Anglican Church of North America

1356

Comments

  • RossweisseRossweisse Hell Host, 8th Day Host
    Jengie Jon wrote: »
    ...The only difference is we do not pretend our understanding is the one Roman Catholics should adopt, nor that it makes us Catholic.
    I don't "pretend" that the RCC should adopt it; theirs is an exclusivist point of view, tied to their claim to be the One True Church. I'm merely saying that Anglicans have in fact legitimately maintained the historic episcopate (Apostolic Succession), as well as the three orders of clergy, the primacy of the sacraments, and the liturgy.

    I believe that having the historic episcopate is an important aspect of being Catholic. One must have some form of authority; it might as well be the original.

    And I don't for a moment - nor would I want to - deny that the Anglican Communion is Protestant - or lower-case-r reformed - as much as Catholic. We did restore the married clergy, worship in the vernacular, and greater participation by the laity, and those are all good things.

    @Enoch wrote:
    ...I don't think your history is quite right there. First of all, recusant Roman Catholic publicity has always made snide comments about Anglican orders. In the C16 and C17, their usual legend was that the ordinations at the beginning of Elizabeth's reign hadn't taken place as normally described but in a public house called the Nag's Head. It's rather more that the Roman Church only made its official pronouncement on the subject in 1896. I think it may also have been only then that the Curia pulled out of its collective back-pocket their intentio argument. ...
    I'm well aware of that. (And I'm also well aware of the travails of Roman Catholics in Britain.) I'm glad that the Roman Catholic hierarchy finally abandoned the lie of the Nag's Head, but they really had to scramble around to find an excuse for claiming that Anglican orders weren't valid, because everything was done correctly and in order.

    (I think it's worth noting that a Roman Catholic priest friend of mine, when I asked him about this whole issue, hemmed and hawed, and then said, "Well, you guys are a problem. You're clearly not just Protestants.")

    @Nick Tamen wrote
    ...“Huguenot” has never been an official name, except perhaps occasionally in the French Reformed diaspora. It’s a term that was applied to and then taken on by the French Reformed. The etymology of Huguenot is a matter of dispute. ... Reformed Christians in France still, as I understand it, consider themselves to be Huguenots. Ditto for some in the French Reformed diaspora—Charleston, SC, for example.
    Yes, I know (especially as someone with two family plaques by the font in the Huguenot Church in Charleston). I was surprised, however, that our guide at the museum in La Rochelle refused the term.


  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    Rossweisse wrote: »
    I was surprised, however, that our guide at the museum in La Rochelle refused the term.
    That surprises me as well.

  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    Rossweisse wrote: »
    Yes, I know (especially as someone with two family plaques by the font in the Huguenot Church in Charleston).
    And yes, I knew you’d know that. But others are reading the thread as well.

  • We've come a long way from ACNA but fascinating stuff.

    Question for Rosseweisse - is ACNA as 'Catholic' as TEC?

    If not, why not?

    If yes, then on what grounds?
  • Or, is ACNA as 'Anglican' as TEC?
  • ACNA is generally more evangelical but there are a few Anglo-Catholics in there.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Forthview wrote: »
    As a truly human person, yes, Jesus would have the ability to sin. That doesn't necessarily mean that he would sin.

    Exactly - and as the Lenten Great Thanksgiving has it - "He was tempted in every way as we are but still He did not sin". I can't reconcile that with the Immaculate Conception of Mary.
  • RossweisseRossweisse Hell Host, 8th Day Host
    I don't know that much about ACNA, but they do seem to set great store by the 39 Articles. I tend to lump those in the "historic documents" department (as does TEC), given the importance of all the sacraments.

  • Visiting a sick friend in Winston-Salem from Australia LKKSpouse and I decided to use a B&B rather than impose on the family. Our host turned out to be member of Christ Church Anglican Church http://christchurchws.org.

