Anglican origins, claims, theology.

[Albion]

There is no reason to think that he isn't a Roman Catholic, Menno.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

...The Anglican Communion is perhaps the most successful Protestant denomination in the ability to keep political unity amide much diversity...

Don't tell them...

New Anglican Schism = Old Protestantism

(*Yes I do recognize the irony of the above link being a Catholic blog)

 

[Albion]

I have to agree with you, ImaginaryDay2, that that statement about the Anglican Communion being united was startling to me...and at least a bit confusing.

The fracturing of the Anglican Communion (an international federation of Anglican national churches representing about 70% of the world's Anglicans) in recent years has been one of the hottest items on the religious newspages, but it may be that Josiah was saying that the AC has retained a formal unity even while half the member churches have declared themselves out of communion with the other members of the organization. Some observers have tried to see that as some kind of success story.

It is also true that until a couple of generations ago, the Anglican churches were heralded as being remarkable for remaining united despite allowing a much greater variance, one to another, in worship style and doctrine, as compared to most other denominations/communions.





.

 

[MoreCoffee]

So you aren't a Roman Catholic, but you are a part of the Vatican denomination?

I am a Catholic. My rite is Roman but in the English language. And I do, along with my bishop and all the priests that I know, acknowledge pope Francis as successor of saint Peter who has jurisdiction over all the diocese connected to the Catholic Church.

 

[MoreCoffee]

And I am the only Anglican here. How interesting it is that you think everyone else would know more about the church than the Anglican.

I reported what they [MennoSota, and Josiah] say. I do not think they know more about Anglicanism than do you.

I doubt the dismissive "history" comments that you made, but I am willing to read your posts and see how you arrived at it.

 

[MennoSota]

I am a Catholic. My rite is Roman but in the English language. And I do, along with my bishop and all the priests that I know, acknowledge pope Francis as successor of saint Peter who has jurisdiction over all the diocese connected to the Catholic Church.

Yep, you're Roman.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Yep, you're Roman.

I am Australian, but if you like the word "Roman" so much go ahead and use it.

 

[Albion]

I don't believe that the Australian Catholic Church is actually one of the Vatican's 23 different rites. Anyway, all this irrelevant chit-chat aside, I appreciate that Josiah posted the (thirty-nine) Articles of Religion, so anyone who wants to discuss them in the way we took up Lutheran theology earlier...please do.

 

[MennoSota]

Sacraments ordained of Christ be not only badges or tokens of Christian men's profession, but rather they be certain sure witnesses, and effectual signs of grace, and God's good will towards us, by the which he doth work invisibly in us, and
doth not only quicken,
but also strengthen and confirm our Faith in him.

I note that Anglicans have only two sacraments. However, there is a false conclusion that these two sacraments provide a "quickening" which means salvation becomes a merited function, rather than a gracious act of God.

 

[MennoSota]

On baptism:

Baptism is not only a sign of profession, and mark of difference, whereby Christian men are discerned from others that be not christened, but is also a sign of Regeneration or new Birth, whereby, as by an instrument, they that receive Baptism rightly are grafted into the Church; the promises of the forgiveness of sin, and of our adoption to be the sons of God by the Holy Ghost, are visibly signed and sealed; Faith is confirmed, and Grace increased by virtue of prayer unto God.
The Baptism of young Children is in any wise to be retained in the Church, as most agreeable with the institution of Christ.

Good to see that Anglicans see baptism only as a sign, not a means of grace.
However, they make this moot when they express "quickening" via the sacrament of baptism. This seems to be contradictory.
It looks like Anglicans just can't quite let go of infant baptism despite recognizing it has no purpose in regard to salvation of the infant. I wonder why it's not just removed.?

 

[Albion]

I note that Anglicans have only two sacraments. However, there is a false conclusion that these two sacraments provide a "quickening" which means salvation becomes a merited function, rather than a gracious act of God.

The wording simply means that sacraments are channels of grace, and we all know that grace is a gift of God.

 

[Albion]

On baptism:

Good to see that Anglicans see baptism only as a sign, not a means of grace.

