Theres a difference between Christianity and Christianity
Freedom Warrior
<,As I become more educated as a christian and read more of these posts
I see a common theme.>>
For some strange reason, I think education and christianity is a
oxymoron.
<<Catholocism is treated as christianity. While Im not denying SOME
Catholics could be crhistians... Catholocism has a different set of off
rules that dont at all apply to christianity and shouldnt be held as the
beliefs of all Christians.>>
What big difference does it make about the ideas of the catholics
and the christians? Both of them are delusional and following nothing
but fairy tales.
<< I would encourage some of you to look and dig deeper into "what is a
real christian?" Just give it a try. Use Calvary Chapel of Prescott as a
reference point and compare to any Catholic church. Dig around
alittle.>>
I have already done some "digging around" with those two religions
a long time ago, and I don't see any major difference. All I know is
that the people in those religions need some serious help and fast.
Visit My Webpage:
http://www.geocities.com/freedomwarrior5000
Yang
Catholicism?
-----
Yang
a.a.#28
rev -273.15 high priest of the most frigid church of Kelvin
EAC mole and other furry creature
"We can support the troops without supporting the president."
-Trent Lott
Doubtful
"Yang" <eac...@SPAMmail.com> wrote in message
news:3cfafc28....@news.service.uci.edu...
> Just wondering. I mean do have Greek Catholicism or Polish
> Catholicism?
Yeah, they have a few. These are VERY OLD splits off from the Church,
whereas Protestantism is more recent splits.
They are a lot like the Catholics only if anything more ritualistic and so
on. Although many allow their priests to marry.
They're generally called Orthodox Catholics, but there is Greek Orthodox,
Syrian Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, and for all I know a few others.
There are also Coptics, which are sometimes called Orthodox. They are based
mostly in North and East Africa, i.e. Ethiopia, Eritrea, Egypt and so on.
The Orthodox split happend in something like 800, I think, though I don't
know the date exactly.
They call them Roman catholics because they're headquarters is in Rome,
where the Pope, who is the absolute dictator of the Roman Catholic Church,
has his residence. Actually, they're all over the world, including Poland,
Mexico, Argentina, the U.S., China, and so on.
Jeffrey Goldberg
in <ufm01el...@corp.supernews.com>:
> "Yang" <eac...@SPAMmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3cfafc28....@news.service.uci.edu...
> > Just wondering. I mean do have Greek Catholicism or Polish
> > Catholicism?
[nice answer snipped]
You left Anglican/Episcopalian from your answer. (And I'm only half
joking.)
-j
--
Jeffrey Goldberg http://www.goldmark.org/jeff/
Relativism is the triumph of authority over truth, convention over justice
I rarely read top-posted, over-quoting or HTML postings.
stillsunny
>Just wondering. I mean do have Greek Catholicism or Polish
>Catholicism?
Well, a long, long time ago, when the world was young, a little
upstart religion was making headlines. It started in a basement in
Nicea, when a group of crazy kids put together a mission statement,
saying what they were, and then quickly relocated to Byzantium to take
advantage of some tax loopholes.
This church had some special properties. It was orthodox, meaning
they decided what the right way was, and woe betide any mere mortal
who disagreed; and it was catholic, meaning, the one church, the
universal church, and it was apostolic, which is just another way of
saying "appeal to authority". It could be all these things, because
it had a monopoly. But then some upstarts back in Rome (you know, the
ones that got bailed on when the True Christian Orthodox Catholic
Apostolic church took off) decided they were the True Christians,
because their appeal to authority was closer, geographically speaking,
than the ones way over in the exotic east.
So -- the entire industry was deregulated, tongues were stuck out,
poop was thrown on shoes, and presently there were two Orthodox (True
Christian) Catholic (universal) Apostolic (you know, nepotism and
stuff) churches. Solomon reappeared to mediate the dispute, and he
neatly sliced all the adjectives in half, giving one church Orthodox
(True Christian) and one Catholic (Universal). The Catholic was
required to differentiate itself by the use of "Roman", based on a no
compete clause in the original contract. However, through innovative
marketing, they turned this lemon into lemonaid, associating Roman
with apostolic, since the apostle from whom the Two One Truth Faiths
both claimed descendence was actually killed in Rome.