    I decided to tag along with him on to Matins (I think that is the term. I am not expert with Anglican or CofE terminology) each day and worshipped with them on one Sunday. On Thursday I followed up Matins by going to their morning book study at a local cafe (?diner) and chatted with Ben, their Rector. He explained that their bishop was from the Anglican Church in Rwanda. From the sermon I gathered he was more conservative on gay matters than I was.
    I explained to him that I was with a house church in Australia and when I explained that I regularly lead the Lord's Supper there he expressed initial surprise, presumably at it not being lead by clergy, but must have quickly come to the decision that it would not lead anywhere positive to transplant their custom onto a group with no formally ordained person.
    Anyway, he called round on the Saturday with a few bottles of his home-brewed beers, and very tasty dark beers they were.
    My host gave me a copy of the BCP that we used at Matins (I keep it at the hospital where I provide spiritual care).
    The place and people were very welcoming, so when we returned at the end of the year for our friends funeral and her husband and family wanted to avoid that Sunday the church at which he was the lead Presbyterian Church minister I brought them along to Christ Church, where they felt very accepted.

    After writing this I almost feel as though I should have done a Mystery Worshipper report.

    Though now I am with the Uniting Church of Australia which has just allowed Ministers and Congregations to provide same-sex marriages (I am pleased to say), if I went back to Winston-Salem I would have no hesitation in participating in their worship.
  • ACNA is generally more evangelical but there are a few Anglo-Catholics in there.

    My question wasn't so much whether ACNA are more evangelical or Catholic in style, so much as whether Rosseweisse regarded them as sufficiently 'Anglican' to rank as a a fellow Anglican church alongside the TEC, or sufficiently 'Catholic' as to match her assessment of what constitutes being Catholic.

    It would seem from her answer that she does regard them as kosher Anglicans on the basis of their acknowledgement of the 39 Articles, but doesn't know enough about their 'Catholicity' to sit as judge and jury on that one.

    Would that be fair?

    Meanwhile, on the issue of whether the Anglican communion can properly consider itself both Catholic and Reformed - that's an interesting tension and I can understand why Jengie Jon raises it.

    As with much else within Anglicanism, it's a conundrum. It explains why there's a very self-conscious element at both the more apparently Reformed end of the Anglican spectrum and the more consciously 'Catholic' end - they've both got something to prove.

    'Look at us ... we are properly Reformed. Honest.'

    'Look at is, we are properly Catholic. No kidding.'

  • Not sure why the 39 articles should be a signifier of Anglicanism, seeing as not all provinces have them, even as historical documents. Indeed the Scottish Episcopal Church only recognised them by force of law, and dropped them like a hot rock once the law imposing them was repealed.
  • I seem to remember - and someone will correct me if I'm wrong - that ++Welby invited delegates from ACNA to a recent Anglican conference but completely overlooked the Scottish Episcopal Church.

    Wha-aap whaa-aap whaaa-aaap whaaa-aap - as the music goes on the cartoons when someone drops a gaff.

    As far as the 39 Articles go, they look fairly Reformed to me - although perhaps not sufficiently so as to pass muster from Jengie Jon's or Nick Tamen's perspectives - but I was under the impression that all Anglican clergy are required to do is to acknowledge their existence in an 'historical documents' kind of way.

    Which is, in and of itself, a very 'Anglican' way of going about things ...

    Perhaps that is the defining feature of Anglicanism?

    All Anglicans have to fudge. That is the defining and signifying feature of Anglicanism and the source of its enduring charm. It can frustrate and fulfil in equal measure.
  • Ok - so if the Scottish Episcopalian Church doesn't recognise the 39 Articles, even as historical documents, what is it that makes it an Anglican Church?

    Apostolic Succession? The three-fold orders? Liturgy?
    Other non-Anglican churches have those things, it doesn't make them Anglican.

    Communion with Canterbury? Even if Canterbury forgets that they exist?

    What defines the Anglican communion?

    Reading this thread, one could assume that it is all in the eye of the beholder:

    Rosseweisse: 'We are Catholic because I say so!'
    Jengie Jon: 'No you're not. You just think you are ...'
    Rosseweisse: 'Ok, but we've got some Reformed elements in there too ...'
    Jengie Jon and Nick Tamen (in chorus) 'Oh no you aren't ...'
    Rosseweisse: 'Oh yes, I am ...'
    JJ and NT: 'No you're not ...'
    R: 'Yes we are ...'
    JJ and NT: 'No you're not ...'

