The Banned said:

---

AGC said:

---

The Banned said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

I'll rephrase so as not to derail. It was widely accepted that there was the one holy catholic and apostolic church, and the others were heretics.

---

One church, yet it is defined by "Rome" or "Roman."

---

To be clear, the phrase "Roman Catholic" was a slur first used by the Anglican Church in the 1500s. It's not something we went around calling ourselves. If you hear a Catholic call themselves Roman Catholic, that is a signifier of what rite in the church they are a part of: the Latin rite. They can also be Coptic, Ethiopian, etc etc.

Any time a Protestant calls us "Roman" they are simply going along with the Protestant slur used all those centuries ago.

---

Or clarifying that the catholic Church pre-dates the papal revolution. The biblical episcopal structure is interesting to consider in your history when thinking about aquinas' bishop rejecting his writings but the pope choosing to accept them. The roman institution is largely defined by the elevation of that bishop to the point where they can no longer be distinguished, man acting as man or with God's authority, since the downstream effects are so great over time.

---

Is your definition of the papal revolution the same as the EO's? The EO's grant that Rome was at least had primacy, but the degree is where the difference lies. Is that the Anglican view, or was the Roman bishop truly just another bishop?

---

I would somewhat agree with that. Primacy yes, but sure, degree matters (for instance, the ability to convene a council or not). After leaving we gave primacy to the bishop of Canterbury in a similar manner (though that's contentious at this point).

AGC said:

---

The Banned said:

---

AGC said:

---

The Banned said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

I'll rephrase so as not to derail. It was widely accepted that there was the one holy catholic and apostolic church, and the others were heretics.

---

One church, yet it is defined by "Rome" or "Roman."

---

To be clear, the phrase "Roman Catholic" was a slur first used by the Anglican Church in the 1500s. It's not something we went around calling ourselves. If you hear a Catholic call themselves Roman Catholic, that is a signifier of what rite in the church they are a part of: the Latin rite. They can also be Coptic, Ethiopian, etc etc.

Any time a Protestant calls us "Roman" they are simply going along with the Protestant slur used all those centuries ago.

---

Or clarifying that the catholic Church pre-dates the papal revolution. The biblical episcopal structure is interesting to consider in your history when thinking about aquinas' bishop rejecting his writings but the pope choosing to accept them. The roman institution is largely defined by the elevation of that bishop to the point where they can no longer be distinguished, man acting as man or with God's authority, since the downstream effects are so great over time.

---

Is your definition of the papal revolution the same as the EO's? The EO's grant that Rome was at least had primacy, but the degree is where the difference lies. Is that the Anglican view, or was the Roman bishop truly just another bishop?

---

I would somewhat agree with that. Primacy yes, but sure, degree matters (for instance, the ability to convene a council or not). After leaving we gave primacy to the bishop of Canterbury in a similar manner (though that's contentious at this point).

---

Interesting. I know this isn't the thread to discuss it but I'll have to look into it. Seems odd to claim the pope took too much power 500 years after the EOs claimed the same thing, and after defending the Catholic Church and the pope against Luther.

As a Catholic, I see these elements of the creed applying a few different ways. A Protestant can claim one if one means that we're all one under Christ. Holy can be claimed, sure. Lowercase c Catholic can be claimed as universal. The one that can't be reconciled (outside of maybe anglicans) is the apostolic part. I get I'm not answering the OP completely, but I feel this is closely related enough

Agree with almost all, but I believe the last group we see as still having true apostolic succession is the EO. I can't remember how it all went down, but the Anglicans did something that made their succession invalid in the eyes of the Catholic Church.

The Banned said:

---

AGC said:

---

The Banned said:

---

AGC said:

---

The Banned said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

I'll rephrase so as not to derail. It was widely accepted that there was the one holy catholic and apostolic church, and the others were heretics.

---

One church, yet it is defined by "Rome" or "Roman."