The Orthodox still claimed to be catholic, and the Catholic still
claimed to be orthodox, but they each had a gag order prohibiting them
from using it on their billboards. Eventually, the Orthodox split
into smaller groups of True Christian churches, all following slightly
different strains of the One True Faith (Eastern Orthodox, Greek
Orthodox), and the Roman Catholic Church soon faced competition from
upstart small churches who cornered a small but significant corner of
the market, who did *not* claim to be universal churches -- because
they specifically wanted to exclude the Two One True Churches. Then,
to have broader market appeal, came the Anglican Catholic Church out
of England, which claimed to the the English One True Universal
Apostolic Church, and which demonstrated its astute reading of
consumer desires by substituting tea and crumpets for the traditional
dry crackers and Mogen David, and by allowing their priests to
fornicate legally. This morphed into the Episcopalian Church, which
led to the Methodist Church, which led to the African Methodist
Episcopalian Church, AND so on, which all claimed apostolic succession
and catholicism (universality).
Thus, one must differentiate when one wants to discuss the One True
Universal Apostolic Church, because there are so very many of them.
Hence, "Roman."
Sunny
who needed a break from work
Muddy Boggs
"stillsunny" <sun...@tiredofspam.com> wrote in message
news:56anfu0dnii3c63g1...@4ax.com...
Time to take a break from writing now, Cheeky Chicken. 8^)
Landis D. Ragon
which I replied:
>On Mon, 03 Jun 2002 05:20:20 GMT, eac...@SPAMmail.com (Yang) wrote:
>
>>Just wondering. I mean do have Greek Catholicism or Polish
>>Catholicism?
>
>Well, a long, long time ago, when the world was young, a little
>upstart religion was making headlines. It started in a basement in
>Nicea, when a group of crazy kids put together a mission statement,
>saying what they were, and then quickly relocated to Byzantium to take
>advantage of some tax loopholes.
>
<rest of text snipped -- not to censor, but for space >
Oh, very good, sunny. May I forward this text to a few friends -- with
you properly attributed, of course.
--
Landis Ragon (dS = dq/T)
Chief Elf in the Toy Factory.
"I've got a little list--I've got a little list
Of society offenders who might well be underground,
And who never would be missed--who never would be missed!"
-- Gilbert and Sullivan : "The Mikado"
Yang
LOL! Bravo!
Reg Hems
In article <Pine.LNX.4.44.02060...@lehel.goldmark.private>
Jeffrey Goldberg wrote:
>> In message <3cfafc28....@news.service.uci.edu> Yang wrote ...
>>> Just wondering. I mean do have Greek Catholicism or Polish
>>> Catholicism?
> [nice answer snipped]
> You left Anglican/Episcopalian from your answer. (And I'm only half
> joking.)
About which bit is that? The Anglican or the Episcopalian bit? [1]
Seriously though. The Anglican Church of England has always confused me no
end. One of my sparring partners on a family news groups, a retired army
chaplain of the CoE keeps referring to himself as being a Protestant but I
come from a Calvinist background and the CoE always seemed Anglo-Catholic
to me: Virgin Mary, Communion, altars, bishops wearing the fish mitre,
bishop's crozier, ring and other paraphernalia, priest moving sideways to
the RC church because they can't stomach the ordination of women.....
In another discussion he mentioned that Lutherans are part of the CoE.
I don't remember the details but IIRC it has something to do with the Act
of Toleration. Anyway it confused the hell out of me. Anglo-Catholics and
Lutheran protestants under one roof, so to speak.
It is perhaps interesting that the questionnaire for the Census last year
asked:
Are you:
1. Christian (this includes CoE, RC, Protestants......)
So the Census does differentiate between CoE and Protestants. I may be
forgiven but, as this Census was British, they of all people should know.
I must admit I'd never heard of Episcopalian until early last year when I
explained to Jeffrey that there are two forms of Calvinism:
- Calvin's original capitalist version
- Beza's (Calvin's successor) 'whisky galore' fire and brimstone brigade
which....
