This debate is at the heart of the arguments in the Anglican Communion.
For some, being Anglican means belonging to a particular hierarchical Church organisation with a specific set of rules (canons). Those of “Anglo- or Liberal-Catholic” persuasion identify the church by the “Bishop at the altar”. The Bishop has a geographical jurisdiction. This Roman approach was settled at the Council of Whitby in 697. The Celtic Church “lost” the argument for having more flexible ways of working.
Since all Christians in a geographical area were presumed to be in fellowship with the Bishop round his altar, at the Reformation the Church of England accommodated those who took different views on matters that were not required by the scripture. It differed from some of the Reformation churches in distinguishing those matters required scripture, and those cultural matters which were allowable as long as they did not go against scripture. Elizabeth I insisted that she could not make windows into men’s souls. It was enough to subscribe to the articles of faith and the Book of Common Prayer.
But there is more to be said.
As a 16th-generation Anglican it is, for me, primarily about discipleship. Living the Word according to the example of Christ. The rest is not particularly complicated — worship in the Word, [b]and[/b] worship in the Sacrament.
Romans do the Sacrament, but they’re weak on the Word and have some substantial problems with non-Biblical theology, [i]eg[/i] salvation by works, mortal sin, purgatory, Mary, praying to dead people, and so on.
Most evangelicals, OTOH, have a better understanding of the Word, and many of them really preach it, teach it, and live it. If, however, they ever have anything at all resembling Holy Communion it is more like a brief afterthought.
Anglicanism is, at its heart, both evangelical and liturgical.
The real problem with ECUSA is that in abandoning the Word they have become little more than some sort of re-warmed Vatican II Roman Universalists, without the mortal sin. They [i]are[/i] no longer Anglicans in anything but history and putative affiliation.
What an odd article!
Anglican theologians … [argued] that their calling was to interpret the scripture in the light of what God also revealed through the discoveries of the day.
What? Which of the Elizabethan or Caroline divines argued this way? In what ways was classical Anglican theology shaped by “global exploration, of founding new colonies, and discovering of more species of plants and animals”? I am no historian of ideas, but I have never heard of such a thing.
In reality, it is much better to return to the ecclesiology in which all Christians in a geographical area [are] in fellowship with the Bishop round his altar, especially since that is the biblical and patristic pattern. What Sugden leaves out of his sketch of this ecclesiological view (which allows him to denigrate it as “juridical”) is the counter-balancing requirement of mutual accountability among the bishops. Bishops aren’t “free agents,” but are to be accountable to one another for their orthodoxy and orthopraxis. Orthodoxy and orthopraxis are the ground of the bishops’ mutual recognition and communion in the sacraments.
That is what addresses what Sugden lists as “challenges” to a “solely juridical” view:
Is the whole church in an area constituted by its fellowship with a Bishop around his altar?
Yes, it is. It is a witness to both the Oneness and the Apostolicity of the Church which we confess in the Creed.
Does that not unchurch all non-conformists?
Yes, it does; but the essence of “non-conformity” is the setting up of an alternate fellowship, separated from and opposed to the Apostolic Church. It is not so much that non-conformists are being unchurched, as it is that they have unchurched themselves. The Apostolic Church merely recognizes what has in fact happened.
What happens when the Bishop teaches and practices contrary to the articles of faith …?
His brother bishops call him to account: admonish him, call him to repentance, and (if it comes to it) depose and excommunicate him. That is what the Global South (if not the rest of the Anglican Communion, more’s the pity) are doing with respect to the Episcopal Church (albeit excruciatingly slowly).
what happens to fellowship with other Catholic churches, the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Churches, with whom Anglicans share Episcopacy and fellowship?
