Anglicanism vs Roman Catholicism

[Samuraikoku]

I'd still serve the Goddess.

[Farnhamia]

I'd still serve the Goddess.

At the cost of your life? I don't believe the Goddess demands such a sacrifice. Don't fall into the Abrahamic Exclusionist trap, 'Koku-san. Only Yahweh requires you to deny all other deities.

[Yootwopia]

I'd still serve the Goddess.

Whatevs.

[Samuraikoku]

I'd still serve the Goddess.

At the cost of your life? I don't believe the Goddess demands such a sacrifice. Don't fall into the Abrahamic Exclusionist trap, 'Koku-san. Only Yahweh requires you to deny all other deities.

I wouldn't deny any deities. Just make sure they don't (actively) threaten her.

Also, she regrets demanding such a sacrifice, but others and I are more than willing to do it.

[Farnhamia]

At the cost of your life? I don't believe the Goddess demands such a sacrifice. Don't fall into the Abrahamic Exclusionist trap, 'Koku-san. Only Yahweh requires you to deny all other deities.

I wouldn't deny any deities. Just make sure they don't threaten her.

The worst they can do is ignore her. She doesn't care.

[Samuraikoku]

I wouldn't deny any deities. Just make sure they don't threaten her.

The worst they can do is ignore her. She doesn't care.

Hence the (actively) edit.

[The Archregimancy]

If you knew anything about history and theology

That's the funniest thing I've read all day

I'm glad to see that I wasn't the only person amused by that.

Was the Pope ever a Patriarch? Formally, I mean. Bishop of Rome ... wait, I can look it up! Hmm ... "Patriarch of the West" but only between 1863 and 2005, though the title goes back to 642. And the title is retained, if not used. There it is, then.

It's not uncommon in Orthodox usage to refer to all of the hierarchs of the original Pentarchy (Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem) as 'patriarchs'. Justinian defined the title in reference to the Pentarchy in 531AD to conceptualise them as the step above 'metropolitan'.

In modern usage, it tends to be limited to the formal title of the senior Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox hierarch within a specific geographical jurisdiction, and so my use of the term in that post was - to a degree - an intentional semi-archaism specifically designed to imply that the Pope of Rome is merely primus inter pares, with a primacy solely of honour alongside the other Patriarchs of the Pentarchy.

[Acadzia]

Ok, giggle-giggle, now address the latter part of my post.

Also, I don't hang out here, is Archy a theologian? Prof? Teacher? Priest? Deacon?

[Yootwopia]

If you knew anything about history and theology you'd know that most dogma isn't explicitly defined unless the underlying assumptive Truth is challenged. IE, you can't write against Arians before there are Arians, as an example.

Right, right.

I mean, have you ever read Luther's Address to the Christian Nobility of the German Nation Respecting the Reformation of the Christian Estate?

Because that basically deals with the whole "why is the Pope?" issue.

[The Archregimancy]

If he does, it's awfully odd that no one noticed until 1870.

Are we supposed to assume that it was right there in the Bible for 1800 years, but no one - including every single Ecumenical Council prior to that point - had bothered to work it out until then?


What you actually mean is that the Catholic Church argues for Petrine Supremacy via Mark 3:16 & 9:2, Luke 22:32, 24:34 and 1 Corinthians 15:5. The primacy of the Patriach of Rome was then established via a series of Ecumenical Councils, though with considerable disagreement within Christianity over whether that primacy was a matter of doctrine or honour (hence, eventually, and in part, the events of 1054 AD).

However, there's absolutely nothing in the Bible stating that the pronouncements of the Patriach of Rome - a position that didn't exist when the Gospels or Pauline Epistles were written - is infallible when pronouncing ex cathedra on issues of doctrine.

That the Catholic Church waited until 1870 to define the issue dogmatically rather proves the point; and even then it's best understood as the political reaction of a tired and weary old man to the loss of the Papal States to a unified Italy (uncoincidentally also in 1870), and which only passed Vatican I by such a wide margin because the Eastern Rite uniate bishops - who were unanimously opposed to the dogmatic definition of the doctrine - all walked out prior to the vote rather than further embarrass an emasculated Pope who'd just lost the Donation of Constantine.

Peter is the rock Jesus built his church on (Matt 16:18). Whatever he binds on Earth is bound in heaven, whatever he looses on Earth is loosed in Heaven. God has spoken through the prophets in the old testament before, he can do the same for His Holiness. And Peter was crucified in Rome. It would make sense the papacy follows him there.

I'm familiar with the Gospel justification for Petrine supremacy, thank you.

How then, do you explain Peter's clear subordination to James the Just at the Council of Jerusalem in C.50 AD (Acts 15)? It's clear that Peter is merely a subordinate advisor to James (albeit an important one), and it's James who issues the apostolic decree on the conversion of Gentiles in his capacity as the recognised ecclesiastical authority in the community.

If Peter was indeed the primary source of authority over the nascent church, it seems rather strange that Peter should almost entirely abdicate that authority over the early Christian Church even in Jerusalem so soon after Christ's death. Perhaps you can clarify this for us?

And I note that you not arguing the point that doctrine of Papal Infallibility was only defined in the 19th century - merely repeating the Catholic theological justification for that doctrine.

[Acadzia]

If you knew anything about history and theology you'd know that most dogma isn't explicitly defined unless the underlying assumptive Truth is challenged. IE, you can't write against Arians before there are Arians, as an example.