---

To be clear, the phrase "Roman Catholic" was a slur first used by the Anglican Church in the 1500s. It's not something we went around calling ourselves. If you hear a Catholic call themselves Roman Catholic, that is a signifier of what rite in the church they are a part of: the Latin rite. They can also be Coptic, Ethiopian, etc etc.

Any time a Protestant calls us "Roman" they are simply going along with the Protestant slur used all those centuries ago.

---

Or clarifying that the catholic Church pre-dates the papal revolution. The biblical episcopal structure is interesting to consider in your history when thinking about aquinas' bishop rejecting his writings but the pope choosing to accept them. The roman institution is largely defined by the elevation of that bishop to the point where they can no longer be distinguished, man acting as man or with God's authority, since the downstream effects are so great over time.

---

Is your definition of the papal revolution the same as the EO's? The EO's grant that Rome was at least had primacy, but the degree is where the difference lies. Is that the Anglican view, or was the Roman bishop truly just another bishop?

---

I would somewhat agree with that. Primacy yes, but sure, degree matters (for instance, the ability to convene a council or not). After leaving we gave primacy to the bishop of Canterbury in a similar manner (though that's contentious at this point).

---

Interesting. I know this isn't the thread to discuss it but I'll have to look into it. Seems odd to claim the pope took too much power 500 years after the EOs claimed the same thing, and after defending the Catholic Church and the pope against Luther.

---

Not so much. Reformers influenced Edward VI (heir to Henry VIII) and Elizabeth who sandwich Bloody Mary. Hence we can retain our traditional catholic inheritance and apostolic succession that pre-existed Augustine of Rome (three bishops from the isles attended the council of Nicaea).

Edit: Looking up my history, it was Catherine's nephew that sacked Rome in 1527 and she's from Spain. imagine us being in communion if the pope hadn't been afraid of being sacked again, or sending English money to Spain to attack…England. Annulment wouldn't have been a dealbreaker then. It'd be a different world for sure.

AGC said:

---

The Banned said:

---

AGC said:

---

The Banned said:

---

AGC said:

---

The Banned said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

I'll rephrase so as not to derail. It was widely accepted that there was the one holy catholic and apostolic church, and the others were heretics.

---

One church, yet it is defined by "Rome" or "Roman."

---

To be clear, the phrase "Roman Catholic" was a slur first used by the Anglican Church in the 1500s. It's not something we went around calling ourselves. If you hear a Catholic call themselves Roman Catholic, that is a signifier of what rite in the church they are a part of: the Latin rite. They can also be Coptic, Ethiopian, etc etc.

Any time a Protestant calls us "Roman" they are simply going along with the Protestant slur used all those centuries ago.

---

Or clarifying that the catholic Church pre-dates the papal revolution. The biblical episcopal structure is interesting to consider in your history when thinking about aquinas' bishop rejecting his writings but the pope choosing to accept them. The roman institution is largely defined by the elevation of that bishop to the point where they can no longer be distinguished, man acting as man or with God's authority, since the downstream effects are so great over time.

---

Is your definition of the papal revolution the same as the EO's? The EO's grant that Rome was at least had primacy, but the degree is where the difference lies. Is that the Anglican view, or was the Roman bishop truly just another bishop?

---

I would somewhat agree with that. Primacy yes, but sure, degree matters (for instance, the ability to convene a council or not). After leaving we gave primacy to the bishop of Canterbury in a similar manner (though that's contentious at this point).

---

Interesting. I know this isn't the thread to discuss it but I'll have to look into it. Seems odd to claim the pope took too much power 500 years after the EOs claimed the same thing, and after defending the Catholic Church and the pope against Luther.

---

Not so much. Reformers influenced Edward VI (heir to Henry VIII) and Elizabeth who sandwich Bloody Mary. Hence we can retain our traditional catholic inheritance and apostolic succession that pre-existed Augustine of Rome (three bishops from the isles attended the council of Nicaea).

---

But Henry VIII is the one who broke away from Rome, right? Is he not the one who said the papacy claimed too much power?