There is no “fellowship” among the Anglican, Orthodox, and Roman Catholic Churches. There is friendship, there is dialogue, and there is cooperation; but there is no fellowship, because Christian fellowship means full agreement in the faith and communion in the sacraments. Each of these three Church bodies believes the other two to be heterodox, and so there cannot be fellowship in that full sense. Sugden apparently feels that the Anglican Church ought not to claim to be the Apostolic Church, because it might offend the Catholics and the Orthodox, who make the same claim. But the Catholics and the Orthodox would have far more respect for an Anglican Church which forthrightly claimed to be, and acted the part of, the Apostolic Church — even though, given their own claims, they would be unable to admit that the Anglicans’ claim to Apostolicity was valid. Is it not obvious that Catholicism and Orthodoxy have far more respect for each other than either of them has for Anglicanism?
The challenge facing Anglicanism in the current unpleasantness is another form of the challenge Keble identified at the outset of the Catholic Revival in the nineteenth century: whether the Anglican Church will be faithful to her calling to be the Apostolic Church. At present the form that challenge takes is whether or not Anglican bishops as a body have the fortitude to exercise their Apostolic ministry of mutual accountability, by calling their brother bishops to account for their abandonment of Catholic faith and order. Thirty years after that challenge first arose, it remains highly doubtful that it will be met.
First of all …
[i] Those of “Anglo- or Liberal-Catholic†persuasion identify the church by the “Bishop at the altarâ€. The Bishop has a geographical jurisdiction. This Roman approach was settled at the Council of Whitby in 697. The Celtic Church “lost†the argument for having more flexible ways of working. [/i]
Ther synod of Whitby had nothing to do with choosing hierarchy over flexibility. It primarily had to do with the date of Easter and the shape of the tonsure. The Celts had bishops too. And the Celtic side didn’t ‘lose’ because they were too flexible … they lost because 7/8 of the Church disagreed with them, as St. Wilfrid of York so ably pointed out.
And it wasn’t in 697. It was in 664.
Second of all …
[i] Romans do the Sacrament, but they’re weak on the Word and have some substantial problems with non-Biblical theology, eg salvation by works, mortal sin, purgatory, Mary, praying to dead people, and so on. [/i]
Read “The Catholic Verses:95 Bible Passages That Confound Protestants” by Dave Armstrong. Another good one is “A Biblical Defense of Catholicism.” Everything you’ve listed here is scriptural, when viewed through the lens of the unbroken tradition of the Church, rather than the patchwork quilt that is Protestant “sola scriptura” theology.
Or better yet, go straight to the source and read the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
Well said, Chris Jones!
Re #2:
Is it not obvious that Catholicism and Orthodoxy have far more respect for each other than either of them has for Anglicanism?
Yes, but that’s because Catholicism and Orthodoxy acknowledge their respective apostolic claims, not because they think Anglicans lack intestinal fortitude. They don’t respect Anglicanism because they don’t recognize its apostolic pretensions. They view Anglicans the way you view free church nonconformists.
Bishops aren’t “free agents,†but are to be accountable to one another for their orthodoxy and orthopraxis. Orthodoxy and orthopraxis are the ground of the bishops’ mutual recognition and communion in the sacraments.
I think Archbishop Orombi is more “biblical and patristic” to say it thus: “The basis of our commitment to Anglicanism is that it provides a wider forum for holding each other accountable to Scripture.†The way you’ve phrased it runs the risk of saying that bishops are primarily accountable to themselves The episcopate is no guarantee of orthodoxy or orthopraxis unless bishops are accountable to scripture first and foremost.
Re #3:
Everything you’ve listed here is scriptural, when viewed through the lens of the unbroken tradition of the Church, rather than the patchwork quilt that is Protestant “sola scriptura†theology.
In other words, “provided you accept Catholic claims, everything you’ve listed here is scriptural”. The problem is however, that your interlocuter doesn’t accept Catholic claims. For him the patchwork quilt is RC theology. So your advice to go ad fontes and read the Roman Catholic Catechism rather begs the question. If you’re interested in defending Roman Catholicism against Anglican charges, I would recommend an apologist like Ronald Knox rather than the catechism or an ex-evangelical Dave Armstrong. An ex-Anglican like Newman, he’s livelier and more readable than the latter and most important has a sense of humor.
that’s because Catholicism and Orthodoxy acknowledge their respective apostolic claims, not because they think Anglicans lack intestinal fortitude.
