I'm not prejudiced against R.C.s BUT...

I see. Where I am, it's common for politicians to make reference to their alma mater if it's helpful for their campaign. If they went to an ivy league school or other high status school, it'll be mentioned. If it's a local election and the candidate graduated from a local school, that will be mentioned as evidence of their local roots and community attachment. Against that background, I wouldn't be as surprised to see a political candidate make reference to their religion if it's valued by the candidate's intended constituency. But in a place where one's alma mater doesn't matter, it would indeed be off-putting to suddenly see reference to a religious alma mater.

Got it. I was under the impression that it was more of a public statement.

It depends on which RC person you ask. What happens "in the wild" is often quite different from what the RCC officially teaches and even quite a few priests understand that and don't push against it. The homilies I hear are about cultivating a loving, Christian heart in everyday life, not about any marital or procreation mandates. For the average RC person where I am, their personal beliefs about these kinds of issues are probably closer to Anglicanism; their everyday lifestyle might be less Christian-minded than many Anglicans.

I've pointed out to some dissatisfied RC people that the beliefs they hold are more in line with Anglicanism, and that Anglican Mass feels very much like the RC Mass. They didn't express any interest in knowing more about Anglicanism, but seemed uneasy about the prospect of going to another denomination. I assume it probably isn't about doctrinal convictions or anything like that, but about their having always known RC as part of their personal and family identity.

Again, most RC people probably see it the same way you do. I initially thought I might as well stay RC if most of the people in the pews are more, shall we say, balanced about these things. But my issue here is that it doesn't make sense to me look to a Church for pastoral care when its official teaching too often strike me as overly prescriptive and sometimes even inhumane.

A great point to keep in mind.

The family I grew up in wasn't seriously RC. For them, it was more about the RCC being a source of moral teachings that keep people in line. If when thinking about college I said I was discerned priesthood and wanted to go to seminary, it would have been a crisis. I would have gotten the talk about not taking religion too seriously, about most priests' (in the RC context) choice to take that path was probably rooted in dysfunction. The evidence for that would have been the life of celibacy and living rectories. If we were Anglican, discerning priesthood wouldn't had that baggage. My family would have taken RC priesthood as an embarrassment, but probably would have taken Anglican priesthood as something admirable (with the assumption that I'd still have a normal family life). Next time I get together with my father and sister, I'll ask them how they would have felt about that.

I want to clarify here that I'm not saying RC priests should be regarded as occasionally helpful oddballs. I've known several RC priests who, while certainly not perfect people, were dedicated to their priestly vocation and were of immense pastoral value and just inspirational men. I was talking about the idea of how contentious a celibate, non-married priesthood can be to all but the most traditional of Roman Catholics.

 

Sorry for the delay, I have been away for a couple of days. I don't normally talk about the physical question, because that is but a pale reflection of the reality. When we offer something to God, what he does with it, and what it becomes, is entirely his business. What I have to rely on are his words, that this is his anamnesis and that he will be with us till the close of the age. Because of those words and what it suggests, I do believe that some for of reverence that acknowledges to sanctity of what is here. What form that reverence takes is of little consequence to me, however genuflections and profound bows are reasonable expression for some.

Therefore we, before him bending,
this great Sacrament revere;
types and shadows have their ending,
for the newer rite is here;
faith, our outward sense befriending,
makes our inward vision clear.

Glory let us give, and blessing
to the Father and the Son,
honor, thanks, and praise addressing,
while eternal ages run;
ever too his love confessing,
who from both with both is One.​

I was greatly helped by Sydney Carter, when he said something like 'it is like music, which is just physical vibrations beating on the eardrum, and yet it carries a burden which is not physical at all'.

It is through the physical that we touch the spiritual. Real Presence suggests, to me a least, that we honour the spiritual that we touch through the physical.

I hope that helps

 

That's basically what they believe. It's a little more nuanced. They believe the pope is the vicar of Christ. Vatican II re-emphasised the point that the RCC teaches that all bishops, not just the pope, are Christ's vicar on earth.