"tended to produce a more legalistic pattern in doctrine and disciplin.
Beza reverted to the medieval Scholastic practice of discussing
predestination (the doctrine that some persons are elected to be saved)
under the heading of God and Providence, whereas Calvin had related it
to the Person and work of the Christ.
Beza also emphasised literalism in the inspiration of the Bible,
which led him to believe that the only true ministry of the church
must be 'presbyterian and not episcopal' " [Enc.Brit.]
I finished the post: "Not sure what this means. Must read up on it some
time".
[1] I never did but Jeffrey seems to equate Anglican and Episcopalian so
perhaps I may deduce that Anglo-Catholics and Lutherans are
Episcopalian and Calvinists are Presbysterian like the Church of
Scotland (CoS)? This then leaves the Church of Ireland (CoI) - P or E?
* It's not whether you win or lose, but how you lay the blame.
--
Reg Hems ZFC LXXI \_
BBC B Micro Iss.3&7 \_
Atomwide Serial board \_
Diamond SupraExpress 56 \_
ARM3 420 PC IDE-SCSI 8 Mb \_
reg...@argonet.co.uk |
Jeffrey Goldberg
On Jun 4, 2002 Reg Hems <reg...@argonet.co.uk> wrote
in <4b41874b...@argonet.co.uk>:
> The Anglican Church of England has always confused me no end.
You are right to be confused. But note that I'm writing this as an
American who spent just a few years in the UK. I may have this all wrong,
and hope that those who know more will set me straight.
> One of my sparring partners on a family news groups, a retired army
> chaplain of the CoE keeps referring to himself as being a Protestant but
> I come from a Calvinist background and the CoE always seemed
> Anglo-Catholic to me: Virgin Mary, Communion, altars, bishops wearing
> the fish mitre, bishop's crozier, ring and other paraphernalia, priest
> moving sideways to the RC church because they can't stomach the
> ordination of women.....
This is exactly the conflict. In some contexts in (and around) the UK
"Protestant" means anti-papist. This is a political issue issue going back
to Henry VIII and the battles between his daughters. And it persists in
Northern Ireland.
The only contentful differences is the religions is that one follows the
hierarchy which has the Pope in Rome and the other follows a hierarchy
which has an Arch Bishop (with the Monarch, QEII as titular head). There
are some liturgical differences added by the CoE just to make sure that
there are some differences. But for the most part the beliefs and
practices are indistiguishable (with a class of exceptions listed below).
If I recall correctly, the CofE even keeps the RC version of the apostles'
creed. Both maintain the same view of the role of ordained preists in the
celebration of mass/communion and in absolution.
But there is an important difference in practice. Because the CofE is an
established church it has had certain privileges/responsibilites. A great
number of schools are run by the CofE, but because these have to be seen
as serving the public at large (and constantly wary of factions of
government wanting to take this power away), they are nothing like
religous schools in the US. Establishing the Chuch has made it far more
moderate and responsive to political and public sentiment. So the CofE is
much more liberal on many issues (contraceptives, etc).
So the conflict is the the CoE enthusiasts insist that they are
protestants because they politically despise the Church of Rome. But to
anyone else the essential characterization of protestants is that your
relationship with God does not have to be mediated by a priest, and so the
CofE are not protestants.
> In another discussion he mentioned that Lutherans are part of the CoE.
> I don't remember the details but IIRC it has something to do with the Act
> of Toleration.
I have no clue. If it's true then it is on paper only and has no real
meaning.
> I must admit I'd never heard of Episcopalian until early last year when I
> explained to Jeffrey that there are two forms of Calvinism:
Episcopalians are the American wing of the CofE. It is a different
hierarchy (certainly without the British monarch at its head), but they
are closely allied, but neither is committed to follow the doctrines of
the other. I believe that the ordination of women priests first started
in the US and was watched closely by the CofE before they went that way
to.
Anyway, that is my take on it. But there are people who know a lot more
about this than I do. I await their corrections.
stillsunny
<Landis...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>stillsunny <sun...@tiredofspam.com> wrote 60 lines of wisdom to
>which I replied:
>
>>On Mon, 03 Jun 2002 05:20:20 GMT, eac...@SPAMmail.com (Yang) wrote:
>>
>>>Just wondering. I mean do have Greek Catholicism or Polish
>>>Catholicism?