Not quite. Catholicism regards the Orthodox Churches as valid Apostolic Churches, but Orthodoxy does not return the favor. And it is clear to me that the Orthodox (at least) find fault with Anglicanism for its failure to have a clear and unequivocal stance on important questions of faith and order (with Anglicanism’s own claim to Apostolicity being one of those questions). Their attitude is, in brief, why should we treat you as an Apostolic Church when you show no interest in behaving like one?
[blockquote]Everything you’ve listed here is scriptural, when viewed through the lens of the unbroken tradition of the Church, rather than the patchwork quilt that is Protestant “sola scriptura†theology.[/blockquote]
MAGISTERIUM
Come on, i’ God’s name; once more toward our father’s.
Good Lord, how bright and goodly shines the moon!
LAYMAN
The moon! the sun: it is not moonlight now.
MAGISTERIUM
I say it is the moon that shines so bright.
LAYMAN
I know it is the sun that shines so bright.
MAGISTERIUM
Now, by my mother’s son, and that’s myself,
It shall be moon, or star, or what I list,
Or ere I journey to your father’s house.
Go on, and fetch our horses back again.
Evermore cross’d and cross’d; nothing but cross’d!
With Apologies to Wm Shakespeare
carl
A lot of arguing about what Catholicism teaches by those who do not know the teaching of the Catholic Church.
“It is better to be silent and be thought a fool
than to speak up and remove all doubt”.
[i]Everything you’ve listed here is scriptural, when viewed through the lens of the unbroken tradition of the Church [/i]
Yeah, right. Provided I accept the 1532 deutero-canonical books as scriptural, which I do not. I don’t have the time or inclination to go into it here, but most Roman ‘distinctives’ were borrowed from the (very pagan) Etruscans and have nothing to do with the church in Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, or most anywhere else.
English Christianity was enough different from the Roman that once the dust had settled from the Thirty Years War, the dividing line between Reformation and Roman Germany hewed roughly to the southern limits of that area first Christianised by the English Boniface nearly a thousand years earlier. Consequently, Roman tradition counts for very little outside its own confines.
The episcopate is no guarantee of orthodoxy or orthopraxis unless bishops are accountable to scripture first and foremost.
That is true, but there is no conflict between that statement and what I wrote in #2.
One has to be careful about words like “accountable.” To say that a bishop is “accountable to Scripture” can only mean that Scripture is the standard by which he is to be measured; but to say that he is accountable to his brother bishops specifies by whom he is to be measured. Part of the bishop’s responsibility is (as the old Ordinal put it) “with all faithful diligence, to banish and drive away all erroneous and strange doctrine, contrary to God’s word”. To note that it is the bishop who has this ministry does not mean that he is to judge by any other standard than the Scriptures.
Yeah, right. Provided I accept the 1532 deutero-canonical books as scriptural, which I do not.
In which you depart from both the undivided Church and Henry VIII On what grounds do you reject the version of the OT quoted by both Christ and Paul?
…Roman tradition counts for very little outside its own confines.
Confines? The Roman church’s influence is slight outside its own confines? Is that why the Episcopal Cathedral of St. Luke has a Marian alcove? Is that why the Anglican chaplain of Geneva School in Orlando wears a biretta? Is that why a Methodist director/composer in Florida has just written a Magnificat? Is that why bisexual Jewish atheists write Masses? Because Rome has to stay in its sandbox?
Why am I not surprised that this has turned into another venue for Roman ecclesiological triumphalism? And why am I not surprised that nobody realizes how deeply counterproductive these kinds of arguments are?