The Banned said:

---

AGC said:

---

The Banned said:

---

AGC said:

---

The Banned said:

---

AGC said:

---

The Banned said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

I'll rephrase so as not to derail. It was widely accepted that there was the one holy catholic and apostolic church, and the others were heretics.

---

One church, yet it is defined by "Rome" or "Roman."

---

To be clear, the phrase "Roman Catholic" was a slur first used by the Anglican Church in the 1500s. It's not something we went around calling ourselves. If you hear a Catholic call themselves Roman Catholic, that is a signifier of what rite in the church they are a part of: the Latin rite. They can also be Coptic, Ethiopian, etc etc.

Any time a Protestant calls us "Roman" they are simply going along with the Protestant slur used all those centuries ago.

---

Or clarifying that the catholic Church pre-dates the papal revolution. The biblical episcopal structure is interesting to consider in your history when thinking about aquinas' bishop rejecting his writings but the pope choosing to accept them. The roman institution is largely defined by the elevation of that bishop to the point where they can no longer be distinguished, man acting as man or with God's authority, since the downstream effects are so great over time.

---

Is your definition of the papal revolution the same as the EO's? The EO's grant that Rome was at least had primacy, but the degree is where the difference lies. Is that the Anglican view, or was the Roman bishop truly just another bishop?

---

I would somewhat agree with that. Primacy yes, but sure, degree matters (for instance, the ability to convene a council or not). After leaving we gave primacy to the bishop of Canterbury in a similar manner (though that's contentious at this point).

---

Interesting. I know this isn't the thread to discuss it but I'll have to look into it. Seems odd to claim the pope took too much power 500 years after the EOs claimed the same thing, and after defending the Catholic Church and the pope against Luther.

---

Not so much. Reformers influenced Edward VI (heir to Henry VIII) and Elizabeth who sandwich Bloody Mary. Hence we can retain our traditional catholic inheritance and apostolic succession that pre-existed Augustine of Rome (three bishops from the isles attended the council of Nicaea).

---

But Henry VIII is the one who broke away from Rome, right? Is he not the one who said the papacy claimed too much power?

---

Read my edit. It's not so simple as the pope taking the high road and Henry pedantically leaving.

AGC said:

---

The Banned said:

---

AGC said:

---

The Banned said:

---

AGC said:

---

The Banned said:

---

AGC said:

---

The Banned said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

I'll rephrase so as not to derail. It was widely accepted that there was the one holy catholic and apostolic church, and the others were heretics.

---

One church, yet it is defined by "Rome" or "Roman."

---

To be clear, the phrase "Roman Catholic" was a slur first used by the Anglican Church in the 1500s. It's not something we went around calling ourselves. If you hear a Catholic call themselves Roman Catholic, that is a signifier of what rite in the church they are a part of: the Latin rite. They can also be Coptic, Ethiopian, etc etc.

Any time a Protestant calls us "Roman" they are simply going along with the Protestant slur used all those centuries ago.

---

Or clarifying that the catholic Church pre-dates the papal revolution. The biblical episcopal structure is interesting to consider in your history when thinking about aquinas' bishop rejecting his writings but the pope choosing to accept them. The roman institution is largely defined by the elevation of that bishop to the point where they can no longer be distinguished, man acting as man or with God's authority, since the downstream effects are so great over time.

---

Is your definition of the papal revolution the same as the EO's? The EO's grant that Rome was at least had primacy, but the degree is where the difference lies. Is that the Anglican view, or was the Roman bishop truly just another bishop?

---

I would somewhat agree with that. Primacy yes, but sure, degree matters (for instance, the ability to convene a council or not). After leaving we gave primacy to the bishop of Canterbury in a similar manner (though that's contentious at this point).

---

Interesting. I know this isn't the thread to discuss it but I'll have to look into it. Seems odd to claim the pope took too much power 500 years after the EOs claimed the same thing, and after defending the Catholic Church and the pope against Luther.

---

Not so much. Reformers influenced Edward VI (heir to Henry VIII) and Elizabeth who sandwich Bloody Mary. Hence we can retain our traditional catholic inheritance and apostolic succession that pre-existed Augustine of Rome (three bishops from the isles attended the council of Nicaea).