>>
>>Well, a long, long time ago, when the world was young, a little
>>upstart religion was making headlines. It started in a basement in
>>Nicea, when a group of crazy kids put together a mission statement,
>>saying what they were, and then quickly relocated to Byzantium to take
>>advantage of some tax loopholes.
>>
>
><rest of text snipped -- not to censor, but for space >
>
>Oh, very good, sunny. May I forward this text to a few friends -- with
>you properly attributed, of course.
My ego has just exceeded factory specifications. Thank you, Landis
:-)
You may do whatever you like with it. I was just tired of working,
and goofing around to give my brain a stretch.
Sunny
R. Mark Clayton
Catholic means "universal". The Roman Catholic church sees itself as the
"one" church founded by St. Peter on JC's direct instruction. Catholics
therefore describe themselves as Catholics, whereas everyone else calls them
Roman Catholics to avoid confusion with other groups.
The Orthodox churches also think they have a heritage right back to JC
(IIRC). Some translations would make them Catholic as well.
'Protest'ant churches were set up in reaction to schisms and doctrinal
splits with Rome, and tend to base themselves on the text of the Bible.
There are dozens of flavours of Protestantism in the UK alone.
"Reg Hems" <reg...@argonet.co.uk> wrote in message
> Seriously though. The Anglican Church of England has always confused me no
> end. One of my sparring partners on a family news groups, a retired army
> chaplain of the CoE keeps referring to himself as being a Protestant but I
> come from a Calvinist background and the CoE always seemed Anglo-Catholic
> to me: Virgin Mary, Communion, altars, bishops wearing the fish mitre,
> bishop's crozier, ring and other paraphernalia, priest moving sideways to
> the RC church because they can't stomach the ordination of women.....
The CofE is a fairly broad church (groan!) running from evangelicals through
to highly traditional. The main groups are "high" and "low" churches. High
churches tend to be similar to RC ones as above. Low churches tend to
>
> In another discussion he mentioned that Lutherans are part of the CoE.
> I don't remember the details but IIRC it has something to do with the Act
> of Toleration. Anyway it confused the hell out of me. Anglo-Catholics and
> Lutheran protestants under one roof, so to speak.
>
> It is perhaps interesting that the questionnaire for the Census last year
> asked:
> Are you:
> 1. Christian (this includes CoE, RC, Protestants......)
The CofE is technically a protestant church, but not every protestant is C
of E. C of E churches do exist in Scotland, but are pretty rare. Most
churches in Scotland are Presbyterian (no Bishops), and the C of S elects a
moderator every so often. C of E is episcopalian.
Splits in the protestants were worst in Scotland (and carried into Northern
Ireland by Jame I (VI of Scotland)). At one time St. Giles Cathedral in
Edinburgh was literally split down the middle by a wall or partition! These
splits are healing, on my last visit I noticed that two churches in the
village I was brought up in had merged after centuries of rivalry.
>
> So the Census does differentiate between CoE and Protestants. I may be
> forgiven but, as this Census was British, they of all people should know.
>
SNIP
> --
> Reg Hems ZFC LXXI \_
--
R. Mark Clayton
Peter Ashby
"R. Mark Clayton" <MCla...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> The CofE is a fairly broad church (groan!) running from evangelicals through
> to highly traditional. The main groups are "high" and "low" churches. High
> churches tend to be similar to RC ones as above.
An ex workmate related the tale to me of a German Lutheran Pastor friend
of his wife's who came to stay with them in London. The Pastor was
interested in attending a traditional English protestant service. So
being a devilish sort my workmate sent them to St. Paul's Cathedral for
a High Anglican service. The Pastor was reputedly incensed on their
return at having been sent to a Catholic service and took some
persuading that it was under the aegis of Canterbury and not Rome.