I’m quite willing to live with a lot of open-endedness. But this is threatened on two quite different and yet closely coupled fronts. On the one hand, theological latitude is increasingly producing positions within the church that are outside of what can be lived with. But on the other, the church is increasingly being pushed into dogmatizing various positions through incorporation in the canons. It’s easy enough to put these together and see that ECUSA is pointed towards being a church that dogmatizes the intolerable.
[blockquote]Catholicism regards the Orthodox Churches as valid Apostolic Churches, [b]but Orthodoxy does not return the favor[/b][/blockquote]
Well yes and no. Orthodoxy did generally tacitly recognise the sacraments and orders of Rome up until the division of the Greek Church of Antioch into the Melkite and Orthodox factions in 1724. For political/historical reasons Constantinople thus ceased to recognise Roman orders and sacraments and the rest of Orthodoxy followed, broadly speaking. That said this non-recognition has varied greatly and broadly within Orthodoxy both geographically and temporally over the last three centuries from regarding Rome as a fully valid Apostolic Church but in schism, to believing her to be completely apostate. For example contrast the attitudes of Athonite monks to Rome today with the fact that at least one Russian Orthodox bishop ordained Roman Catholic priests in Siberia in the ’60s or ’70s as Rome could not send clergy to minister to Roman Catholics there during the Soviet era.
It doesn’t have to be a venue for Roman ecclesiastical triumphalism, and wouldn’t have gone in that direction if #1 understood (at all) Roman Catholicism.
Quite right, #14.
[blockquote] …and wouldn’t have gone in that direction if #1 understood (at all) Roman Catholicism. [/blockquote]
Understanding Roman Catholicism is not the same thing as accepting Roman definitions.
carl
Agree completely, Carl, but that’s not what we were dealing with here.
[blockquote] Agree completely, Carl, but that’s not what we were dealing with here. [/blockquote]
Au Contraire. That is exactly the subject. The mortal sin of this statement …
[blockquote] Romans do the Sacrament, but they’re weak on the Word and have some substantial problems with non-Biblical theology, eg salvation by works, mortal sin, purgatory, Mary, praying to dead people, and so on. [/blockquote]
… was to declare unbiblical so many defined Roman dogmas. That is why the author was accused of not understanding Roman Catholicism. But of course the Biblical vindication of those dogmas rests squarely and soley on the authority of the Magisterium to define. I understand for example that Roman Catholics deny they worship Mary. But refusal to accept this magisterially-defined distinction between latria and dulia does not constitute misunderstanding. It constitutes rejection.
carl
[i] I understand for example that Roman Catholics deny they worship Mary. But refusal to accept this magisterially-defined distinction between latria and dulia does not constitute misunderstanding. It constitutes rejection. [/i]
But you bear the burden of making that clear. When someone makes a bald statement like “Catholics worship Mary,” I, as an informed person, have a duty to say, “Catholics don’t worship Mary,” and then explain the distinction between latria and dulia and hyperdulia. By the Catholic definition of worship, Catholics do not worship Mary: that’s simply a fact. You may disagree with the Catholic definition of worship, but then *that’s* the real issue.
Knowing the distinction between worship and veneration, you may either accept it or reject it. But if you, the person who made the original statement, know the distinction and you choose not to make that clear to me, how am I supposed to *know* that you know the difference? Perhaps you reject it, or perhaps you are simply ignorant. The burden is on you to make it clear that you understand the Catholic definition, but don’t agree with it.
To the point then: #1 said that Catholics “have a problem with non-Biblical theology.” But by the Catholic definition, the Catholic practices and doctrines he listed are perfectly scriptural. All I did was point him to some sources that make it clear that Catholicism is scriptural, at least by its own definition. And (contra #5, who wanted to critique my choice of books) I pointed #1 to two books written by a Protestant convert who tries to prove that, even from a Protestant point of view, Catholicism is perfectly scriptural.
