? for Anglicans & R.C.'s

[hana]

[Stanley Anderson]

[hana]

Stanley,
Do you work in aerospace? It's kind of a long shot, but you wouldn't happen to know Kent Bartel, would you (also an Anglican and worked in aerospace in So. Cal.)
That's interesting that you're going over to the Roman Catholic Church. Do you have a post already up discussing why? Whether or not to go straight there or to the Orthodox Church is one of the reasons we're thinking about this question and others.
Thanks for your response,
Hana

[Stanley Anderson]

[Stanley Anderson]

[Karen]

[Stanley Anderson]

[Pizza Man]

[Kolbitar]

[Karen]

[Stanley Anderson]

[watcher]

Stanley and Hana: we also had to ask the hard question about WHICH apostolic Church was the right one - Latin, or Eastern? My wife was actually a little more methodical in asking the question. We both, however, found the conclusion of the Florentine Council (and it's subsequent rejection in the Orthodox Church) to be very disturbing. On what basis did the Orthodox Church reject the conclusions of the Florentine Council? A conclusion of their own Bishops (and they did not use any sort of coersion argument - they just switched!)! Attendance rates? What makes one Council valid and another not? There's no basis to reject or accept either - other than, I guess, general consensus of the faithful, but if it's a popularity contest, why not just be a Protestant? And on what basis do you exclude one position in this "polling" technique - obviously, Catholics were not included in that consensus, right? And so, to avoid further complication, I guess you just have to stop holding General Councils, which is exactly what happened. I've attached a link - my original sources, curiously enough, were Orthodox apologetics recommended by an Orthodox priest. Whoops.



In the end, I don't think this has much to do with the filioque clause of the Creed. It's more about the City of God and the City of Man. The Empire moved to Byzantium - and it expected to continue to be obeyed. An independent Papacy is an irritating thing, and the establishment of a western "emperor" just adds insult to injury. The argument is always cast as poor Eastern mystics persecuted by the oppressive "Regime" - forgetting that the "Regime" and its supporting administration was in Constantinople - that's where the tax dollars flowed, that's where you went for imperial favors, that's where the intelligentia resided, and it was insufferable that the Church didn't get in line with everyone else. How dare they? In all seriousness, I think the State, although it was Christianized, retained the old Roman idea that the spiritual life was a subordinate good - the real common good was the life of the polity. Proximity to Persia probably didn't help - Roman pragmatism flattered by Persian vanity and absolute tyranny . . . the worst combination. I've attached an interesting link, covering some of the history of the Arian heresy . . . take a look at the persecution of Athanasius, the role of Contantine's sister, and the tension between the State and the Church. I think you'll enjoy it.

[/url]

[ijohn_patmos]

[quote="Pizza Man"]

From the beginning the Roman Catholic Church rejected Anglican orders. (This rejection had nothing to do with the fable that a consecration of the first Protestant Archbishop of Canterbury had taken place in The Nag’s Head, a London pub.)

There are a number of factors in the full Pizza Man's reference that one might respectfully take issue with. However, it is perfectly correct to dismiss the "Nag's Head Fable". It was started by RCs more enthusiastic than knowlegeable, for whom Rome herself has apologised. The real stumbling block for Rome was a perceived lack of intention in the prayer-book. That misperception was probably not their fault but arose from their understandable continental outlook seeks assurance in the explicit. Hence european attemps to codify laws to cover every contingency.

The [b]Roman Catholic Church solemnly pronounced the invalidity of Anglican orders in 1896.[/b]

Their pronouncement did not change the fact that the orders were valid any more than the break with Constantinople severed the Eastern Church from the Universal Church.

As to Abp Laud rejecting rejecting transubstantiation I thought he rejected the teaching of transsubstatiation as dogma but saw it as one allowable theory (doctrine) among others for the dogma of the Real Presence. However, I have a number of authorities on Laud so I will chech up on that.

John

]

[Pizza Man]

[ijohn_patmos]