If you heard Archbishop Cormaic Murphy O'Connor on R4 yesterday morning
you would have been forgiven for mistaking him for the Archbish of
Canterbury. He was so concerned to be perceived to be loyalist and
sycophantic on the occasion of the Jubilee that he came perilously close
to endorsing Elizabeth's divine right to rule as though 1648 had never
happened. It was extraordinary. Perhaps Rome has agreed to toadying in
return for repeal of the Act of Settlement.
Peter
--
Peter Ashby
Wellcome Trust Biocentre
University of Dundee, Scotland
Reverse the Spam and remove to email me.
Reg Hems
In article <admia5$2pm$2...@knossos.btinternet.com> R. Mark Clayton wrote:
> Reg Hems <reg...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
[snipped and rehashed]
>> Seriously though. The Anglican Church of England has always confused me
>> no end. One of my sparring partners on a family news groups, a retired
>> army chaplain of the CoE keeps referring to himself as being a
>> Protestant but I come from a Calvinist background and the CoE always
>> seemed Anglo-Catholic to me: Virgin Mary, Communion, altars, bishops
>> wearing fish mitres, bishop's crozier, ring and other paraphernalia,
>> priest moving sideways to the RC church because they can't stomach the
>> ordination of women.....
> The CofE is a fairly broad church (groan!) running from evangelicals
> through to highly traditional. The main groups are "high" and "low"
> churches. High churches tend to be similar to RC ones as above. Low
> churches tend to
... be more protestant?
>> In another discussion he mentioned that Lutherans are part of the CoE. I
>> don't remember the details but IIRC it has something to do with the Act
>> of Toleration. Anyway it confused the hell out of me. Anglo-Catholics
>> and Lutheran protestants under one roof, so to speak.
>> It is perhaps interesting that the questionnaire for the Census last year
>> asked:
>> Are you:
>> 1. Christian (this includes CoE, RC, Protestants......)
> The CofE is technically a protestant church, but not every protestant is
> C of E. C of E churches do exist in Scotland, but are pretty rare. Most
> churches in Scotland are Presbyterian (no Bishops), and the C of S elects
> a moderator every so often. C of E is episcopalian.
Meaning they adhere to some sort of (apostolic?) succession? See other post.
> 'Protest'ant churches were set up in reaction to schisms and doctrinal
> splits with Rome, and tend to base themselves on the text of the Bible.
> There are dozens of flavours of Protestantism in the UK alone.
Thanks for *trying* to describe the C of E ;-) In spite of other people
trying to explain over the years I have never understood it. Perhaps
because I'm a cradle Calvinist (Calvin's capitalist version) but with ample
exposure to Bera's version I can't define the various Protest'ant flavours
(Mennonists, Article 37, Baptists, Zwingliists.....) as anything else but
clearly defined and delineated.
> Splits in the protestants were worst in Scotland (and carried into
> Northern Ireland by James I (VI of Scotland)). At one time St. Giles
> Cathedral in Edinburgh was literally split down the middle by a wall or
> partition! These splits are healing, on my last visit I noticed that two
> churches in the village I was brought up in had merged after centuries of
> rivalry.
A year or so ago I referred to the Calvinists of NI and got a blank look:
"Calvinists? Wazzat?"
Then somebody living in NI (German married to an Irish girl) asked me on a
family newsgroup: "Did you mean Protestant Calvinists or Roman Catholic
Calvinists?". Uh? He went on to explain that in NI there is no room for
more than two classifications. When he put 'atheist' on an official form he
was told this was not precise enough. He had to enter either Protestant
Atheist or Roman Catholic Atheist (????!!!!).
* Opportunity + Instinct == Profit - Ferengi rule 9 of acquisition
--
Reg Hems ZFC LXXI \_
Reg Hems
In article <admia5$2pm$2...@knossos.btinternet.com> R. Mark Clayton wrote:
> Original question.
> Catholic means "universal". The Roman Catholic church sees itself as the
> "one" church founded.... ^^^^
.....in the early 4th century by the Emperor Constantin as the Universal
Constantinian Church of Rome. He declared himself the 13th apostle
(Enc.Brit.) and thus took it upon himself to select the next Bishop of Rome
(Sylvester, elected 31 Jan 314). The UCC of Rome developed into the
RC Church long after the Council of Nicaea in 325.
> ....by St. Peter on JC's direct instruction.....