I think this aspect of RCC teaching is more honoured in the breach than in practice. The official teaching of the RCC (cf. Pope Paul VI's encyclical Humnae vitae (1968)) is that Roman Catholics must not use any form of artificial contraception. I think the majority of Roman Catholics ignore this teaching.

Officially, yes it contravenes the RCC's official teaching. I think whether it was disapproved of would depend on which bishop or priest you spoke to. These days I'm not sure if even Pope Francis would disapprove of you.

Celibate clergy is a discipline of the RCC not a dogma. That's why married former Anglican clergy who swim the Tiber are often ordained by the RCC as Catholic priests. The discipline is stricter regarding bishops who must not be married. I believe this discipline dates back to about the tenth century. The RCC is not alone in insisting on bishops being celibate. The Eastern Catholic churches and the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox churches require it, too.

 

No apology required. I realise we all have lives outside AF.

I hope for a pleasant reason and that it was enjoyable.

Thank you.

 

I honestly get tired of bashing the RCs; it's always worth repeating that the laity are fine people and are our brothers in Christ, but, you know, that doctrine of theirs (Vatican I - infallibility and not just supremacy), it reminds me of the OT prophets - Et in Spiritum Sanctum Dominum... qui locutus est per prophetas...

Is there anything which makes it actually different? It seems to me the only plausible method - essentially the Roman church is invited to consider HH Francis to be literally the same as those prophets through whom the Holy Ghost spoke.

And that's rather terrifying because the conclusion is that whatsoever the pope should say 'ex cathedra' is literally inspired scripture. I cannot think of a more innovative assertion in the history of 2000 years of Christendom, but this is preaching to the choir.

 

Good points... my objection to Romanism is that it is essentially 'sola ecclesia' by which I mean, they will say anything to justify that their church is right, split whatever distinctions they need, reframe past contradictions in every way necessary, but they start with the fact that Their church is The Church, and therefore all contradictions to that are in principle impossible.... This means they are never open to the evidence

In practice, this means that when traditionalist RCs show them just how far the modern Roman church is from most of its past doctrines, this should disprove the claims of the Roman church (to any rational person), but it does not to them, and the RCs will write 10 volumes showing how the traditional RC doctrines actually implied whatever the modern teaching is

I have literally heard that it is entirely possible to reconcile the Romanism of the crusades and burning heretics, with the Romanism of Pope Francis... they don't see the supernatural status of their church contradicted by this black and white evidence

Hence -- sola ecclesia

 

Papal infallibility is not quite like you describe. If Pope Francis is served spaghetti in Domus Sanctae Marthae and he says from now on this will be called zucchini does not make it an infallible prouncement to be held as a matter of faith by all Catholics. So in the future if a boy at table says, "But mum, I don't like spaghetti", his mother cannot reply, "It's not spaghetti, it's zucchini, the pope says so, so shut up and eat up".

There are conditions attached to the pope issuing an infallible statement. As you have said it must be ex cathedra, which does not mean every time the pope opens his mouth. It must also be on a matter of faith or morals. Indeed, since Vatican I introduced this novel, and erroneous, doctrinal development, I understand only one pope (Pius XII) has issued an infallible decree and that was in 1950 when he decreed Catholics had to believe in the Assumption of the BVM: Munificentissimus Deus (apostolic constitution, 1st November 1950; A.A.S., vol. XXXXII (1950), n. 15, pp. 753 - 773.)

 

It just occurred to me: Pius XII stated an "Assumption" as fact!

 

That was good.

 

Thank you. In retrospect, I suppose I was kind of asking the method of it in those contexts - infallibility seems to suggest the pope be preserved from making an erroneous proclamation, rather than a specific infusion of the Holy Ghost; the pope is believed to be unable to state a falsehood when speaking ‘ex cathedra’ and about the capacities to which he is appointed, which is theoretically distinct from the scriptures because the prophets in the latter were the vehicle through whom the Spirit spoke, instead of a representative protected from error.

