Church of England & Catholic Church?

King Henry (from a few centuries back) broke off ties with the Catholic Church so that he could divorce and re-marry.

 

Watch A Man For All Seasons, and it may help clarify the ambiguity.

 

Don is right. The King of England wanted to divorce his wife (she couldn't give him a son). Of course, we all know it is the man that determines the sex of the baby, but the king didn't know that. He petitioned the Pope to have his marriage annulled, or declared invalid and the Pope said no. So the king formed his own church, with the Queen as the head of the church (imagine that). So you had the split. It is kind of like today when a new brand of church is stated every day because some "leader" has a "vision" and starts his own church. Usually it is something so far from Christianity that it isn't funny, but that doesn't seem to matter anymore. As long as the place as a good choir, a youth group, programs, and more programs, and tells the people what they want to hear, the place will be filled up. Of course, if you preach the truth, then the place will fail because people don't want to hear about "Sinners in the hands of an angry God" or how they are totally depraved and lost and without the Sovereign grace of God regenerating them they will end up in the pits of hell. But, hey, if you don't like what your church teaches, start your own. That's the fad these days. You can hand out WWJD bracelets and pretend you are a follower of Christ.
To me, I would think 4,000 times before I wanted to belong to a church that had a political figure-head as the head of the church. What a concept!!!
James2

 

The English Church also murdered all clerics who remained faithful to the RCC. The Lords of England confiscated the property of the Church (monasteries, etc.)which pretty much guaranteed the separation of the Anglican and Catholic Church
because there was no way that they would return the Church properties whch they confiscated.

This confiscation of Church property is also seen in the German principalities which chose for Luther and his new doctrines.

It seems that in that time, that princes and lords could reap great wealth by breaking away from the RCC and confiscating all the property and wealth from it.

[ April 07, 2002, 03:57 PM: Message edited by: Glen Seeker ]

 

James2 -

I'm not sure why you find this so offensive but I can assure you that teens wearing these bracelets are more likely to make a non-believer have a positive view of Christianity than someone ranting over something so trivial. How dare you insinuate that just because someone wears an outward expression of their faith makes them a "pretender."

This is the last comment I will make on this attitude. There is a thread in progress on the issue and you have expressed your opinion. No, I don't wear one of the WWJD bracelets. I do not wear a crucifix. If a fellow believer wants to show an outward sign of their faith, then let it be.

- Clint

 

The Church of England was also the first to state that contraception was not a sin. Prior to 1930 every christian church taught that contraception was sinful. They opened the gates on this one due to its memebers pressuring the leaders. When Christianity becomes a democracy the results are always tragic.

 

clint:
I NEVER said EVERYBODY that wears a bracelet or t-shirt, etc. is a "pretender." Where on earth did you get that? I was referring to so-called rock "stars" etc. that wear crosses, religious clothing, etc., then sing songs full of horrible messages, etc.

I would never say ALL teenagers or others that wear christian clothing are pretenders. You misinterpret what I said.
Did not mean to offend.

Today I wore a shirt to church that has a scripture verse and a quote from Martin Luther on it. So, I do not condemn EVERY outward sign of one's faith.
James2

[ April 07, 2002, 06:20 PM: Message edited by: JAMES2 ]

 

Logan:
You are correct on that. Also, I read in the paper yesterday that Italy, which is probably 99 per cent Catholic, has the lowest birth rate of almost any country. Figure that one!!!

I don't think the people are letting their actions be influenced by the Church. So why do they go to church if they are going to ignore all the teachings?
Besides, I think the Catholic church is right on this issue and on abortion and all the pro-life issues.
James2

[ April 07, 2002, 05:51 PM: Message edited by: JAMES2 ]

 

Greetings James!

That is a good question indeed. I believe that people like that go to church thinking they can pull out their attendance like some type of insurance on judgement day. They just dont get it, but we should continue on trying to speak the truth in love no matter how the majority of America views it.

Amen brother!!!
James2[/QB][/QUOTE]

 

Hi James,

You're a breath of fresh air.

You wrote, "So why do they go to church if they are going to ignore all the teachings?"

So they can come to Catholics like me who are responding to John Paul II's call for the New Evangelization.

