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree: Gal 3:14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. Rom 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Rom 3:24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. Joh 6:47 Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life. Rom 10:9 because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. Rom 10:10 For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. Rom 10:11 For the Scripture says, “Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.” Rom 10:12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him. Rom 10:13 For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” Eph 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, Eph 2:9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast. Rom 4:3 For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.” Rom 4:4 Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. Rom 4:5 And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness, Rom 4:6 just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works: Rom 4:7 “Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; Rom 4:8 blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin.” Let's be clear: this Gospel of salvation by grace through faith in Jesus as the Christ (Messiah), the Savior from sin, is set forth by Jesus and the Apostles. Therefore it cannot be controverted by any denomination or by any later tradition. But it only took a couple of decades for some people to begin teaching (falsely) that additional salvific requirements exist. Paul severely warned against this error in his letter to the Galatians: Gal 1:6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— Gal 1:7 not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. Gal 1:8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. Gal 1:9 As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed. The specific salvific requirement added by the false teachers in Galatia was: you must also be circumcised. However, we can see from the warning in Chapter 1 that any addition to the original Gospel (of Christ crucified for our redemption and of salvation through firm belief in Him) is to be rejected and roundly condemned. Thus the specific example flows to the general proposition, that claiming any legalism to be a salvific requirement must be rejected because it contradicts and conflicts with the pure Gospel. Therefore, what is our proper response, as faithful Christians, to any denomination which teaches additional salvific requirements? Our response must be to reject those alleged requirements and to consider the denomination in question as having strayed from the true Gospel, for it teaches "another gospel" and it thereby misleads its followers toward perdition. We are called to be "light" and "salt" to the world, so a denomination which teaches another gospel may be likened to salt that has lost its saltiness: Mat 5:13 “You are the salt of the earth, but if salt has lost its taste, how shall its saltiness be restored? It is no longer good for anything except to be thrown out and trampled under people's feet. With all of this in mind, let us examine the gospel which a certain (major name brand) denomination teaches. * To be saved, in addition to faith in Jesus Christ, one is required to believe in Mary's Immaculate Conception * To be saved, in addition to faith in Jesus Christ, one must believe in Mary's bodily Assumption * To be saved, in addition to faith in Jesus Christ, one must receive the Eucharist at least once per year * To be saved, in addition to faith in Jesus Christ, one must obey the Commandments * To be saved, in addition to faith in Jesus Christ, one must do good works In past centuries, this prominent denomination also taught: * To be saved, in addition to faith in Jesus Christ, one must be "in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church" (says Cantate Domino) * To be saved, in addition to faith in Jesus Christ, one must "be subject to the Roman Pontiff" (says Unam Sanctam) Let me be clear: I love the dear people who attend the Roman Catholic Church, and I love the dear people who attend any of the churches which teach false gospels. Love for those individuals, whom God also loves, compels me to speak out against doctrinal errors which could possibly lead them astray and toward eternal perdition. Love compels me to communicate the true Gospel and to point out false gospels. I might make some enemies this side of heaven, but I know that far greater rejoicing lies ahead for those of us who truly trust in God's grace alone, by Christ alone, through faith alone. Heaven is my home; I'm just here recruiting. Who wants to come along? As we labor together in the harvest field, we know that our labors are not salvific; they are instead the "good fruit" borne through our loving, obedient, selfless response to the indwelling Holy Spirit as He guides and enables us to do the works.