 

I’m not sure that they have the same understanding of the church exactly, but that’s the problem I have with the Byzantine church as well.

 

All papal infallibility does is prevent the pope from binding the whole church in error.
The East already believes ecumenical councils to be doctrinally correct and irrevocable. This just applies it to the bishop of the Roman see. It would be irresponsible to have a pope with universal jurisdiction who ISNT protected from error.
Moreover, this is not a novelty invention. Both the supremacy of the pope and the indefectability of the Roman see have been beliefs held throughout the church. It has been taught by numerous popes, which your own Church of England maintained communion with.

Here is pope Hormisdas speaking on papal infallibility:
“The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers. For it is impossible that the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, who said, “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,” [Matthew 16:18], should not be verified. And their truth has been proved by the course of history, for in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been kept unsullied.”

And St Maximos the confessor, eastern saint as well:

“For the very ends of the earth and those in every part of the world who purely and rightly confess the Lord, look directly to the most holy Church of the Romans and its confession and faith as though it were a sun of unfailing light, expecting from it the illuminating splendour of the Fathers and sacred dogmas…For ever since the Incarnate Word of God came down to us, all the churches of Christians everywhere have held that greatest Church there to be their sole base and foundation, since on the one hand, it is in no way overcome by the gates of Hades, according to the very promise of the Saviour , but holds the keys of the orthodox confession and faith in him and opens the only true and real religion to those who approach with godliness, and on the other hand, it shuts up and locks every heretical mouth that speaks unrighteousness against the most High.”

Now, none Of this can be said to be novel. St maximos was alive from the 6th to 7th centuries Pope hormisdas in the 6th century. The fact is that many believed the faith of Rome was indefectible and would never fail because of the promise from Christ to Peter. The above quotes are pretty much the same as Vatican I language, not much has changed. It uses the same papal proof texts we do today.
You may surely disagree with the dogma, but it cannot be said papal infallibility is a novelty.

 

Don't go giving up the day job just yet.

 

It is the Church that is protected from error. Inviduals are not. Anglicans and Orthodox, therefore, properly only accept councils as being infallible, i.e. where the worldwide episcopate in council agrees on a matter of faith. Remember many of them we called to address heresies and not to introduce new doctrine. It is the Roman Catholic Church alone that believes into can introduce new doctrines under the false concept of 'development of doctrine'. There is no foundation for one bishop to claim universal authority over all as does the Bishop of Rome. This was a late development and is not found in the early Church. The Bishop of Rome does not claim something many may be able to accept, which is being the senior bishop and occupying a place of honour within the episcopate. He falsely claims supreme authority over the entire Church which is a distortion of ecclesiology as properly understand by Anglicans and the Orthodox. Each bishop is the authority in his own diocese and no other bishop has authority over him. Every bishop is a vicar of Christ not just the Bishop of Rome.

 

These same councils have accepted the popes definitions of Matthew 16:18 as a basis for the status of Rome. Per the ecumenical councils it is not a place of mere honor.
The quotes I showed above cannot be said to be claims for “honor.” It’s obviously talking about Rome being infallible.

The whole western church was subject to the papacy by the time of the schism. If you read St Bedes ecclesiastical history of the English church you will see that the English church accepted papal claims.
It is simply not true that this is a later development, especially in the west. All scholars will agree that Rome held universal jurisdiction in the west by the time of the schism. This isn’t a mere opinion, it’s just the truth. The papacy was the only way the western church came from under the hold of the secular monarchs during the reform papacy in the 11th century, which is why the Latin church is as centralized in power as it is now.
However, the case for the Church of England accepting papal claims is undeniable, St Bede is a testament to that.