You are referring to the apostolic succession I take it. Ignoring the
interruption by Constantine's decision in 313 CE to choose the next Bishop
of Rome, the apostolic succession is a spurious one as no such Succession
can be proved. The Apostle Peter (on whom the succession supposedly hinged)
never was Bishop of Rome. He may have been Jezus' Second but he could not
have been appointed by him. After the crucifixion in 33 ....
Enc.Brit.
... Peter assumed a missionary role while the actual leadership of the
Jeruzalem church devolved upon James "the brother of the Lord." This
sequence of authority is suggested by Peter's obedience [and Paul's - my
addition] to the wishes of "certain persons who came from James" and hence
his ceasing to eat with Gentile Christians at Antioch (Gal 1:18-19).
See also Acts 15:7 and 12:17."
The 1st bishop of Rome was Linus (2 Tim 4:21), installed by Paul in 58 CE
during Peter's lifetime but he was not one of the apostles.
- St.Clement of Alexandria.
Clementine Homilies and Apostolic Constitutions (translation)
Ante-Nicene Library, T & T Clark, Edinburgh, 1870.
La véritable histoire des Papes
Jean Matthieu-Rosay (...put in charge of the course of the history
of catholicism by the cardinal-archevêque de of Mayence).
"C'est ainsi que vécut et mourut à Rome celui dont on a voulu faire le
premier pape, au prix d'un anachronisme inadmissible."
"Thus lived and died in Rome he of whom one has wanted to make the first
pope, at the price of an inadmissible anachronism."
Enc.Brit.
"It may be said that by the end of the 1st century there existed a
tradition that Peter had lived in Rome [...] It is probable that the
tradition of a 25-year episcopate of Peter in Rome is not earlier than
the beginning or the middle of the 3rd century. The claims that the
Church of Rome was founded by Peter or that he served as its 1st bishop
(in the present meaning of the word ) are in dispute and rests on
evidence that is not earlier than the middle or late 2nd century."
It is interesting to note that the Papal doctrine of 'infallability', voted
in on 18 July 1870 (533 ayes, 2 nos, 60 abstainers who had left early),
was needed to support the concept of a structured progression of High
Bishops in Apostolic Succession from Peter.
> Catholics therefore describe themselves as Catholics, whereas everyone
> else calls them Roman Catholics to avoid confusion with other groups.
> The Orthodox churches also think they have a heritage right back to JC
> (IIRC). Some translations would make them Catholic as well.
Seems likely. The schism of the Eastern and Western Churches occurred
centuries later.
* Failure is not an option. It's bundled with your software.
--
Reg Hems ZFC LXXI \_
R. Mark Clayton
>
> In article <admia5$2pm$2...@knossos.btinternet.com> R. Mark Clayton wrote:
> > Reg Hems <reg...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> [snipped and rehashed]
>
> > C of E is episcopalian.
>
> Meaning they adhere to some sort of (apostolic?) succession? See other
post.
>
Meaning they have bishops and a hierarchy. I have read your other post, but
failed my DDv, and haven't really got a clue whether the early Catholic
church made up some of the history too.
>
> Thanks for *trying* to describe the C of E ;-) In spite of other people
> trying to explain over the years I have never understood it. Perhaps
> because I'm a cradle Calvinist (Calvin's capitalist version) but with
ample
> exposure to Bera's version I can't define the various Protest'ant flavours
> (Mennonists, Article 37, Baptists, Zwingliists.....) as anything else but
> clearly defined and delineated.
Round where I live we have CofE, Methodist, German Lutheran, Morovian (might
be Orthodox), Baptist, Evangelical, United Reformed, 7th Day, Latter Day,
Eternal Life, Temple of Shalom Christian Church, Armenian (might be
Orthodox), Deeper Life Bible, Friends (Quakers), Wesley, Congregational,
Unitarian, Free Christian, Full Gospel Tabernacle, Jehovah's Witness,
Calvary, Pentacostal, Spiritalist Union, Nazarene, Body of Christ, God of
Prophecy, Welsh Methodist, Kingdom Faith, Kingdom Revival, New Life, New
Testament, World Harvest Bible,
not to mention RC, Orthodox, Coptic etc.