They don't. You just pointed out in the other post that they consider Baptism to be a sacrament. That it confers grace is, by definition, one of the characteristics of a sacrament.

Anyway, quickening is your word. It doesn't appear in the Article.

 

[Josiah]

It is interesting to see Albion's take on what the "Church of England" is and when he alleged it came into being.

MennoSota doesn't accept Albion's view.

Josiah doesn't accept Albion's view either.

I think Albion is playing with words. There was a church in England fairly early. It was Catholic and "Roman" but it had influences from the Irish after the Roman Empire fell and it developed its own liturgical tradition which was different from the liturgical forms in use in mainland western Europe. Later the English liturgy was brought into a degree of conformity with the Liturgy as it existed in parts of France and other places in Europe. All of these things happened while the English Church was Catholic and "Roman".

The church came into being when faith in the Messiah did.... Although traditionally, Christians often trace this back to Pentecost when the Holy Spirit was "poured out". So, the church catholic is some 2000 years old: the one, holy, catholic, communion of saints - the community of ALL believers, ALL who were given the divine gift of faith/Holy Spirit/Justification, ALL the Children of God, ALL the Body of Christ, spread out over all the centuries and all the continents (including Pope Frances, Martin Luther, Jon Hus, Billy Graham, me, you). THAT church is huge and old. THAT church is one and holy. THAT church was founded by Christ who is still its Lord.


Dating the establishment of DENOMINATIONS (especially early ones) isn't always easy. We can at least give a year to the founding of the Roman Church (to which most denominations today are descendants) , the Caesar did that early in the 4th century. But when did the EO and CC become separate denominations (pointing to 1054 may be too technical - they hadn't been functioning as one denomination for CENTURIES before that). We can date the technically when the RCC split itself in 1521 but that's not really the birth of the Lutheran faith community (no Lutheran denomination dates itself to that, they all date it to later than that). The denomination my parish belongs to dates its founding to 1847.


There are a FEW denominations that have a strong felt NEED to essentially equate the church with it itself (uniquely, singularly, individually, institutionally). This is because they feel that this gives their enormous, unmitigated desire to "lord it over others as the gentiles do" and to be unaccountable will have some credence if it itself = the church (even Christ Himself). There are two primary, large denominations that do the: the RCC and LDS. But there are some additional tiny ones that do this, too. All found their claims of essentially being God on Earth - authoritative, infallible, unaccountable; with all needing to be docilicly submissive to it as unto God - upon this (entirely incredible) claim.


Parishes (and any possible denominations of them) are the result of MAN (albeit surely all believe God so desires and empowers ); and they MAY have a technical, date-able starting point (and may not). But of course, the church always is here... wherever faith is. There are millions of parishes, and thousands of denominations of them, but there is ONE holy, catholic, community of believers... there IS one Lord, one faith, one baptism.... we ARE brothers and sisters in Christ. No human can change that - no matter how many parishes are founded, how many denominations are started.


The Anglican Communion has always been diverse and embracing (it was founded as such). It is a unique blend of Catholicism, Lutheranism and Calvinism. And we can find quite a range of beliefs and practices within her (all embraced. Historically, I have a LOT of esteem for this faith community.

Josiah doesn't accept Albion's view either.

Well, Albion has a point....

I think there is solid historical proof that the church existed in England, Wales and Ireland before the Roman Church (the denomination the Empire invented) did anything there. There were Christians and parishes of them before the RC denomination was even begun. In that sense, the church in England is older than the Roman Church and existed before the Roman Church did anything there.

The Roman Church NEVER embraced all Christian parishes - there were churches (especially on the fringes of the Empire and of course by definition beyond the Empire) that were not in any sense part of the Roman denomination. There were Celtic churches, churches in India and even perhaps China, churches in Ethiopia, etc., etc., etc.... the "Catholic Church" has never, ever been catholic but rather a denomination of SOME churches - a fine denomination but a denomination. BTW, the Anglican Church has never been universal in England either. It is the "Church of England" but there have always been churches that pre-date all that by centuries and churches not ever a part of the Anglican Communion (including some Catholic and Lutheran ones).

