Anglican origins, claims, theology.

[ImaginaryDay2]

He is a widdo puppy-pie boo-boo and nobody gets to say anything mean about him!

I mean, How COULD you!!??


Arsenios

"widdo puppy-pie boo-boo..."?

 

[MoreCoffee]

To be fair, it's much less on the scale than the RCC and EOC.

You write such funny things

:smirk:

 

[MoreCoffee]

"widdo puppy-pie boo-boo..."?

It's cutie-pie language

 

[Josiah]

It is shocking really. Each group claiming to be teaching the truth while at the same time being sure that the other is in heresy.

EXACTLY as your denomination does - and has done for centuries. Here again, you mock what your denomination has done, more so and longer than any Protestant denomination.

That is the Protestant "norm"

It is the RCC norm, which is in unity with NONE, absolutely NONE.... not ONE other denomination on the planet does it regard as theologically correct, it itself holds that it alone - exclusively, uniquely, singularly - is correct. True, there are some Protestant denominations that are just as "bad" but none worse in this regard since it is impossible to hold that fewer than self is in unity with self in the EXTREMELY limited sense that the indivudual RC denomination means it.

Interesting how you consistently rebuke things for which your denomination is most guilty.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Well, Josiah, since Anglicans differ from Lutherans on a number of issues - as Lutheran Satire suggests - and since this thread is about Anglican origins, claims, theology it doesn't matter much one way or the other what you think about the Catholic Church; your comments are off topic. Had you attempted to compare and contrast Catholic Vs Anglican origins, claims, theology your post would be closer to the intended topic.

Thus far we have established that

• there were Christians in the British isles by the fifth century AD and
• that the Church in England was Catholic in at least several of the centuries before the Protestant revolt initiated by Henry VIII in his desire for a divorce and power over the church in his kingdom.

Henry VII was a devout Catholic, so were the Plantagenets (Henry VII's predecessors in the monarchy of England). We have also established that

• the Anglican church as it now exists is a Protestant body that originated in 1534 and was settled in doctrine by about 1590 AD.
• It is not the Church that existed in 1520 and the centuries before.
• It is a new body, a denomination of Protestantism, with distinctly protestant beliefs.

 

[Albion]

Well, Josiah, since Anglicans differ from Lutherans on a number of issues - as Lutheran Satire suggests - and since this thread is about Anglican origins, claims, theology (note: not Roman Catholic claims--ed.) it doesn't matter much one way or the other what you think about the Catholic Church; your comments are off topic. Had you attempted to compare and contrast Catholic Vs Anglican origins, claims, theology your post would be closer to the intended topic....

there were Christians in the British isles by the fifth century AD and
There was a functioning and recognized Christian church in the British Isles from the first or second century forward.


that the Church in England was Catholic in at least several of the centuries before the Protestant revolt initiated by Henry VIII in his desire for a divorce and power over the church in his kingdom.
that the English church was catholic in the centuries before the Reformation. Under Henry VIII (NOT HENRY VII) it resumed its historic status as independent of the Papacy. After Henry's death, the church accepted some principles enunciated by the Continental Reformation and, shortly thereafter the Roman Catholic Church entered into schism when it announced that it was breaking with the Church of England (because the Pope had been unsuccessful in his attempts to overthrow the English government).

Henry VII was a devout Catholic, so were the Plantagenets (Henry VII's predecessors in the monarchy of England)…
the Anglican church as it now exists is a Protestant body that originated in 1534 and was settled in doctrine by about 1590 AD.
Henry VIII was a devout Catholic. The Anglican churches as they now exist are both Protestant and Catholic

It is not the Church that existed in 1520 and the centuries before.
It has existed continuously since antiquity

Our friend apparently wants you to comment now Josiah.









.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Our friend apparently wants you to comment now Josiah.

Let the reader be aware that all the red text appears to be inserted by [MENTION=389]Albion[/MENTION]. He didn't bother to say he was editing and adding material. Makes one wonder why he didn't mention that he'd edited my post and inserted so much text.

The post he replied to really says only this:

Well, Josiah, since Anglicans differ from Lutherans on a number of issues - as Lutheran Satire suggests - and since this thread is about Anglican origins, claims, theology it doesn't matter much one way or the other what you think about the Catholic Church; your comments are off topic. Had you attempted to compare and contrast Catholic Vs Anglican origins, claims, theology your post would be closer to the intended topic.

Thus far we have established that

• there were Christians in the British isles by the fifth century AD and
• that the Church in England was Catholic in at least several of the centuries before the Protestant revolt initiated by Henry VIII in his desire for a divorce and power over the church in his kingdom.