    It ends up like a Panto or that 'Anything You Can Do I Can Do Better' song ...

    'Anything you can Reform, I can Reform better, I can Reform anything better than you ...'

    Or, 'Anything Catholic, Catholics do better, they can be Catholic better than you ...'

  • Jengie JonJengie Jon Shipmate
    @Gamaliel

    I think given the tradition within Anglicanism that if I were to define Anglicanism as Rossewiesse defined Reformed or Catholic I would choose to those who liturgy clearly stands in the Anglican tradition. A denomination, therefore, that used the BCP would have the right to call itself Anglican as much as the CofE.
  • Amanda B ReckondwythAmanda B Reckondwyth Mystery Worship Editor
    Jengie Jon wrote: »
    A denomination, therefore, that used the BCP would have the right to call itself Anglican as much as the CofE.
    What about the Charismatic Episcopal Church, Mystery Worshipped here?
  • ArethosemyfeetArethosemyfeet Shipmate
    edited May 2019
    Jengie Jon wrote: »
    @Gamaliel

    I think given the tradition within Anglicanism that if I were to define Anglicanism as Rossewiesse defined Reformed or Catholic I would choose to those who liturgy clearly stands in the Anglican tradition. A denomination, therefore, that used the BCP would have the right to call itself Anglican as much as the CofE.

    Which BCP, though? 1662 was only used in the Qualified Chapels in Scotland, the non-jurors continued to use the 1637 BCP until it was replaced.

    Anglican is surely defined by membership of the Anglican Communion, hence why the Reformed Episcopal Church of Spain is Anglican, despite using liturgy based on the Mozarabic rite and being founded by 19th century Roman Catholic reformers.

    Edit: perhaps this is it: to be considered Anglican you must both want to be considered Anglican and recognise existing Anglican Churches (orders, liturgies, doctrines in matters pertaining to salvation) as valid. So the Lutherans aren't Anglican because they don't want to be, and ACNA can't be because they're trying to replace TEC and ACC.
  • Is it trying to 'replace' them though?

    I suppose trying to put themselves forward as an alternative does imply that ...

    Or is that too simple?
  • As for the Charismatic Episcopal Church, is it claiming to be 'Anglican' in any formal sense?

    It is clearly charismatic in style and episcopal in governance, so in that respect it does what it says on the tin. But is it claiming to be Anglican?

    Or has it simply nicked vestments and formularies that might be associated with certain aspects of Anglicanism and laid them over a charismatic sound track?

    I suppose ACNA are claiming to be THE real and actual US Episcopalian Church ...

    Which is quite a claim.

    Or have I got the wrong end of the stick?
  • PomonaPomona Shipmate
    Yes, I would say that a church has to want to be considered Anglican and an episcopal governance isn't enough by itself - the Episcopal Methodist Church and indeed most Methodists worldwide have episcopal governance but don't consider themselves Anglican.
  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    As far as the 39 Articles go, they look fairly Reformed to me - although perhaps not sufficiently so as to pass muster from Jengie Jon's or Nick Tamen's perspectives - but I was under the impression that all Anglican clergy are required to do is to acknowledge their existence in an 'historical documents' kind of way.
    I would say that the 39 Articles present pretty classic Reformed positions.
    Reading this thread, one could assume that it is all in the eye of the beholder:

    Rosseweisse: 'We are Catholic because I say so!'
    Jengie Jon: 'No you're not. You just think you are ...'
    Rosseweisse: 'Ok, but we've got some Reformed elements in there too ...'
    Jengie Jon and Nick Tamen (in chorus) 'Oh no you aren't ...'
    Rosseweisse: 'Oh yes, I am ...'
    JJ and NT: 'No you're not ...'
    R: 'Yes we are ...'
    JJ and NT: 'No you're not ...'
    I think you misunderstand me, GG, and perhaps JJ, too. I don’t deny at all that there are some strong Reformed influences in Anglicanism (just as there are Lutheran influences in both Anglicanism and the Reformed tradition, and Anglican influences in places in the Reformed tradition.). I just would say that there are also enough differences that Anglicanism is its own thing—a via media between Catholic and Reformed, one might say. :wink:

    I think the point that @Jengie Jon is making is this: Some Anglicans seem to deny that groups like the ACNA are real Anglicans because they are not in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury, and those same Anglicans will say that Anglicans are Reformed and Catholic. I think JJ is saying that if being in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury is seen as the defining mark of what makes a church able to call itself “Anglican,” it seems inconsistent not to apply the same test—being in communion with other Reformed churches or being in communion with Rome—as defining what makes a church able to call itself “Reformed” or “Catholic.”