---

But Henry VIII is the one who broke away from Rome, right? Is he not the one who said the papacy claimed too much power?

---

Read my edit. It's not so simple as the pope taking the high road and Henry pedantically leaving.

---

But how does that change the fact that Henry was writing in defense of the Catholic Church, in defense of the papacy, in defense of sacramental marriage, received an award for said defense of the church only to leave a few years later after he couldn't get an annulment?

Kind of sounds like my mom. Catholic her entire life until she learns that she would need an annulment to marry again. After that, the Catholic Church was wrong about pretty much everything.

The Banned said:

---

AGC said:

---

The Banned said:

---

AGC said:

---

The Banned said:

---

AGC said:

---

The Banned said:

---

AGC said:

---

The Banned said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

I'll rephrase so as not to derail. It was widely accepted that there was the one holy catholic and apostolic church, and the others were heretics.

---

One church, yet it is defined by "Rome" or "Roman."

---

To be clear, the phrase "Roman Catholic" was a slur first used by the Anglican Church in the 1500s. It's not something we went around calling ourselves. If you hear a Catholic call themselves Roman Catholic, that is a signifier of what rite in the church they are a part of: the Latin rite. They can also be Coptic, Ethiopian, etc etc.

Any time a Protestant calls us "Roman" they are simply going along with the Protestant slur used all those centuries ago.

---

Or clarifying that the catholic Church pre-dates the papal revolution. The biblical episcopal structure is interesting to consider in your history when thinking about aquinas' bishop rejecting his writings but the pope choosing to accept them. The roman institution is largely defined by the elevation of that bishop to the point where they can no longer be distinguished, man acting as man or with God's authority, since the downstream effects are so great over time.

---

Is your definition of the papal revolution the same as the EO's? The EO's grant that Rome was at least had primacy, but the degree is where the difference lies. Is that the Anglican view, or was the Roman bishop truly just another bishop?

---

I would somewhat agree with that. Primacy yes, but sure, degree matters (for instance, the ability to convene a council or not). After leaving we gave primacy to the bishop of Canterbury in a similar manner (though that's contentious at this point).

---

Interesting. I know this isn't the thread to discuss it but I'll have to look into it. Seems odd to claim the pope took too much power 500 years after the EOs claimed the same thing, and after defending the Catholic Church and the pope against Luther.

---

Not so much. Reformers influenced Edward VI (heir to Henry VIII) and Elizabeth who sandwich Bloody Mary. Hence we can retain our traditional catholic inheritance and apostolic succession that pre-existed Augustine of Rome (three bishops from the isles attended the council of Nicaea).

---

But Henry VIII is the one who broke away from Rome, right? Is he not the one who said the papacy claimed too much power?

---

Read my edit. It's not so simple as the pope taking the high road and Henry pedantically leaving.

---

But how does that change the fact that Henry was writing in defense of the Catholic Church, in defense of the papacy, in defense of sacramental marriage, received an award for said defense of the church only to leave a few years later after he couldn't get an annulment?

Kind of sounds like my mom. Catholic her entire life until she learns that she would need an annulment to marry again. After that, the Catholic Church was wrong about pretty much everything.

---

What if Henry's the faithful spouse being cheated on for years before he actually finds out what's been going on all that time?

Asking questions of one side in a divorce that isn't clear good guy / bad guy isn't a great strategy for getting to the truth of the matter. When you've decided the pope and Rome is always right, it's going to be hard to figure out.

Perhaps ask why he wasn't granted an annulment when it wasn't uncommon for royalty back then (considering she was his brother's wife before his). And why the pope would give English taxes to Spain to be used to attack England? What would her nephew, the holy roman emperor do if the pope granted it after having already sacked Rome and sending the pope into hiding?

AGC said:

---

The Banned said:

---

AGC said:

---

The Banned said:

---

AGC said:

---

The Banned said:

---

AGC said:

---

The Banned said:

---

AGC said:

---

The Banned said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

I'll rephrase so as not to derail. It was widely accepted that there was the one holy catholic and apostolic church, and the others were heretics.