Yes, eventually, the parishes in England (and later in Scotland and still later in Ireland) came under the thumb of the Roman Church. I don't think Albion has denied that. Perhaps he is simply stating a historical fact: the church existed there long before the Roman Church did anything there, before that denomination was even founded. That's seems undeniable to me.



- Josiah




.

 

[MennoSota]

The wording simply means that sacraments are channels of grace, and we all know that grace is a gift of God.

Then no need for the sacraments as the sacraments may not be a channel of grace for all persons. Spiritually dead persons who partake in the sacraments will still be spiritually dead. No grace provided.

 

[MennoSota]

They don't. You just pointed out in the other post that they consider Baptism to be a sacrament. That it confers grace is, by definition, one of the characteristics of a sacrament.

Anyway, quickening is your word. It doesn't appear in the Article.

Hmm...from the articles...
"doth not only quicken,"
It seems you are wrong.

 

[MoreCoffee]

There's a canonical letter to the church in Rome but none to any church in England or Brittan.

It takes a certain kind of crazy to pretend that the Anglicans predate the church in Rome.

 

[Josiah]

There's a canonical letter to the church in Rome but none to any church in England or Brittan.

So what?

There is a letter to CHRISTIANS who happened to reside in the city of Rome (with no mention of Peter or your denomination in it). There are similar letters to several cities. Of course, there's none to any Christians in Australia, so does that mean ergo there are no Christians in Australia and never has been? Hum....


The word "anglican" means English. Where there English ("Anglican") Christians before the RC Denomination established any owned and operated parishes there? Yes. Now.... can you call those parishes part of The Anglican Church (that denomination), there I'd agree with you, no. For exactly that same reason that we can say there were Christians in Rome before the RC denomination did anything there (and very likely before any apostle ever visited there) but that doesn't mean that ergo the first gathering of Christians in that city PROVES that the specific, individual RC Denomination founded it as an owned and operated parish of that denomination.


Interesting (again) how you see flaws in others that you yourself perpetuate. You argue that just because there were Christians in England before (say) 300 doesn't prove (or even imply) that the specific Anglican Church (that denomination) was there. And I agree. But then you do a "180" (as your Catholicism demands) to insist that just because there were Christians living within the city walls of Rome before (say) 300, that PROVES the specific, individual Catholic Church (that denomination) was there. Funny how you often see the "craziness" of an argument you and your denomination make (foundationally!).




.

 

[Albion]

There's a canonical letter to the church in Rome but none to any church in England or Brittan.

It takes a certain kind of crazy to pretend that the Anglicans predate the church in Rome.

It is a fact of history. You wish it were otherwise. Yes, we get it. We got it the first time, too. Now move on to something else--like theology! When I suggested that if you are so interested in Anglicanism, you start a thread about it, I assumed that it would be about Anglican beliefs and practices, just as we have discussed with other churches.

 

[Albion]

Hmm...from the articles...
"doth not only quicken,"
It seems you are wrong.

The word quickening does not appear, and quicken absolutely does not mean what you want it to mean or what it might mean among Anabaptists or other religious extremists which the Articles, at least in part, were intended to rebuke.

 

[MoreCoffee]

It is a fact of history. You wish it were otherwise. Yes, we get it. We got it the first time, too. Now move on to something else--like theology! When I suggested that if you are so interested in Anglicanism, you start a thread about it, I assumed that it would be about Anglican beliefs and practices, just as we have discussed with other churches.

Like I said. It takes a certain kind of crazy to believe that some church in England predates the church in Rome.

Romans 1:1-7 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God [SUP]2[/SUP] which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy scriptures, [SUP]3[/SUP] the gospel concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh [SUP]4[/SUP] and designated Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord, [SUP]5[/SUP] through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith for the sake of his name among all the nations, [SUP]6[/SUP] including yourselves who are called to belong to Jesus Christ; [SUP]7[/SUP] To all God's beloved in Rome, who are called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

So where's the letter to the church in Canterbury or London?

Was their a Canterbury or a London before 50 AD? No?

Yes, Albion, it really does take a certain kind of crazy to believe that there was a church in England before there was a church in Rome.

But, you managed it, bravo!

It takes talent to be that insane.