  • Amanda B ReckondwythAmanda B Reckondwyth Mystery Worship Editor
    As for the Charismatic Episcopal Church, is it claiming to be 'Anglican' in any formal sense?

    An interview with its patriarch reveals a rather confusing answer to that question:
    We were never part of the Anglican Communion, the Episcopal Church, or the Continuing Church Movement. . . . We have not sought nor are we seeking membership in the various Anglican groups at this time. . . . The majority of churches in the ICCEC in the United States do claim an Anglican identity, however, and use the 1979 Episcopal Book of Common Prayer. . . .
  • Interesting Amanda.

    Yes, I get what JJ is saying about the inconsistency, Nick. I'm simply riffing with the idea of it. Some Anglo-Catholics seem to want to out-Rome Rome. Some of the Reform types within Anglicanism seem to want to out-Geneva Geneva.

    The Anglican communion is in communion with other non-Anglican churches - such as the Church of Sweden as far as I understand it. Which further complicates things.
  • ForthviewForthview Shipmate
    Gee D I''m not sure what the sinlessness of Jesus has to do with the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary. The Catholic Church teaches that there is such a thing as Original Sin - something which we inherit from our first parents. It is, in Catholic understanding ,washed away by baptism. The Church teaches that, in view of the role which Mary was to have in the Birth of Jesus ,she was 'conceived without ORIGINAL sin'

    We read in the Gospels that John the Baptist was sanctified within his mother's womb so also washed clean from original sin before birth.

    As well as the Virginal Birth of Jesus He was also born ,as indeed he had to be ,without the 'stain' of original sin.

    To understand the Immaculate Conception one has to understand the Catholic doctrine of original sin. After that it is easy-peasy.
  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    I'm not convinced that when one says John the Baptist was sanctified from his mother's womb, it necessarily follows that means he was immaculately conceived. The actual wording isn't 'sanctified', but 'filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother’s womb'.

    @Forthview what is it that is specific and different about the Catholic version of original sin from everybody else's that makes it so easy to understand the Immaculate Conception?

    It's difficult for the human imagination to get its head round how the Son of God can be also Son of Man, or in the case Woman, how the sinless can negotiate the birth canal of even the virtuously sinful without becoming trained. But saying that for this to happen, the Mother of the Lord must have been immaculately conceived, is merely to push the awesomeness of this back a generation.

    At the core of Incarnation, as I understand it, is an amazing fact that by coming among humans, God is not contaminated. It's rather that by his coming among us, we can be decontaminated, made holy. The reason why Mary is " more honorable than the cherubim,
    and beyond compare more glorious than the seraphim," is because she gave birth to Jesus. It was he, the holy child, who was the one who 'made [her] body into a throne, and [her] womb more spacious than the heavens'.
  • ForthviewForthview Shipmate
    Sorry,but I didn't say that he was conceived immaculately from the moment of conception but rather within his mother's womb.
    It is in view of the miraculous and wonderful birth of the Son of God that the Catholic Church teaches that the Conception of the Virgin Mary was free from original sin.
    I agree that it simply makes a start with the ideas of the awesomeness of the birth of the Son of God before the birth itself.
    At the end of the day it is not something which one can prove either way. Those who believe that the Catholic Church is the Mystical Body of Christ will take its solemn teachings on trust.
  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    Yes, I get what JJ is saying about the inconsistency, Nick. I'm simply riffing with the idea of it.
    Yes, get that you’re riffing. My point was that the riff I quoted veered into ascribing responses to JJ and me that did not reflect what we’ve been saying. :wink:

    Some Anglo-Catholics seem to want to out-Rome Rome. Some of the Reform types within Anglicanism seem to want to out-Geneva Geneva.
    So I’ve noticed.
    The Anglican communion is in communion with other non-Anglican churches - such as the Church of Sweden as far as I understand it. Which further complicates things.
    And on this side of The Pond, you have the fact that the Episcopal Church and the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) are both in communion with the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, but not with each other.