---

One church, yet it is defined by "Rome" or "Roman."

---

To be clear, the phrase "Roman Catholic" was a slur first used by the Anglican Church in the 1500s. It's not something we went around calling ourselves. If you hear a Catholic call themselves Roman Catholic, that is a signifier of what rite in the church they are a part of: the Latin rite. They can also be Coptic, Ethiopian, etc etc.

Any time a Protestant calls us "Roman" they are simply going along with the Protestant slur used all those centuries ago.

---

Or clarifying that the catholic Church pre-dates the papal revolution. The biblical episcopal structure is interesting to consider in your history when thinking about aquinas' bishop rejecting his writings but the pope choosing to accept them. The roman institution is largely defined by the elevation of that bishop to the point where they can no longer be distinguished, man acting as man or with God's authority, since the downstream effects are so great over time.

---

Is your definition of the papal revolution the same as the EO's? The EO's grant that Rome was at least had primacy, but the degree is where the difference lies. Is that the Anglican view, or was the Roman bishop truly just another bishop?

---

I would somewhat agree with that. Primacy yes, but sure, degree matters (for instance, the ability to convene a council or not). After leaving we gave primacy to the bishop of Canterbury in a similar manner (though that's contentious at this point).

---

Interesting. I know this isn't the thread to discuss it but I'll have to look into it. Seems odd to claim the pope took too much power 500 years after the EOs claimed the same thing, and after defending the Catholic Church and the pope against Luther.

---

Not so much. Reformers influenced Edward VI (heir to Henry VIII) and Elizabeth who sandwich Bloody Mary. Hence we can retain our traditional catholic inheritance and apostolic succession that pre-existed Augustine of Rome (three bishops from the isles attended the council of Nicaea).

---

But Henry VIII is the one who broke away from Rome, right? Is he not the one who said the papacy claimed too much power?

---

Read my edit. It's not so simple as the pope taking the high road and Henry pedantically leaving.

---

But how does that change the fact that Henry was writing in defense of the Catholic Church, in defense of the papacy, in defense of sacramental marriage, received an award for said defense of the church only to leave a few years later after he couldn't get an annulment?

Kind of sounds like my mom. Catholic her entire life until she learns that she would need an annulment to marry again. After that, the Catholic Church was wrong about pretty much everything.

---

What if Henry's the faithful spouse being cheated on for years before he actually finds out what's been going on all that time?

Asking questions of one side in a divorce that isn't clear good guy / bad guy isn't a great strategy for getting to the truth of the matter. When you've decided the pope and Rome is always right, it's going to be hard to figure out.

Perhaps ask why he wasn't granted an annulment when it wasn't uncommon for royalty back then (considering she was his brother's wife before his). And why the pope would give English taxes to Spain to be used to attack England? What would her nephew, the holy roman emperor do if the pope granted it after having already sacked Rome and sending the pope into hiding?

---

I'll have to look more into it. You do bring up interesting points that I'll need to research more. My until thought is I still don't know what this has to do with Henry's sudden reversal in beliefs. The Catholic Church is correct and has authority. Then it does not. Complete reversal of beliefs centered on an annulment. Potential conflicts of interest aside, this is one of the most bizarre reasons to abandon your precious faith stances.

When this is taken in contrast to a man here in my parish that lived the single life for over 30 years because his wife had left him, but the annulment could not be granted, as she chose to live a single life apart from him rather than remarry. It was ruled a separation, but still valid. This man is amazingly wealthy and could have his pick of second wives, but he submitted. He didn't just flip his belief on the authority of the church because he didn't get his way. It doesn't make sense to me.