St bede:
At this time, that is, in the year of our Lord the blessed Pope Gregory, after having most gloriously governed the Roman Apostolic see thirteen years, six months, and ten days, died, and was translated to an eternal abode in the kingdom of Heaven. Of whom, seeing that by his zeal he converted our nation, the English, from the power of Satan to the faith of Christ, it behooves us to discourse more at large in our Ecclesiastical History, for we may rightly, nay, we must, call him our apostle; because, as soon as he began to wield the pontifical power over all the world, and was placed over the Churches long before converted [which were] to the true faith, he made our nation, till then enslaved to idols, the Church of Christ, so that concerning him we may use those words of the Apostle; “if he be not an apostle to others, yet doubtless he is to us; for the seal of his apostleship are we in the Lord.”

“Following the example of the blessed ever-Virgin Mary, who was married and at the same time unstained, the Church conceives us as a Virgin by the working of the Holy Spirit; she gives birth to us as a Virgin without birth pangs; and as a woman married to one person but impregnated by another, throughout her individual parts that make her one and catholic, she remain visibly united to the legitimate Pontiff set over her, but she increases in number by the invisible power of the Holy Spirit”

 

Vatican I is a lot more than just indefectibility.

Vatican I also creates the Magisterium, and formally defines infallibility in a way that's never been done before. Neither Hormisdas or even Leo I were aware that you had to say certain magic words to guarantee infallibility to your proclamations. And the "magisterium" is a fake-latin word that didn't even exist prior to the 1860s when Josef Kleutgen coined it. Prior to that, the Latin churches have used the term ecclesia docens, which is a valid term. But since Vatican I, Rome has instead started to use magisterium, and gave it a different theology from what obtained for the previous ecclesia docens. If you read Bellarmine or Suarez you'll be shocked by how different the Rome of their era was from the Rome we have now after Vatican I And it's even worse the more you go back into the past, when upstart Bishops of Rome were smacked down by their brother bishops. Councils dethroned the Popes and installed others. Even kings and emperors dethroned popes and installed others. But the Roman popes have kept at it, kept changing the definition of 'the church' in order to acquire more and more power under themselves, so that today it is nearly unrecognizable. Here again, the Anglican tradition maintains the pure Christian teaching which Rome altered doctrine.

Vatican I also teaches that the Bishop of Rome has a direct ordinary jurisdiction of the whole world. That's an incredible and vast innovation. Among other things, it means that none of the other bishops are actual bishops with a divine right to rule in their dioceses (only the Anglicans have kept the doctrine of jure divino episcopacy). In Roman theology, other bishops are just the emissaries and ambassadors from the one actual bishop in the world, the Bishop of Rome. This indeed is why the Bishop of Rome feels that he has the capacity to install bishops, to take bishops down, and use them as his pawns, as he governs the world. They're not actual bishops, with a divine right and an ordinary jurisdiction. The bishop of Rome has gathered the entire episcopal divine right and ordinary jurisdiction under himself, which means that only he has it, and they are just "bishops" in name only, sent out as his stand-ins, assigned and gathered back at his bare whim and pleasure.

 

Pope Gregory the Great put it best:
"Be it known then to your Fraternity that John, formerly bishop of the city of Constantinople, against God, against the peace of the Church, to the contempt and injury of all priests, exceeded the bounds of modesty and of his own measure, and unlawfully usurped in synod the proud and pestiferous title of œcumenical, that is to say, universal...For if one, as he supposes, is universal bishop, it remains that you are not bishops." (Book IX, Letter 68)

 

This is a version of the argument: "it must be so, therefore it is so." Sort of an ontological argument for the papacy.