> --
> Reg Hems ZFC LXXI \_
--
R. Mark Clayton
Reg Hems
In article <p.r.ashby-4D895...@dux.dundee.ac.uk> Peter Ashby
wrote:
> In article <admia5$2pm$2...@knossos.btinternet.com> R. Mark Clayton" wrote:
>> The CofE is a fairly broad church (groan!) running from evangelicals
>> through to highly traditional. The main groups are "high" and "low"
>> churches. High churches tend to be similar to RC ones as above.
[Snip]
> If you heard Archbishop Cormaic Murphy O'Connor on R4 yesterday morning
> you would have been forgiven for mistaking him for the Archbish of
> Canterbury. He was so concerned to be perceived to be loyalist and
> sycophantic on the occasion of the Jubilee that he came perilously close
> to endorsing Elizabeth's divine right to rule as though 1648 had never
> happened. It was extraordinary. Perhaps Rome has agreed to toadying in
> return for repeal of the Act of Settlement.
I thought that the Pope bestowed the Title "Defender of the Faith" on Henri
VIII /before/ he made the break with Rome to divest himself of his first
wife. Does this then not imply his divine right to rule and of the various
Royal Houses succeeding him? Or have I got this wrong?
* Confession is good for the soul, but bad for your career.
--
Reg Hems ZFC LXXI \_
Reg Hems
In article <adp32j$afq$2...@knossos.btinternet.com> R. Mark Clayton wrote:
> In message <4b427621...@argonet.co.uk> Reg Hems wrote:
[Snip]
>> Thanks for *trying* to describe the C of E ;-) In spite of other people
>> trying to explain over the years I have never understood it. Perhaps
>> because I'm a cradle Calvinist (Calvin's capitalist version) but with
>> ample exposure to Bera's version, I can't define the various Protest'ant
>> flavours (Mennonists, Article 37, Baptists, Zwingliists.....) as
>> anything else but clearly defined and delineated.
> Round where I live we have CofE, Methodist, German Lutheran, Morovian
> (might be Orthodox), Baptist, Evangelical, United Reformed, 7th Day,
> Latter Day, Eternal Life, Temple of Shalom Christian Church, Armenian
> (might be Orthodox), Deeper Life Bible, Friends (Quakers), Wesley,
> Congregational, Unitarian, Free Christian, Full Gospel Tabernacle,
> Jehovah's Witness, Calvary, Pentacostal, Spiritalist Union, Nazarene,
> Body of Christ, God of Prophecy, Welsh Methodist, Kingdom Faith, Kingdom
> Revival, New Life, New Testament, World Harvest Bible,
Good grief. Not all waiting for this alien UFO ;-)
> not to mention RC, Orthodox, Coptic etc.
You omitted the Old Catholics. Over 50 years ago I went to a midnight mass
of the OCs because their liturgy was not in Latin. Not that it made any
/more/ sense at the time.
* The English People believes itself to be free: it is gravely mistaken; it is free only during the election of MPs; as soon as the Members are elected the people is enslaved - J.J.Rousseau (1712-1778)
--
Reg Hems ZFC LXXI \_
R. Mark Clayton
>
> In article <p.r.ashby-4D895...@dux.dundee.ac.uk> Peter Ashby
> wrote:
> > In article <admia5$2pm$2...@knossos.btinternet.com> R. Mark Clayton" wrote:
>
> >> The CofE is a fairly broad church (groan!) running from evangelicals
> >> through to highly traditional. The main groups are "high" and "low"
> >> churches. High churches tend to be similar to RC ones as above.
>
> [Snip]
>
> > If you heard Archbishop Cormaic Murphy O'Connor on R4 yesterday morning
> > you would have been forgiven for mistaking him for the Archbish of
> > Canterbury. He was so concerned to be perceived to be loyalist and
> > sycophantic on the occasion of the Jubilee that he came perilously close
> > to endorsing Elizabeth's divine right to rule as though 1648 had never
> > happened. It was extraordinary. Perhaps Rome has agreed to toadying in
> > return for repeal of the Act of Settlement.