Well, this is timely…

Literally was just talking to my spouse about how the Reformers catch a lot of grief on this board and wondering why the Anglicans don't catch the same when Henry VIII started his own church simply because he wanted a divorce. There was no search of the scriptures in a genuine effort to bring the church back into biblical obedience and understanding, just a powerful man who wanted his own way for political reasons (and probably other desires…)

Quote:

---

just a powerful man who wanted his own way for political reasons (and probably other desires…)

---

Ironically this is how England ended up Roman Catholic vice Orthodox in the first place

Zobel said:

---

Quote:

---

just a powerful man who wanted his own way for political reasons (and probably other desires…)

---

Ironically this is how England ended up Roman Catholic vice Orthodox in the first place

---

Lots of politicking going on in the history of the church. Fighting for power - a tale as old as time.

Runciman's "The Great Church in Captivity" is a fantastic example.. it actually gets boring / irritating reading about the fifteenth time the Jesuits tried to depose and install a western-friendly Patriarch of Constantinople, or the nth printing press smuggled in and destroyed. Good book, super frustrating to see.

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

Zobel said:

---

Quote:

---

just a powerful man who wanted his own way for political reasons (and probably other desires…)

---

Ironically this is how England ended up Roman Catholic vice Orthodox in the first place

---

Lots of politicking going on in the history of the church. Fighting for power - a tale as old as time.

---

Agree. But the Anglican Church does not agree with double predestination.
Every group had unsavory characters and power grabs which is human nature.
I do not think dp is God's nature.

And it is okay if we disagree.

If the only tool you have is a hammer (the RCC is always right) then everything looks like a nail. Few Catholics ask what their institution would look like without the papal revolution. From freeing universities from bishop oversight to elevating aquinas, you must be vested in the authority of the pope to believe.

Edit: when authority is abused, it's natural to reasses why it has such authority. It's not surprising Catholicism has caused so much division and strife in Christendom with the behavior of its leaders. If you know any women who have been cheated on for a long time without knowing, you'd understand. It's a natural time of reflection and asking, where did this go wrong?

AGC said:

---

If the only tool you have is a hammer (the RCC is always right) then everything looks like a nail. Few Catholics ask what their institution would look like without the papal revolution. From freeing universities from bishop oversight to elevating aquinas, you must be vested in the authority of the pope to believe.

Edit: when authority is abused, it's natural to reasses why it has such authority. It's not surprising Catholicism has caused so much division and strife in Christendom with the behavior of its leaders. If you know any women who have been cheated on for a long time without knowing, you'd understand. It's a natural time of reflection and asking, where did this go wrong?

---

Well if the leader of the Anglican movement was so incredibly wrong right up until the annulment was denied, where is the certainty that his change of heart isn't equally wrong?

I'm not coming at this with a hammer of "the Catholic Church is always right". That is a separate issue. What I'm asking in particular is how a man starts a church over an issue which he was in radical opposition to until it effected his love life.

The Banned said:

---

AGC said:

---

If the only tool you have is a hammer (the RCC is always right) then everything looks like a nail. Few Catholics ask what their institution would look like without the papal revolution. From freeing universities from bishop oversight to elevating aquinas, you must be vested in the authority of the pope to believe.

Edit: when authority is abused, it's natural to reasses why it has such authority. It's not surprising Catholicism has caused so much division and strife in Christendom with the behavior of its leaders. If you know any women who have been cheated on for a long time without knowing, you'd understand. It's a natural time of reflection and asking, where did this go wrong?

---

Well if the leader of the Anglican movement was so incredibly wrong right up until the annulment was denied, where is the certainty that his change of heart isn't equally wrong?

I'm not coming at this with a hammer of "the Catholic Church is always right". That is a separate issue. What I'm asking in particular is how a man starts a church over an issue which he was in radical opposition to until it effected his love life.

---

Your baseline is the RCC's position: this is only about divorce. It's why you keep asking, but what about Henry? I dunno man, why would the spouse being cheated on and abused suddenly ask themselves after years of fidelity, if the authority they believed in might be in error? We've clearly passed the bounds of reasonable discourse. I'll bow out

AGC said:

---

The Banned said:

---

AGC said:

---

If the only tool you have is a hammer (the RCC is always right) then everything looks like a nail. Few Catholics ask what their institution would look like without the papal revolution. From freeing universities from bishop oversight to elevating aquinas, you must be vested in the authority of the pope to believe.