    But a quibble: I don’t think that the Anglican Communion as in communion with the Church of Sweden. Rather, I think it’s that the Church of England, the Scottish Episcopal Church, the Church of Ireland and the Church in Wales are, along with numerous Nordic Lutheran churches, part of the Porvoo Communion. It’s not my understanding that that puts all of the Anglican Communion in full communion with the Nordic Lutheran churches.

  • Jengie JonJengie Jon Shipmate
    Thanks @Nick Tamen, you have got me correctly.

    Yes, and the URC and CofS etc are in communion with several Lutheran churches due to Leuenberg agreement.
  • Ok. I stand corrected.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    edited May 2019
    Nick Tamen, you're certainly right about the "in communion with" bit of this. Some churches of the Anglican Communion are in communion with some Lutheran churches, but on both sides, that is a matter for each of the churches. In any event, AIUI there is no Lutheran equivalent to the Anglican Communion. And the degree of being "in communion" differs in each relationship. The communion between the ELCA and TEC is extremely close, closer even than that between the Anglican Church of Canada and the Lutheran Church of Canada. In turn, that seems closer than the Porvoo Communion. In the ultimate, I can't say that because my part of the Anglican Communion is in communion with TEC, it is also in communion with the ELCA.

    Forthview, thank you for your posts, as usual generous and open. Perhaps I don't properly understand the Catholic position on Original Sin, but I don't find it easy-peasy. To put it another way, and at the risk of offending against your generosity, it seems to me that Immaculate Conception is along the same lines as turtles all the way down (something I'd say about the maniple as well).
  • RossweisseRossweisse Hell Host, 8th Day Host
    Ok - so if the Scottish Episcopalian Church doesn't recognise the 39 Articles, even as historical documents, what is it that makes it an Anglican Church? ...
    It is the Apostolic Succession, the three-fold orders, the liturgy. It is being in communion with Canterbury. The 39 Articles (I'm not a fan) are optional.

    I think (and this is just my opinion, and nothing official) that it's also having a greater tolerance for variation, a kind of liberality, that leads to acceptance of different lifestyles and points of view, theologically and otherwise. I like the fact that our Eucharist is open to all baptized Christians. There's a kind of spiritual welcome and generosity there.

    I believe that an appreciation of the beauty of holiness is also typically Anglican, from the liturgy through the music.
    Rosseweisse: 'We are Catholic because I say so!'
    Jengie Jon: 'No you're not. You just think you are ...'
    Rosseweisse: 'Ok, but we've got some Reformed elements in there too ...'
    Jengie Jon and Nick Tamen (in chorus) 'Oh no you aren't ...'
    Nope. We are Catholic for the reasons already cited. We are also Protestant (if you prefer) for the other reasons already cited. We are the Via Media, the middle way, with a foot in each camp. (And there are only two e's in my name, not three.)

    I don't understand the hostility from some for our claiming our Catholicity, but since we clearly meet the requirements (see above) by any standard but that of the exclusivists, I'm not going to worry about it. One doesn't need to agree with the concept of papal infallibility to be a member of the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. (The Orthodox don't, either.) Deo gratias.

  • Amanda B ReckondwythAmanda B Reckondwyth Mystery Worship Editor
    Gee D wrote: »
    Perhaps I don't properly understand the Catholic position on Original Sin.