Furthermore, I find #9 a rather sad comment:
[i] Most Roman ‘distinctives’ were borrowed from the (very pagan) Etruscans and have nothing to do with the church in Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, or most anywhere else. [/i]
Sounds like someone’s been reading Hislop’s “The Two Babylons.” I would expect a “sixteenth-generation Anglican” to know that many free-church folks look at Anglicanism and make the same observation. The ring in marriage, enshrined in the first Prayer Book, is a Roman custom, not a Christian one. The Christmas tree you will undoubtedly be putting up in a few months is a Germanic pagan custom, not a Christian one. All Saints’ Day is just around the corner, but it was, before it was transferred to November, a pagan feast of the dead.
People who live in glass churches, and all that.
Catholics may not ‘worship’ Mary — I never said they did — but they most decidedly [i]pray[/i] to Mary, as [url=http://www.catholic.org/prayers/prayer.php?s=31] Catholic site[/url] make abundantly clear in numerous places. Mary is, however, simply a dead person, and the Bible makes it clear in several places, including Jesus’ own teaching in Luke 16:19-31, that we cannot communicate with dead people.
Furthermore the dogma of Mary’s Immaculate Conception was formalised only in 1854, though first celebrated in the 15th century. The purported biblical bases for the doctrine — “full of grace” and “highly favoured” — are very thin, at best. The Assumption of the Virgin was first discussed in writings of the 5th and 6th centuries, and declared as dogma less than two generations ago. Even Pius XII did not claim a biblical basis for the Assumption, though he suggested that Apocalypse [Revelation] Chapter 12 [i]might[/i] be describing it.
As to Etruscan borrowing, that’s actually from Will & Ariel Durant’s history. The fact they were atheists does not negate the clear Roman theological connexions with Etruscan beliefs, particularly in such matters as purgatory. There is also a phenomenal difference between such [i]customs[/i] as the wedding ring or (much more recently) the Christmas tree … and a forcefully stated theological position that humans must be purged of their sins [i]after[/i] death.
The Bible, on the other hand, establishes quite clearly (Heb 9:28, and elsewhere) that Christ died once, as a sufficient sacrifice for the salvation of all. There’s no room there, or need for … purgatory.
Mr Hall,
I fail to see how Lk 16.19-31 addresses whether or not those still on the Earth may communicate with the dead, one way or the other. I do note that the rich man is portrayed as addressing a [i]prayer[/i] (in the same way that we do when invoking the saints) to Abraham, and he is not condemned for that (only for his evil deeds while in this life).
[i]Mary is, however, simply a dead person[/i]
Nothing could be further from the truth. Our Lady, like all of the redeemed, is not dead; she is alive in Christ, having been (as St Paul says) [i]raised a spiritual body[/i].
As a “sixteenth-generation Anglican” who believes that the Blessed Virgin is a dead person, and that we are forbidden to (or are unable to) communicate with the dead, I presume that you keep your mouth shut when verse two of [i]Ye Watchers And Ye Holy Ones[/i] (Hymnal 1940 599; Hymnal 1982 618) is sung in your parish:
[blockquote]
O higher than the cherubim
More glorious than the seraphim,
Lead their praises, Alleluia!
Thou bearer of th’ eternal Word,
Most gracious, magnify the Lord:
Alleluia! Alleluia!
Alleluia! Alleluia! Alleluia!
[/blockquote]
Exactly whom do you think is being addressed by this hymn? And if we are not to communicate with “the dead” then why are we singing at the top of our lungs (well, I do anyway, when I sing this magnificent hymn) to someone who is unable to hear?
Since this has crystallised into a discussion of Marian theology, I’ll continue in that vein. I probably should have said “Mary is, however, simply [i]an ordinary[/i] dead person.” She’s no different than my father, or any of the other believers who have died across the centuries, except that she may well enjoy “greater rewards” in Heaven … which is a different discussion.
Even though Mary does not appear in a single one of the 21 apostolic epistles, Catechism 2675 and 2679 invite us to “pray to Mary,” and Pius IX in 1854 even exhorted us to “worship, invoke and pray to Mary.” John Paul II in Denver (1993) invoked Mary’s protection on the youth of that day, and Romans pray (regularly) “obtain for us, oh Mary, the grace for eternal salvation.”