God bless,

Carson

 

Carson and Logan:
When I converted to the Catholic church in 1980 --is my age showing -- I did my normal thing. I read, and read, and researched and researched and wanted to learn as much as possible about my new faith. That's the way I am -- all or nothing--no fence sitting for me. So I've read the church documents, all of Pope John Paul's writings, Scott Hahn, Robert Sungenis, the biblical evidence for catholicism site, Patrick Madrid, Penny Lord, Fundamentals of Catholicism, and on and on.

However, I did go back to my roots of the Baptist church, but when the Southern Baptist church started turning too liberal for me, I kept reading and ended up in the Reformed Baptist Church where I am now and am finally at home.
Now that being said, I am not one to blindly slam the Catholic church as some mark of the beast, pagan worshipping evil empire. I think sometimes when people get almost hysterical with their insults and the same old tired arguments -- communion of saints, Mary worship, the Pope, the Mass and all the things Catholic -- without doing it in an intellectual way with reasoned argumentation, I think it is because they don't understand the theology to begin with.
I did choose to go back to my original faith because i think they are right, but I will always have a special place for the Catholic Church and all that I learned. I met some wonderful priests that spent hours with me discussing theology. I did not meet ANY priests that were not dedicated to the church and great guys. So I'm sad to see all the stuff and the media feeding frenzy going on now about priests and boys. It's sad because it gives the liberals a perfect chance to complain about celibacy -- as if that is the reason for the sex with boys. By the way, I thought the homosexual crowd always maintained that a person was born homosexual. Now I hear them saying it is caused by being celibate. Now, come on, you can't have it both ways!!!

The Catholic Church has been through adversity before so I imagine they will come out of this ok. What they need to do in my humble opinion, is to fire about 95 per cent of the seminary professors/theologians and model all there colleges and seminaries after a school like where Scott Hahn teaches. As far as that goes, in the protestant schools the same type of professors are also infecting their colleges.What is it!!! A person wants to teach the young at a religious school and they are so pagan and lost it isn't funny. I never met such a bunch of hypocrites as those teaching in the Religious studies programs. Clean them out and start over. Get teachers that actually believe in the Trinity, and the Nicene Creed and the basic doctrines of the bible. Sorry, I didn't mean to carry on, but just wanted to let you know that I have alot of love for the great priests I met while I was in the church. Don't judge them all as wanting sex with children because that is absolutely false. I never saw any improper conduct in the 20 years I was in the church. And I had two sons who where altar boys when they were 12 or 13 and they never had a bad experience. And they were very out-going and the huggie type and they never spoke badly of any priest. And boy, would they have if anything had happened.
So brothers and sisters in Christ, I love you
James2

[ April 07, 2002, 09:42 PM: Message edited by: JAMES2 ]

 

rsr:
Thank you very much. I keep maintaining that the vast majority of people on this board are Christians that love Jesus Christ -- or they would not be here in the first place. Sure there are the lost, the pagans the cynics, the skeptics, those with nothing better to do than put people down because they don't understand Christianity and so forth. But for the most part the people here are great people all striving to learn more about their faith, about Jesus and about Christianity. Those are the ones I like to discuss things with. I've given up on those that just want to insult and hurt people. That gets no one anywhere.
So thanks for the words of encouragement.
James2

 

Hi MEE,

No, the English royal family is not Catholic, they are members of the Church of England. The Church of England is part of the Anglican Communion, a worldwide church including the Anglican Church of Australia, the Anglican Church of Canada, the Protestant Episcopal Church of the USA, the Anglican Church in Africa and many other churches and provinces throughout the world.

The Anglican Communion (with 70-80 million members worldwide) is led by the archbishop of Canterbury as their "primus inter pares" or "first among equals." Each member-church or province is autonomous, led by their own bishops and enjoy a large amount of theological freedom, but all are in communion with the See of Canterbury and that see's archbishop. The present archbishop of Canterbury is Dr. George Carey.

The current king or queen of England is considered the temporal authority of the Church of England (but not of the whole Anglican Communion), while the archbishop of Canterbury is considered the spiritual authority of that church (as well as of the entire Anglican Communion).

The Anglican Communion claims itself to be "catholic and reformed" in doctrine and theology. There is a wide spectrum of beliefs and practices within the communion. You will find both "high church" Anglicans (or Anglo-Catholics) who are very closely related to the Catholic Church in doctrine and liturgy as well as "low church" Anglicans who are generally more evangelical and Protestant in doctrine and liturgy.

Anglicanism has had an interesting relationship with the Catholic Church throughout the years. The foundation of Anglicanism lies in the story of King Henry VIII (1491-1547).