    The Catholic Encyclopedia entry I linked to upthread is really quite instructive and not nearly as wordy as some Catholic Encyclopedia entries can be.
    Mary was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin at the first moment of her animation, and sanctifying grace was given to her before sin could have taken effect in her soul. . . . The formal active essence of original sin was not removed from her soul, as it is removed from others by baptism; it was excluded, it never was in her soul.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Thank you for that link again. It certainly gives a detailed explanation, but what I don't get is:The formal active essence of original sin was not removed from her soul, as it is removed from others by baptism; it was excluded, it never was in her soul. If that be so, she was not fully human and thus Jesus her son was not either. The link does not really deal with that. The following details start by an acknowledgement that there is no exact biblical source for the doctrine but do give references which are not inconsistent with it and from which it can be argued that the doctrine is correct. For you and Forthview (along with very many millions of others) those arguments are convincing; for me and quite a few others they are not.
  • Amanda B ReckondwythAmanda B Reckondwyth Mystery Worship Editor
    edited May 2019
    Gee D wrote: »
    The formal active essence of original sin was not removed from her soul, as it is removed from others by baptism; it was excluded, it never was in her soul. If that be so, she was not fully human and thus Jesus her son was not either. The link does not really deal with that.
    If your argument is correct, then neither were Adam and Eve human . . . thus none of us are!
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Sorry, I was not at all clear - the section in italics in my post was a quotation from the Catholic Encyclopedia for which you provided a link, about Mary and her Immaculate Conception.
  • What troubles me about the immaculate conception is this: if God is able and willing to exclude original sin from one conception, why does he not do it for all? Or, does he in fact do it for all as part of the salvific work of the crucifixion and resurrection, making the doctrine of original sin as in Roman teaching obsolete?

    As to the open table at the Eucharist, I value that but that has not historically been an Anglican distinctive. In my youth I was not permitted to receive until I had beeb confirmed, and the formula for visiting non-Anglicans was "if you would normally receive communion in your own church..." I very much rejoice at the shift there has been in the last couple of decades. Just a couple of weeks ago I was at the SEC Cathedral in Glasgow and was delighted that at the distribution I was asked whether my daughter (almost 3) was to have a blessing or the bread. I lifted my daughter to allow her to make the decision and she was eager to be included. "Let the little children come to me" indeed.
  • Apologies for my sloppiness, Rossweisse. I don't know why I allowed the third 'e' to slip in. Once it had, predictive text did the rest ... :(

    Citing the Orthodox position on the Papacy doesn't help the Anglican position though. They don't officially accept or recognise Anglican orders either and are just as exclusive on claims to be the One True Catholic and Apostolic Church as Rome is.

    As for the Anglican inclination towards an appreciation of the 'beauty of holiness', would that this were always the case.

    Sadly, it is less pronounced in some places. That said, I was mildly encouraged when the new incumbent at our evangelical parish drew attention to a detail on the stained glass windows in the apse behind the altar in order to illustrate a sermon point ...

    All is not lost ...
  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    Yebbut, the question I asked was,
    what is it that is specific and different about the Catholic version of original sin from everybody else's that makes it so easy to understand the Immaculate Conception?
    @Forthview, you've linked to an article in the Catholic Encyclopaedia on the Immaculate Conception, but both you and the article are answering a different question.

    Besides, in that article, what does
    "The formal active essence of original sin "
    mean, in contrast to, say, the informal passive externals of original sin?

    There's a great deal else in that encyclopaedia article which I would have concerns about. It seems also to be very dependent on a C19 early C20 understanding of what grace means which I suspect those who are not dogmatically neo-Thomists or neo-Calvinists would now be comfortable with. But that's a tangent I'm not going down.
  • Jengie JonJengie Jon Shipmate
    Rosseweisse

    To be consistent either you need to be Catholic for the reasons stated OR you can be Anglican because you are in communion with CofE. Otherwise, you are using double standards.
  • Jengie Jon wrote: »
    Rosseweisse

    To be consistent either you need to be Catholic for the reasons stated OR you can be Anglican because you are in communion with CofE. Otherwise, you are using double standards.

    Not really, because that assumes that Anglican and Catholic are identities of the same kind. Catholic existed long before the Pope started claiming universal jurisdiction. Anglican only arose as an identity in the 19th century, defined by the member churches of the fledgling Anglican Communion.
  • Jengie JonJengie Jon Shipmate
    edited May 2019
    It is the type of identity I am getting at. If identity is about belonging then Anglicans define Anglican, Catholics (see Forthview) defined Catholics and the Reformed define Reformed. If identity is about characteristics then you just need to state the characteristics and be done but then you cannot argue with others on the basis of belonging when they do the same with you.