Nevertheless, Mary’s last recorded words in scripture are “Whatever He says to you, do it.” [John 2:5]. What He said was “whatever you ask [b]the Father[/b] ask now [in my name] … that your joy may be complete.” [John 16:23].
On top of it all, if, contrary to most of scripture, we somehow [i]can[/i] communicate with the dead, we are told specifically not to do so. [Deut 18:10-12]
Mary is a wonderful model of accepting God’s will for our lives. That ought to be enough.
[blockquote] By the Catholic definition of worship, Catholics do not worship Mary: that’s simply a fact. [/blockquote]
We agree completely. The question however is whether the Roman Catholic definition of worship is in any sense Scriptural. Since the Roman Magisterium has presumed to claim solely for itself the charism of interpretation, by definition it can’t be wrong (should it speak infallibly.) This is the ultimate authority upon which Catholicism rests – the unique ability of the Roman Church to speak infallibly for God.
Every knowledgeable Protestant will say this: The Roman Catholic must read Scripture through the lens of the Church, and thus he will distort Scripture into a form required by the Church. It is the foundation of the whole conflict: Sola Scriptura vs Sola Ecclesia. Without the over-arching authority of the Magisterium, none of the disputed dogmas of the Roman Church can be sustained from Scripture. That is why every knowledgeable Protestant will always claim them to be unbiblical.
carl
Mr Hall,
She’s no different than my father, or any of the other believers who have died across the centuries
That is true; Our Lady is like all those who have fallen asleep in the Lord. They are all righteous spirits made perfect in faith; they have all been made alive by the Divine Life; they are all partakers of the divine nature. But they are anything but “ordinary.”
[blockquote] Catholics may not ‘worship’ Mary—I never said they did—but they most decidedly pray to Mary, as Catholic site make abundantly clear in numerous places. [/blockquote]
Mr Hall
Prayer is an act of worship. And some of the prayers in the RCC to Mary are frightening in their idolatry. Consider:
[blockquote] O Mother of Perpetual Help, grant that I may ever invoke thy most powerful name, which is the safeguard of the living and the salvation of the dying. O Purest Mary, O Sweetest Mary, let thy name henceforth be ever on my lips. Delay not, O Blessed Lady, to help me whenever I call on thee, for, in all my needs, in all my temptations I shall never cease to call on thee, ever repeating thy sacred name, Mary, Mary.
link
[/blockquote]
Idolatry by any other Greek name is still idolatry.
carl
All of this misses the obvious point that since Anglicanism has accepted both the very Protestant and very Catholic on these issues, Anglicanism itself has nothing to do with answering these questions. The only common element seems to be rejection of Roman magisterial infallibility (and while we’re at it, Orthodox patristic infallilbility).
As I said at the very beginning:
[blockquote][i]Anglicanism is, at its heart, both evangelical and liturgical.[/i][/blockquote]
We can treasure the beauty of what was originally a Roman liturgy without having to accept the patently nonsensical and un-Biblical Roman theology that has been at the nexus of the Reformation for well over 500 years, and which continues to this day. There was a [i]reason[/i] Rome did not want Scripture in the hands of the faithful.
Again and again our Anglican forbears sought to put the Word into the language of the times: Aldhelm’s 7th century translation of Psalms; Bede’s 8th century translation of John; the Wessex Gospels of the 10th century; AElfric’s translation of the Pentateuch, Joshua and Judges in the same era. Shall we talk of Wycliffe and Tyndale, who paid with their lives? Rome was so upset that 40 years after Wycliffe’s death they had him exhumed, burnt, and scattered.
As I said, Rome did not want Scripture in the hands of the faithful.