 

Well that is your opinion, sure.
I will point you to the history of the eastern churches, well before the Anglican Church existed in its current form.
The whole East was ruled by the pontifex Maximus , the emperor. The emperor deposed and installed bishops at his whim, and the easterners went along with it. To make the pope some evil tyrant because he has the power to install or depose bishops is to ignore the utter power secular emperors wielded over a whole half of the Christian church. The pope has his power precisely to counter pagan emperor claims of being a priestly office. The pagan emperor priestly office carried over to the eastern side of Christianity. Notice many eastern emperors are Saints in the East but not the west.
The papal claims only got stronger in opposition to the emperors claims.
It is truly ridiculous to prefer your church be ruled by a secular monarch than by a pope.
If you want to claim the poplar office is a tyranny then you must give up all of Christianity to tyranny because the whole East deferred to the emperor. Justinian for example, deposed bishops at his will. Emperors told bishops to remove the popes from the dyptics, they kidnapped popes, and all sorts of other worldly empire power plays. This is the reason why the Russian Orthodox Church, for example, is a puppet church to the state. It holds to the secular rulers instead of an ecclesial one.


To argue that “magisterium” is a new word and therefore a false concept is silly. Teaching church is the same as the magisterium, there’s no difference.


What councils dethroned popes? Honorius?
Councils deposing popes doesn’t really go against any catholic dogma so I don’t know why you bring it up.
The fact that you bring up kings deposing popes just goes to prove my point. Caesaropapism is not a good thing for the church, why would you EVER want a king meddling in the office of the church?
Kings deposing popes is supposed to prove what? Is the king an ecclesial official now? What does it matter what a secular monarch wants?
It’s baffling to me people would be OK with monarchs doing such a thing.


The Catholic Church doesn’t teach bishops are just lackeys of the pope, they have their own divine institution. The pope is just the leader of the bishops instead of a monarch. If you say that being a leader means everyone else is your lackey, I could likewise say the Anglican bishops are emissaries of the English crown. No difference really.

again, popes having the power to convene councils which you express as “assigned and gathered at his bare whim and pleasure.” This is what the eastern emperors did. From Constantine all the way to the last ecumenical council, the emperors called the councils at their “bare whim and pleasure.”
Why does no one have an issue with emperors power over the church but when a pope claims to have actual power by divine right everyone all of a sudden freaks out?
When the emperors called the 7 councils, were they being tyrants. Of course not, right?
But heavens forbid a pope claims to have the power to assemble a council!
The only reason we have Christianity as it is today is precisely because there was someone (emperors) who forced all the bishops to convene together and hash out doctrines.
If we go by what you’re suggesting, not only would nothing ever get done because NO ONE has power over anyone and can convene a council and require bishops to actually show up, Christianity as we know it would be vastly different, as no councils could have possibly been convened.


If you’re happy letting monarchs rule your church that’s fine. But don’t claim it’s OK when they depose and install bishops at will and convene councils they’re all required to attend, but if the pope does it he’s a terrible tyrant.

The Church of England had always recognized papal authority. Id love to see how you can explain away the quotes I posted, especially from St Bede the venerable English historian.
To say the claims of the popes of infallibility are new is just false. I showed you pope hormisdas. And at maximos. Will you just ignore the very obvious things they said?
You can disagree, but don’t say it’s a new claim when it’s clearly, clearly not.

 

Pope Gregory the great also made papal claims:

“Inasmuch as it is manifest that the Apostolic See is, by the ordering of God, set over all Churches, there is, among our manifold cares, special demand for our attention, when our decision is awaited with a view to the consecration of a bishop. . . . you are to cause him to be consecrated by his own bishops, as ancient usage requires, with the assent of our authority, and the help of the Lord; to the end that through the observance of such custom both the Apostolic See may retain the power belonging to it, and at the same time may not diminish the rights which it has conceded to others.”


Schaff says : “On the other hand, it cannot be denied that Gregory, while he protested in the strongest terms against the assumption by the Eastern patriarchs of the antichristian and blasphemous title of universal bishop, claimed and exercised, as far as he had the opportunity and power, the authority and oversight over the whole church of Christ, even in the East. With respect to the church of Constantinople, he asks in one of his letters, who doubts that it is subject to the apostolic see? . . .”

I’ve seen various people bringing this up. No one who reads the writings of pope Gregory or any history on his actions would ever say he wasn’t a supporter of the papacy.