    By the way, I think the Anglican identity goes back to 16th Century although some would maintain it goes back to the 6th Century at least.
  • Jengie Jon wrote: »
    It is the type of identity I am getting at. If identity is about belonging then Anglicans define Anglican, Catholics (see Forthview) defined Catholics and the Reformed define Reformed. If identity is about characteristics then you just need to state the characteristics and be done but then you cannot argue with others on the basis of belonging when they do the same with you.

    By the way, I think the Anglican identity goes back to 16th Century although some would maintain it goes back to the 6th Century at least.

    The roots of Anglican identity, sure. I was talking about when people started to use "Anglican" as a descriptor.
  • Jengie JonJengie Jon Shipmate
    But nobody is arguing about using catholic with a small 'c'.
  • Jengie Jon wrote: »
    But nobody is arguing about using catholic with a small 'c'.

    You've lost me.
  • ForthviewForthview Shipmate
    Enoch - 't was not I who linked to the Catholic Encyclopaedia. If it is the one that I am thinking of ,it was published about 100 years ago. It is therefore not surprising that the article has a 19th or early 20th century understanding of grace.

    The more modern Catholic catechism has the following to say about the Immaculate Conception :
    'to become the mother of the Saviour Mary was 'enriched by God with gifts appropriate to such a role'. Throughout the centuries the Church has become ever more aware that Mary "full of grace" through God was redeemed from the moment of her conception. The Father blessed Mary more than any other created person 'in Christ with every spiritual blessing' and chose her 'in Christ...to be holy and blameless before Him in love.'

    The Immaculate Conception (preserved from all stain of original sin ) refers to the moment of conception and not to the rest of one's life. While the Catholic Church teaches that Mary was sinless (because of being full of grace) that is not part of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception

    There has been some discussion here about who is and who is not a Catholic. As far as the Catholic Church is concerned all the baptised are members of the Catholic Church. However a person describing him or herself as Catholic needs to understand that most people understand by that a Christian who is in full communion with the successor of Saint Peter.

    On the Day of Judgement it is highly unlikely that the Good Lord will ask 'Are you a Catholic ? And, if so, what sort of Catholic are you ?

    It is also unlikely that we will be quizzed on our knowledge of or our agreement with the dogma of the Immaculate Conception.


    In the final analysis we have to be ready to say 'I have tried my best to love God and to love my neighbour.

    If we see the Catholic Church as that body that 'leads believers to the Full Truth and makes the Word of God dwell in them in all its richness' then there is no difficulty in making an act of faith in the teaching of the Church about the Immaculate Conception.


    In the same way all Christians have to make an act of faith about the Sacred Scriptures.

    Are they just a series of old legends or even historically more or less accurate tales ?

    Or are they the living and life giving Word of God ?

  • ForthviewForthview Shipmate
    Catholicism is, as many know, multifacetted. In 'popular' Catholicism there are two events which have spread devotion to the Immaculate Conception over the 'Catholic' world.
    We know that many centuries ago Blessed John Duns Scotus was an active proponent of the Immaculate Conception while St Thomas of Aquin was an opponent.In the Baroque era the Immaculate Conception was a favourite topic for painters who painted scenes in the Catholic tradition.

    In France in 1830 a nun known now as St Catherine Laboure had a number of visions of the Virgin Mary, during one of which she saw the Virgin surrounded by the words 'Oh Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee' There were other visions which were given form in what is called the 'Miraculous Medal' worn by many Catholics throughout the world and known by many more.

    The solemn definition of the Immaculate Conception by Pope Pius IX followed in 1854


    A few years later ,once again in France, a young girl,Bernadette Soubirous, had visions of a young woman beside the banks of the River Gave in the French Pyrenees.When,after a number of apparitions she finally plucked up courage to ask the woman in the visions who she was,she was given the answer 'I am the Immaculate Conception' When she told the local priest about the name of the lady,he, who had been doubtful,from then on supported her and around this idea of the Immaculate Conception has grown up the shrine of Lourdes.


    No Catholic is obliged to believe in the visions of Catherine Laboure nor of Bernadette Soubirous,but there are few people who will not at the very least have heard of Lourdes.