Although just because one believes in Mary's Immaculate Conception, that assumption alone would not rob one of one's salvation. One can assume many erroneous nonsenses and God's Grace is still strong enough to save us. Although just because one believes in Mary's bodily Assumption, that assumption alone would not rob one of one's salvation. One can assume many erroneous nonsenses and God's Grace is still strong enough to save us. Although just because one receives the Eucharist at least once or 100 times per year, that practice alone and its frequency would not guarantee or forfeit one's salvation. One can do or not do many pious practices and God's Grace will be still strong enough to save us. Although just because one keeps as many of the commandments as one can, that obedient practice alone could not assure one of one's salvation. One can obey ALL the commandments and yet fail to love ones neighbour but God's Grace will be still strong enough to save us. Although just because one does works of supererogation in abundance, that practice alone would not secure one's salvation. One can adopt many pious practices which do not ultimately render us worthy of salvation, but God's Grace will be still strong enough to save us. So why would the RC church teach that all these other unnecessary things are 'necessary'? .
What would you do witout that evil Rcc? you had nobody to attack and your life would be very boooooooring
Yeah, great question. All I can think of is, it might've had to do with trying to maintain control over the laity.
Sorry if my evaluation of Catholic Church teachings hurt your feelings. It wasn't meant to. Are you trusting in your church to save you, for eternal life?
What exactly was it that you claim, in what I wrote, is an 'attack' upon the RCC? Was it the question, 'So why would the RC church teach that all these other unnecessary things are 'necessary' ?' There must be something peculiarly paranoid about the Roman Catholic Denominaton in that it assumes that anyone questioning the truth of its dogma, is regarded as an 'attack' upon itself? .
unfair! it is YoU who keeps attacking the Rcc st every corner …. even st a topc like fish. booooooooringy and you are unsble to understand irony.
The Abstinence Rule in the Modern Day The actions by Pope Paul VI and the U.S. Catholic Conference of Bishops in 1966 relaxed but did not remove the church's rule requiring Catholics to abstain from eating meat on Fridays. However, the confusion surrounding the relaxing of the abstinence rule led the vast majority of Catholics in the U.S. and elsewhere to stop abstaining from meat on Fridays. In recent years, the church in the U.S. has managed to get many practising Catholics to abstain from eating meat on Ash Wednesday and every Friday during Lent.
Perhaps I will put a qualifier in some of my future responses where I show my appreciation for the effort of how a response is framed. B’s and Rex’s are two recent cases in point. But because I like the way the response may have been presented does that mean I may agree on all its points. But then again, I don’t expect to because I am assuming most people on this form or just like me and are not doctors of the faith or theologians. However, I have a deep appreciation for Any reply steeped in reason and Objective sources particularly rooted in the fathers of our faith or the councils. Irony? Oh I do very much appreciate the irony of any face after the division of the east and the west. I try not to get too tied up in it as subject myself to time, prayer and the Holy Spirit for guidance when necessary. I certainly do hope that my replies do not reflect and “attack “on the Roman Catholic Church. What I believe the Roman Catholics believe, also. But what the Roman Catholics believe I don’t necessarily believe. There’s no irony in that; that is a result of the English Reformation. Now do I believe to the letter all of the things within the 39 Articles? Unfortunately I do not but that is because my approach is a result of the Oxford Movement. So my response to B is that I am curious about anyone who believes the Holy Ghost Did not proceed from the father and the son (or modifying the Nicene Creed – – for any reason). But I don’t want to be argumentative but want to hear the discussion. Perhaps for many that is ironic. For me I find it a basis for civility (until of course to the point I can’t stand it any longer than I just respectfully change the topic or move on!) But you’re assertion that I’m boring? Now that one, my friend @Nevis, has cut me to the very core…
You seem to think people are attacking the RCC, but you seem to ignore the fact that the RCC church attacks all other churches by saying they need the RCC for ones salvation. “Where there is Christ Jesus, there is the Catholic Church.”1 In her subsists the fullness of Christ’s body united with its head; this implies that she receives from him “the fullness of the means of salvation”2 which he has willed: correct and complete confession of faith, full sacramental life, and ordained ministry in apostolic succession. ------- [ CCC 830 Catechism of the Catholic church] Also canon law 1125 states all children of an RC should be brought up as RCs. This is an attack on all other religions and beliefs. It is also the only reason England brought in a law that prohibited the Monarch from marrying an RC.