>
> I thought that the Pope bestowed the Title "Defender of the Faith" on
Henri
> VIII /before/ he made the break with Rome to divest himself of his first
> wife. Does this then not imply his divine right to rule and of the various
> Royal Houses succeeding him? Or have I got this wrong?
As you may recall all Henry VIII's children were without issue. This means
that the present Queen (and all monarchs since James I/VI) are descended
from Henry VII not Henry VIII, although I suppose they are successors to the
title.
>
> * Confession is good for the soul, but bad for your career.
> --
> Reg Hems ZFC LXXI \_
--
R. Mark Clayton
Peter Ashby
> In article <p.r.ashby-4D895...@dux.dundee.ac.uk> Peter Ashby
> wrote:
> > In article <admia5$2pm$2...@knossos.btinternet.com> R. Mark Clayton" wrote:
>
> >> The CofE is a fairly broad church (groan!) running from evangelicals
> >> through to highly traditional. The main groups are "high" and "low"
> >> churches. High churches tend to be similar to RC ones as above.
>
> [Snip]
>
> > If you heard Archbishop Cormaic Murphy O'Connor on R4 yesterday morning
> > you would have been forgiven for mistaking him for the Archbish of
> > Canterbury. He was so concerned to be perceived to be loyalist and
> > sycophantic on the occasion of the Jubilee that he came perilously close
> > to endorsing Elizabeth's divine right to rule as though 1648 had never
> > happened. It was extraordinary. Perhaps Rome has agreed to toadying in
> > return for repeal of the Act of Settlement.
>
> I thought that the Pope bestowed the Title "Defender of the Faith" on Henri
> VIII /before/ he made the break with Rome to divest himself of his first
> wife. Does this then not imply his divine right to rule and of the various
> Royal Houses succeeding him? Or have I got this wrong?
That is true but it was Henry VII IIRC. The title was retained despite
the break from Rome since the Pope's powers, minus a few, simply
transferred from Rome to Canterbury. That the break was political rather
than doctrinal is evident from how close high Anglicanism is to Roman
Catholicism in many ways.
> * Confession is good for the soul, but bad for your career.
I like that ;-)
Peter
Sarah Whippman
<pas...@blueyonder.co.uk> writes
>Reg Hems <reg...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> In article <p.r.ashby-4D895...@dux.dundee.ac.uk> Peter Ashby
>> wrote:
>> > If you heard Archbishop Cormaic Murphy O'Connor on R4 yesterday morning
>> > you would have been forgiven for mistaking him for the Archbish of
>> > Canterbury. He was so concerned to be perceived to be loyalist and
>> > sycophantic on the occasion of the Jubilee that he came perilously close
>> > to endorsing Elizabeth's divine right to rule as though 1648 had never
>> > happened. It was extraordinary. Perhaps Rome has agreed to toadying in
>> > return for repeal of the Act of Settlement.
>>
>> I thought that the Pope bestowed the Title "Defender of the Faith" on Henri
>> VIII /before/ he made the break with Rome to divest himself of his first
>> wife. Does this then not imply his divine right to rule and of the various
>> Royal Houses succeeding him? Or have I got this wrong?
>
>That is true but it was Henry VII IIRC.
No, it was indeed Henry VIII. Rather ironic, considering later events.
;-) I don't know why the title wasn't repealed, but it wasn't, and has
been passed down ever since. However, it has nothing to do with the
divine right to rule, which had been believed in for a long time before
that.
> The title was retained despite
>the break from Rome since the Pope's powers, minus a few, simply
>transferred from Rome to Canterbury. That the break was political rather
>than doctrinal is evident from how close high Anglicanism is to Roman
>Catholicism in many ways.
Well, I think Rome would have disagreed with you about it not being
doctrinal, but you're right that the disagreement wasn't about any sort
of day-to-day running of the church. The doctrine in question was the
Pope's supposed final authority over all religious matters. Henry
claimed to have greater power than the Pope to decide matters of
religion as far as England was concerned (hence conveniently giving
himself the power to decide his marriage to Katherine of Aragon was
invalid despite the Pope refusing to pronounce it invalid).
All the best,
Sarah