Edit: when authority is abused, it's natural to reasses why it has such authority. It's not surprising Catholicism has caused so much division and strife in Christendom with the behavior of its leaders. If you know any women who have been cheated on for a long time without knowing, you'd understand. It's a natural time of reflection and asking, where did this go wrong?

---

Well if the leader of the Anglican movement was so incredibly wrong right up until the annulment was denied, where is the certainty that his change of heart isn't equally wrong?

I'm not coming at this with a hammer of "the Catholic Church is always right". That is a separate issue. What I'm asking in particular is how a man starts a church over an issue which he was in radical opposition to until it effected his love life.

---

Your baseline is the RCC's position: this is only about divorce. It's why you keep asking, but what about Henry? I dunno man, why would the spouse being cheated on and abused suddenly ask themselves after years of fidelity, if the authority they believed in might be in error? We've clearly passed the bounds of reasonable discourse. I'll bow out

---

I don't mean to be unreasonable. You are offering vague questions that I don't have time to do a deep dive on now or in the coming week. I was hoping you may be able to make your position on what happened plain. If it's easier for me to just go look it up when I have free time again, then I'll do it when I can.

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

Well, this is timely…

Literally was just talking to my spouse about how the Reformers catch a lot of grief on this board and wondering why the Anglicans don't catch the same when Henry VIII started his own church simply because he wanted a divorce. There was no search of the scriptures in a genuine effort to bring the church back into biblical obedience and understanding, just a powerful man who wanted his own way for political reasons (and probably other desires…)

---

Because we have a lot in common (apostolic succession prior to Catholicism in England, liturgy, sacraments, etc.) and don't often conflict on form or substance (we say we're Anglo-Catholic). Elizabeth returned us to the worship we had before the reformers greater influence under Edward. If you walked into a church before and after the split, you wouldn't find a whole lot of difference because you have a misconception of what happened and why. But it's understandable why history would reduce it to such a thing; it's easier than wading through the truth of the matter.

I'd also point out that the reformers came in after the split and had more influence then. The idea of monarchs over churches was not a new one. The pope isn't responsible for calling the original seven ecumenical councils. People generally don't question the authority of good and benevolent rulers, much like faithful spouses. It's pretty easy to see why Henry was chafing against the pope.

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Do Roman Catholics still believe that this clause refers only to their church? Or have they shifted to a more Protestant understanding that this could include churches from other denominations that are faithful to the gospel?

---

From the CCC, 830-831, 838

"830 The word "catholic" means "universal," in the sense of "according to the totality" or "in keeping with the whole." the Church is catholic in a double sense: First, the Church is catholic because Christ is present in her. "Where there is Christ Jesus, there is the Catholic Church."307 In her subsists the fullness of Christ's body united with its head; this implies that she receives from him "the fullness of the means of salvation"308 which he has willed: correct and complete confession of faith, full sacramental life, and ordained ministry in apostolic succession. the Church was, in this fundamental sense, catholic on the day of Pentecost309 and will always be so until the day of the Parousia.

831 Secondly, the Church is catholic because she has been sent out by Christ on a mission to the whole of the human race:310"

838 "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."322 Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church."323 With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord's Eucharist."324

+++

Three points that may/may have not been brought up:

1. The RCC makes the extraordinary, but the only claim it can, that in it is "the fullness of the means of salvation"- otherwise Christ failed in his duty to establish THE way for the new people of God. See 830 above.

2. We are in a "certain, although imperfect" communion with other Christians. See 838 above.

3. We are in a "profound" communion with the Orthodox Churches, but not fully. See 838 above.

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

I'll rephrase so as not to derail. It was widely accepted that there was the one holy catholic and apostolic church, and the others were heretics.

---

As a Roman Catholic, my understanding of this phrase is that it is NOT referring specifically and only to the Roman Catholic Church. There are multiple Catholic Churches and the Roman Catholic Church is only 1 of them. Orthodox, Maronite, etc... are others that I am aware of.