    The two statues produced by artists from these visions are found copied all over the Catholic world.It can be reckoned that at least 40% of all Catholic churches throughout the world will have a copy for popular devotion of this statue. When Bernadette was shown the statue, she reputedly said :'That's not like my lady. My lady wasn't always praying.'
  • Gee D wrote: »
    Thank you for that link again. It certainly gives a detailed explanation, but what I don't get is:The formal active essence of original sin was not removed from her soul, as it is removed from others by baptism; it was excluded, it never was in her soul. If that be so, she was not fully human and thus Jesus her son was not either.

    I'm not a big booster of the Immaculate Conception dogma but if the presence of original sin is part what defines humanity, then neither were Adam and Eve human until their Fall. And evidently it also means baptism dehumanizes us.

    I also have to object, again, to the idea that Jesus Christ needed to be able to sin to be fully human. If we recognize that the two natures of Christ were inseparably united in his single hypostasis, ie that he is one person, then the idea of the human nature being able to will against the divine nature must be rejected out of hand. St. Maximus the Confessor, the Church's great champion against monotheletism, argues this in his writing and his distinction between natural and gnomic will.
  • Gee D wrote: »
    Thank you for that link again. It certainly gives a detailed explanation, but what I don't get is:The formal active essence of original sin was not removed from her soul, as it is removed from others by baptism; it was excluded, it never was in her soul. If that be so, she was not fully human and thus Jesus her son was not either.

    I'm not a big booster of the Immaculate Conception dogma but if the presence of original sin is part what defines humanity, then neither were Adam and Eve human until their Fall. And evidently it also means baptism dehumanizes us.

    I also have to object, again, to the idea that Jesus Christ needed to be able to sin to be fully human. If we recognize that the two natures of Christ were inseparably united in his single hypostasis, ie that he is one person, then the idea of the human nature being able to will against the divine nature must be rejected out of hand. St. Maximus the Confessor, the Church's great champion against monotheletism, argues this in his writing and his distinction between natural and gnomic will.

    If Christ was incapable of sin then what does it mean for him to have been "tempted as we are, yet without sin"? Christ's incarnation is diminished if he is incapable of sin; part of the wonder of Christ's humanity is that he is as human as we are, that if he can be tempted but not sin then can we.
  • Paraphrasing St. Maximus as best I can: Christ in his humanity has the blameless passions of hunger, thirst, fear of death, etc. Therefore he feels the temptation but always freely submits his human will to his divine will. His human will is deified by union with the divine will and does not operate in the darkness and ignorance we do. The true freedom of the will is defined not by its ability to choose evil but rather the freedom from ignorance, enslavement of the passions, etc. so as to pursue the end for which it was created (logos).

    To say that Christ's human will can actually contradict the divine will is to say that Christ is two persons, in which case Jesus is a supremely righteous man but not God incarnate (ie the Christology of Theodore of Mopsuestia and Nestorius).
  • RublevRublev Shipmate
    I'm not sure I entirely agree with St Maximus' view of Christ. He was both fully divine and fully human in nature, but He lived on earth as human having divested Himself of His divinity (John 1: 14; Phil 2: 5-7). We are told that the child Jesus 'grew in wisdom' (Luke 2: 25). He suffered just as a human in the temptations and at Gethsemane and gave the cry of dereliction upon the cross. Yet He committed no sin (1 Pet 2: 22). 'We do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathise with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are - yet was without sin' (Heb 4: 15). Not because He was divinely immune from suffering or sin, but because He only did what the Father was doing (John 5: 19). And as the Last Adam it was necessary to reverse the consequences of the Fall of humanity (1 Cor 15: 45).
  • The understanding of Christ's kenosis is indeed hard to reconcile with much of the patristic Christology, which sometimes struggles with a docetic tinge. Fr Sergius Bulgakov critiques this at length in his book on Christology, The Lamb of God, which I highly recommend.

    That said, the possibility of Christ's human will moving against the divine will- so that he could have eaten the tempter's bread in the desert, or rejected the cup in Gethsemane- is inadmissible because it divides him into two persons. Rather, Christ genuinely suffers the pains of hunger and other temptations but chooses the greater good, always, precisely because his human will is free.

    I am not doing St Maximus justice here- there are some decent articles about him online but nothing replaces reading through his own words.
Sign In or Register to comment.