Although Henry VIII won the title "Fidei Defensor" ("Defender of the Faith") from Pope Leo X in 1521 for his denouncement of Lutheranism, in 1534 Henry declared himself "supreme head on earth of the Church of England" after Pope Clement VII refused to annul his marriage to Catherine of Aragon, who had "failed" to bear him a son. For this he was excommunicated by the Catholic Church.

Under the leadership of Thomas Cranmer (archbishop of Canterbury) and Thomas Cromwell (vice-regent), Henry VIII led the Church of England with an antipapal, quasi-Lutheran course of reform eventually dissolving monastaries (1536, 1539) and printing an English Bible (1535). Catholic leaders such as Thomas More and the bishop of Rochester, John Fisher were executed (both in 1535) on Henry's orders.

Through the colonial power of England, the Church of England's missionaries established churches and provinces throughout the world over the years. Today, all these churches and provinces are united as the Anglican Communion. The Protestant Episcopal Church of the USA (aka the Episcopal Church), with it's 2.5 million members, is one such church.

Today, in spite of past events, relations between the Catholic Church and the Anglican Communion are "strong and cordial". At the Second Vatican Council (1962-65), the Catholic Church recognized that, among the seperated churches that guard, in part, the Catholic tradition and structures, the Anglican Communion "occupies a special place" (Decree on Ecumenism, n. 13).

For a time after Vatican II, there were even rumors that the Catholic Church and the Anglican Communion were looking into the possibility of some sort of reunification. These rumors proved to be baseless and now the Catholic Church, although still "in dialogue" with the Anglican Communion, acknowledges that a large "obstacle to growth in communion" came about with the Anglicans' decision to ordain women to the priesthood and episcopate in 1992.

As far as my "comments", the reason I know so much about the Anglican Communion is because, at one point and time, I seriously considered becoming Episcopalian. This was on my spiritual journey that eventually led me to "cross the Tiber" and reconcile to the Catholic Church.

I was attracted to the Episcopal Church because I had come to an appreciation of liturgical worship, Apostolic succession and the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. The "high church" (or Anglo-Catholic) wing of the Episcopal Church allowed me to embrace these beliefs I had come to know as true and important but, at the same time, to remain "Protestant". Becoming Catholic was a big step I was unwilling to take at the time (for family and personal reasons).

I was keenly aware of the predominate liberal element in the theology and beliefs of many Episcopalians, but I dismissed them as personal beliefs and appealed to "soul liberty". There are actually theologically conservative Episcopals and I thought I could be one of them.

In the end, however, I could not escape or talk myself around the allowance of women into the priesthood and episcopate which I did not agree with, not to mention the growing mass of Episcopalians that want to institute church blessed "unions" of homosexual couples. I guess in some regards I could say that "Bishop" Spong helped me to see the truth of Rome.

Sorry about my lengthy post.

God Bless.

In Officio Agnus,
Deacon's Son

 

Deacon's son:
Thanks for the informative history lesson. Boy, do you have your last statement right. "Bishop Spong" is the perfect example of a "religious leader" that has a form of religion but it doesn't have any power over him. He will probably be appointed the head of some seminary somewhere. Why do those type continue to be tolerated in a church? I don't get it. He should have been thrown out of that church years ago.
There are places for him. The Unitarian Church comes to mind. You don't have to believe ANYTHING to be a preacher in that church. At least that's what one of the officials told me a long time ago. He said our preachers don't take a stand on anything. I'm like could you repeat that? I must of misunderstood you. He REPEATED it. Some of our churches are in such a sad state of affairs it is really scary. But then I know that God is Sovereign and in control so everything will be ok.
James2

[ April 07, 2002, 10:19 PM: Message edited by: JAMES2 ]

 

Hi James,

You're welcome! I totally agree with you on "Bishop" Spong. I think he is an absolute disgrace to the Episcopal Church. But, to me, it speaks volumes that, despite his very public (even published) denial of the Virgin Birth of Christ, the Resurrection of Christ, etc. he has never been chastised or condemned by the Episcopal Church for heresy. Absolutely unbelievable.

As I said in my last post on this thread, I tried to see people like Spong through the eyes of "personal interpretation" but that didn't last long- especially after I came to a better understanding of Apostolic succession. To believe that this man could continue to serve as a bishop (and even enjoy a happy, self-imposed retirement as such) said to me that, even if the Apostolic succession has been maintained in the Anglican Communion (which it may have been), the teachings of "bishops" like Spong totally negate the power of the such succession in the Episcopal Church.