Consequently, the first Reformation was about Rome’s persistent tendency to keep adding a bunch of absolute crap to the Scriptures. The second Reformation — of which our current struggle with ECUSA is a prime example — is about secular humanism’s persistent tendency to subtract ([i]as[/i] crap) [i]from[/i] Scripture those things they find inconvenient to their neo-Ba’alist imperitives.
This Second Reformation of ours, however, will most decidedly fail if its primary impetus is focused on a return to the encrusted bull$#!+ against which the First Reformation was waged some 15 generations ago. … or should I perhaps say [i]16[/i] generations ago?
[i] This Second Reformation of ours, however, will most decidedly fail if its primary impetus is focused on a return to the encrusted bull$#!+ against which the First Reformation was waged some 15 generations ago. … or should I perhaps say 16 generations ago? [/i]
Wow. I have … no response to this.
God be with you, Bart Hall (Kansas USA).
The protestant must read Scripture through the lens of his own self, and thus he will distort Scripture into a form required by his cultural, familial, and intellectual experiences.
Gentlemen, if [i]sola scriptura[/i] existed, you might make a case for it. However, the question is only [b]which[/b] tradition will inform one’s reading of scripture.
[i]Prayer is an act of worship.[/i]
carl, that is linguistic nonsense. In fact, it is your private, personal interpretation of “prayer” which has nothing to do with Catholic prayer. You are really verging on bearing false witness, or perhaps it’s just hubris.
[blockquote] [i] Prayer is an act of worship.[/i]
carl, that is linguistic nonsense. [/blockquote]
Let the reader decide the adequacy of this response.
[blockquote]You are really verging on bearing false witness, or perhaps it’s just hubris.[/blockquote]
Where exactly did I do that? Or is this just a slick way to slip past that Marian prayer I posted? Tell me. Is Mary really the possessor of “the most powerful name?” Is she really “the safeguard of the living and the salvation of the dying?” Is it really her name that should “henceforth be ever on my lips?” Is she really who I should “never cease to call on” “in all my needs, in all my temptations” Should I really “ever [repeat her] sacred name, Mary, Mary?”
carl
carl –
Yes, let the reader decide, hopefully by reading the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
Well, here’s a bit of false witness:
[i]Is Mary really the possessor of “the most powerful name”[/i]
The prayer says “thy most powerful name”, which means something different than you claim. For the rest, I suggest that folks read the Catechism to learn what Catholics mean by what they say, rather than listening to folks like you telling them what Catholics mean.
[blockquote] The prayer says “thy most powerful nameâ€, which means something different than you claim. [/blockquote]
Actually the key word in that sentence is ‘most’ as in ‘most powerful.’ The article simply connects the statement to Mary. The relevant definition of Most:
Last I saw, Mary was not the name before which every knee would bow. Perhaps the Magisterium has infallibly interpreted the verse to mean otherwise. Nor did I last see Mary listed as the one name under heaven by which men must be saved. Was that also infallibly interpreted?
carl
carl –
We obviously don’t speak the same language. Best wishes.
This discussion is another example of why Anglo-Catholics, Prayer Book Catholics, and people of moderation in general, should be wary of too close an alliance with many Reasserters.
Dear Carl,
I’m praying for you, brother. I used to think the things that you do.
[blockquote] This discussion is another example of why Anglo-Catholics, Prayer Book Catholics, and people of moderation in general, should be wary of too close an alliance with many Reasserters. [/blockquote]
I actually didn’t see too many Catholics of moderation on this thread. In any case, it’s a fair statement, rob k. But then how could Catholics actually form an alliance with me given that the (infallible) Council of Trent anathematized everything I believe. Catholics are supposed to believe I am going straight to Hell. At least they did 100 years ago. No, an alliance of two different gospels will never work. It doesn’t work in TEC between liberals and conservatives. And it can’t work between Catholics and Protestants either. The Reformation was not a big misunderstanding.
For any who might still be listening…
carl
No, Carl, Catholics are NOT supposed to believe that you are going straight to Hell. This goes for all Catholics of any stripe.