My understanding of "...One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church..." is that it is referring to those Churches which have an unbroken line of succession with the Apostles.

I also do not believe that we can say whether or not other faiths are "damned to Hell". Only God knows, because only God knows the hearts of man.

Dad-O-Lot said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

I'll rephrase so as not to derail. It was widely accepted that there was the one holy catholic and apostolic church, and the others were heretics.

---

My understanding of "...One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church..." is that it is referring to those Churches which have an unbroken line of succession with the Apostles.

---

Just curious from someone who is not RCC or EO. How does the church in Rome go about ensuring this apostolic line is unbroken?

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Dad-O-Lot said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

I'll rephrase so as not to derail. It was widely accepted that there was the one holy catholic and apostolic church, and the others were heretics.

---

My understanding of "...One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church..." is that it is referring to those Churches which have an unbroken line of succession with the Apostles.

---

Just curious from someone who is not RCC or EO. How does the church in Rome go about ensuring this apostolic line is unbroken?

---

I guess it depending on what you mean by ensuring. Records of who consecrated who only go so far back, but the practice of bishops consecrating other bishops goes back to the very beginning. So I guess in theory the line could have been broken for some current bishops by some fake bishop somewhere in the past, but there doesn't seem to be any historical controversy about this sort of situation.

But what are the actual qualifications and process of consecration? I am sure this is quite elementary, so I apologize in advance for my ignorance!

There are canons related to who can and cannot be a bishop. He cannot have been married twice, or have married a widow. He cannot have mutilated himself. He cannot be deaf or blind. He cannot have immediately have joined the church. He cannot serve in public office or the military concurrently. He must know the psalter, and be able to read, understand, and teach the Scriptures and the canons.

In Orthodoxy way this plays out is that the priests meet to nominate a candidate. The candidate must either be unmarried or a widower, and if not a monk, must become a monastic. If he is not a priest, he has to be ordained as a deacon, and then a priest, and he has to actually accept the nomination. Only a bishop can ordain a deacon or a priest. The canons require at least three bishops to consecrate a priest to become a bishop.

The bishop-to-be has to make a public confession. He has to confirm the symbol of faith, and make a profession of faith to adhere to the councils, to honor and not altar dogmas or tradition, to maintain the unity of peace in the church, and to be under obedience to his patriarch or hierarch. His profession of faith is also written and signed. This happens at the beginning of a Divine Liturgy.

Later in the service he kneels at the altar and the three bishops consecrate him. He's vested as a bishop, presented to the people, and the people receive him and affirm him by declaring him worthy (axios) three times, and then he is given the sign of his office which is the pastoral stole, the omophorion.

Thanks!

10andBOUNCE said:

---

But what are the actual qualifications and process of consecration? I am sure this is quite elementary, so I apologize in advance for my ignorance!

---

Our qualifications and consecration ceremony are going to be similar to what Zobel said. Not identical, similar to how our masses are not identical, but the same important pieces are there

I guess I thought there would be more to it, with the emphasis being on this idea that the "line is not broken".

What I am hearing is that anyone can be nominated and achieve this position, assuming they meet the qualifications outlined above. Do these nominating bishops have some kind of special revelation that gives them special insight as to who should be in this position?

Or maybe I need a better understanding of what the line of apostolic succession is intended to be.

" I think history, and tradition alike have proven the Orthodox one to be more accurate/true vs. the RCC claims/understandings."

I think this is impossible to prove and only serves to divide. We shouldn't be keeping score.

PabloSerna said:

---

" I think history, and tradition alike have proven the Orthodox one to be more accurate/true vs. the RCC claims/understandings."

I think this is impossible to prove and only serves to divide. We shouldn't be keeping score.

---

I may be dead wrong here, but I think if we didn't have so much work to do in the west of reuniting after the reformation that the east/west schism might have been resolved by now if the reformation hadn't taken place. It was really close in the 1400s