While we're on the subject of Apostolic succession, I forgot to include one more interesting fact about the relationship between the Catholic Church and the Anglican Communion.

Former Anglican priests who reconcile to the Catholic Church, if they wish to maintain their priestly role in the Catholic Church, are ordained conditionally, not absolutely.

Absolute ordination precludes the notion that any and all previous ordinations were definently invalid. For example, any Protestant minister who wanted to be a Catholic priest would be ordained absolutely, with the full acknowledgement that, due to a definate loss of Apostolic succession in Protestant churches, any previous ordination was invalid by Apostolic succession standards.

Conditional ordination, on the other hand, precludes the notion that a previous ordination, though probably invalid, may have been valid (in keeping with Apostolic succession). Anglican priests, when the become Catholic priests, undergo this conditional ordination because of the unique amount of Catholic truth that has been maintained in the workings of the Anglican Communion (including a viable claim of unbroken Apostolic succession).

And, of course, an Anglican priest who is married at the time of his ordination into the Catholic priesthood can remain married, however, if his wife should die before him, he must then remain celibate for the rest of his life. Single Anglican priests must take vows of celibacy when they enter the Catholic priesthood.

Just more useless information.

God Bless.

In Officio Agnus,
Deacon's Son

[ April 08, 2002, 09:24 AM: Message edited by: Deacon's Son ]

 

I don't want to get this into a huge debate, but NFP is birth control, no matter what the CC says about it (if you don't think so, what do the letters mean?).

So, unless you don't even do NFP, you are using contraception. But then again, most of the CC uses contraception anyway:

http://www.cath4choice.org/contraception/catholics.htm

This wouldn't be a big deal except the CC mistakenly said Contraception BAD! and now has to stand by it (or show its members that papal infallibility is malarkey), while still giving its followers a way out using NFP. Oh well.

In Christ,
jason

[ April 08, 2002, 02:22 PM: Message edited by: jasonW* ]

 

Sorry - please delete.

[ April 08, 2002, 02:57 PM: Message edited by: GraceSaves ]

 

*sigh*

NFP = Natural Family Planning

The Catholic Church has never, ever, been against the proper regulation of birth. Families have incomes, and having ten kids will destroy a poor family.

There is a big difference in NFP and contraception. Contraception is anti-procreative. It is taking a foreign element into the act of sexual love with the willing and complete attempt at blocking the procreative element of sex, while still keeping the pleasure of sex.

Sex is a gift from God, and thus should not be abused. Surely you all agree to this. Of course, all sex outside of marriage is evil.

But with contraception, the ability to procreate is blocked (99% effective, usually), and thus we create an extra gateway for non-married couple to have sex without the risk of pregnancy. Tell me what is good about this.

So, artificial contraception denies the act of procreation from sexual intercourse and promotes sexual intercourse without the need of procreation.

Natural Family Planning, on the other hand, is not anti-procreative. Firstly, in attempt to avoid pregnancy (not full proof, of course, but neither are artificial contraceptives), couples abtain from sexual intercourse during the fertile period.

Abstinance is good. I practice it, and will continue to do so until I'm happily married. Temporarly abstinance inside marriage helps create deeper respect for spouces and shows how important and what a blessing sex is to the marriage.

Now, I know why you consider it a contraceptive because sex outside the fertile period is of course allowed, and there is "no chance" of procreation if there is no egg.

Sarah thought the same thing, when she was barren and in her later years, but was blessed with a son.

So, what we have here is a big difference. Contraceptives are human intervention against procreation, which is why we have sex in the first place (to be fruitful and multiply). Natural Family Planning's only contraceptive is abstinence, and for the rest of the month, we leave it in the hands of God.

And yes, contraceptives were viewed as evil by nearly all churches until this last century.

Don't tell me that when we get to college and they tell us our R.A.s have condoms if we need them...that this is something good in the eyes of God? Contraceptives promote extra-marital sex by their very existence, because it reduces the risk of danger and makes it more approachable. They kill the procreative element rather than tame it.

Sex is sacred. Sex is about love, respect, and the openness to bear children, which are God's gift to married couples.

Frankly, I'm willing to leave it in God's hands than my own.

[ April 08, 2002, 02:57 PM: Message edited by: GraceSaves ]