Henry VII was a devout Catholic, so were the Plantagenets (Henry VII's predecessors in the monarchy of England). We have also established that

• the Anglican church as it now exists is a Protestant body that originated in 1534 and was settled in doctrine by about 1590 AD.
• It is not the Church that existed in 1520 and the centuries before.
• It is a new body, a denomination of Protestantism, with distinctly protestant beliefs.

 

[Albion]

Let the reader be aware that all the red text appears to be inserted by [MENTION=389]Albion[/MENTION]. He didn't bother to say he was editing and adding material. Makes one wonder why he didn't mention that he'd edited my post and inserted so much text.

The post he replied to really says only this:

I think the reader is smarter than you give him credit for, MC.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I think the reader is smarter than you give him credit for, MC.

It is good to be informed. You could have had a note to explain that the bold red text was yours not mine. Or you could have used a well known convention such as enclosing the additions in square brackets []. Or both.

 

[Albion]

Or I could do that thing you do instead, which is to simply cross out the other persons word and then insert your own without comment.

But I don't know how that is done on the computer.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Or I could do that thing you do instead, which is to simply cross out the other persons word and then insert your own without comment.

But I don't know how that is done on the computer.

I have the manners to mark my insertions with [] and by crossing out it makes the changes obvious.

 

[Albion]

Changing colors for addendums does the same. But I am not sure that the crossing out technique does, in fact, do what you say. It makes the text looks like the original poster merely changed his mind or meant to offer an alternate idea. It certainly is not to be found in any manual of style that I am aware of.

 

[Arsenios]

I have the manners to mark my insertions with [] and by crossing out it makes the changes obvious.

Thanks, MC - I did not know how to do that either...

I will try not to go on too much of a tear with it...

Mind you...

Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

Changing colors for addendums does the same. But I am not sure that the crossing out technique does, in fact, do what you say. It makes the text looks like the original poster merely changed his mind or meant to offer an alternate idea. It certainly is not to be found in any manual of style that I am aware of.

I have not been closely tracking this thread, but I thought you were just emphasizing what MC had posted by bolding and coloring is red...

I do that a lot so that you can see what part of the text I am referring to...

When I extol or decry, I say!


Arsenios

 

[Albion]

I have not been closely tracking this thread, but I thought you were just emphasizing what MC had posted by bolding and coloring is red...

I must say that I don't get that, since the parts in red undeniably COUNTERED what was written in black. What's more the first of them was labelled as edited and the comment at the bottom that explained the reason for an edit also explained the meaning of coloring system.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I have not been closely tracking this thread, but I thought you were just emphasizing what MC had posted by bolding and coloring is red...

That is what I thought some readers would see and think. It is common to mark with bold text and colours portions of a post that a reply is directed towards. Albion's use of bold red text is easily misunderstood as emphasis rather than as edited additions to the post he quoted. Had he left a note to explain that the bold red text was his editorial comment and not anything that I had written it would have been clearer. But he didn't so I wrote my replies pointing out that what he had written in bold red text was not written by me and was no part of my post.

I do that a lot so that you can see what part of the text I am referring to...

When I extol or decry, I say!


Arsenios

 

[MoreCoffee]

Thanks, MC - I did not know how to do that either...

I will try not to go on too much of a tear with it...

Mind you...

Arsenios

I see that you have learned the "secret" by observing that tags are used to create the strike-through text, I am pleased that you noticed.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I must say that I don't get that, since the parts in red undeniably COUNTERED what was written in black. What's more the first of them was labelled as edited and the comment at the bottom that explained the reason for an edit also explained the meaning of coloring system.

Well, you added the comment in the "last edited" note after I pointed out that difference between what I had written and what your "quote" of my post said.

Your "last edited" comment says "Last edited by Albion; Yesterday at 09:05 PM. Reason: Off-topic and erroneous comments corrected. Corrections/edits shown in red."

My post (post #147 written at Yesterday, 08:53 PM), the one that pointed out your edits was written before you added the "last edited" comment.

 

[Albion]

But I do--really, I do--understand that you just want to be irritating, and that we are not talking about serious concerns. :thumbsdown: The same with that Blessed Mary thread.

 

[Arsenios]

But I do--really, I do--understand that you just want to be irritating, and that we are not talking about serious concerns. :thumbsdown: The same with that Blessed Mary thread.

OK - I confess... I do get a kick and a half out of dragging Menno backwards through the brambles of saying he believes the Bible and then not calling Her Blessed...

I should probably take it to Confession, except that I keep hoping he will DO the Bible there when it is so easy to do...

I will head on over there and apologize to him!


Arsenios