Right, right.

I mean, have you ever read Luther's Address to the Christian Nobility of the German Nation Respecting the Reformation of the Christian Estate?

Because that basically deals with the whole "why is the Pope?" issue.

Yes, and no it doesn't. It attempts to and fails. For me, anyway. Heh, anyways, I'm off... to Mass, ironically.

[The Archregimancy]

Ok, giggle-giggle, now address the latter part of my post.

Also, I don't hang out here, is Archy a theologian? Prof? Teacher? Priest? Deacon?

I'm a university lecturer in archaeology and an Orthodox Christian.

As to the latter part of your post, since the disagreement over Papal supremacy versus church collegiality dates back to first Seven Ecumenical Councils, it's fatuous in the extreme to claim that the reason Papal Infallibility wasn't defined until 1870 is that "dogma isn't explicitly defined unless the underlying assumptive Truth is challenged".

This is one of the oldest disputes in post-Constantinian Christianity, and the eventual foundation of the Great Schism of 1054 AD - and it still took the Catholics more than 800 years after that to decide this was Church dogma.

[The Black Plains]

Well... I am Roman Catholic... but also, Anglicanism isn't really a religion. It's a bunch of very well-preserved museums. And aren't Anglican bishops converting to Roman Catholicism in droves?

[Bears Renaimated]

Catholosism is the way to go. We have a Pope and not a Queen as the religious head.

How is that better? At least temporal authority is local and acknowledges its obligations to the people(if it doesn't it is destroyed.) Temporal power over religion is the way to go, and there is no justification for handling religious affairs otherwise.

So

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word had been voted through by Parliament."

?

Nope, sorry, that doesn't work for me...
(Well, it wouldn't if I was actually a Christian, anyhows...)

[The Black Plains]

Right, right.

I mean, have you ever read Luther's Address to the Christian Nobility of the German Nation Respecting the Reformation of the Christian Estate?

Because that basically deals with the whole "why is the Pope?" issue.

Yes, and no it doesn't. It attempts to and fails. For me, anyway. Heh, anyways, I'm off... to Mass, ironically.

This cracked me up.

[Farnhamia]

Well... I am Roman Catholic... but also, Anglicanism isn't really a religion. It's a bunch of very well-preserved museums. And aren't Anglican bishops converting to Roman Catholicism in droves?

Not that I've heard.

[The Black Plains]

Well... I am Roman Catholic... but also, Anglicanism isn't really a religion. It's a bunch of very well-preserved museums. And aren't Anglican bishops converting to Roman Catholicism in droves?

Not that I've heard.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q= ... qN54e7yRDA

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q= ... p3jnVVuz0A

Not recent, but I did remember seeing this.

[Farnhamia]

Not that I've heard.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q= ... qN54e7yRDA

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q= ... p3jnVVuz0A

Not recent, but I did remember seeing this.

Five bishops does not a "drove" make. One of those articles refers to "as many as 50" members of the Anglican clergy considering going over to Rome. I don't honestly think that presages the imminent collapse of the Anglican Church.

[The Archregimancy]

Five bishops does not a "drove" make. One of those articles refers to "as many as 50" members of the Anglican clergy considering going over to Rome. I don't honestly think that presages the imminent collapse of the Anglican Church.

The active bishops in question are also junior suffragan bishops rather than senior diocesan bishops.

In other words, while they've attained the rank of bishop, they have no cathedral of their own, and very few suffragans are area bishops with responsibility for a specific territory.

Catholics may choose to think of them as auxiliary bishops.

It's embarrassing for Anglicans, but hardly a crisis.

[The Black Plains]

Five bishops does not a "drove" make. One of those articles refers to "as many as 50" members of the Anglican clergy considering going over to Rome. I don't honestly think that presages the imminent collapse of the Anglican Church.

The active bishops in question are also junior suffragan bishops rather than senior diocesan bishops.

In other words, while they've attained the rank of bishop, they have no cathedral of their own, and very few suffragans are area bishops with responsibility for a specific territory.

Catholics may choose to think of them as auxiliary bishops.

It's embarrassing for Anglicans, but hardly a crisis.

I didn't say it was a crisis. I was asking for confirmation of a suspicion and then confirmed it myself.

[The Black Plains]

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q= ... qN54e7yRDA

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q= ... p3jnVVuz0A

Not recent, but I did remember seeing this.

Five bishops does not a "drove" make. One of those articles refers to "as many as 50" members of the Anglican clergy considering going over to Rome. I don't honestly think that presages the imminent collapse of the Anglican Church.

Okay. I'm sorry I said droves. Okay?


strawman

[Farnhamia]

Five bishops does not a "drove" make. One of those articles refers to "as many as 50" members of the Anglican clergy considering going over to Rome. I don't honestly think that presages the imminent collapse of the Anglican Church.

Okay. I'm sorry I said droves. Okay?


strawman

I'll let it go this time.

[Odins Scandinavia]

If you had to choose between Roman Catholicism, Anglicanism or death, what would you choose? I really don’t want to give my opinion after I hear your guy’s opinion. I can hypothesize that most of the folks on Nation states would go with neither because of the high rate of Agnosticism

Edit:
Well, I used to be an atheist when I first joined nationstates.net. I was raised a Roman Catholic but left. The main reason I joined my country's Anglican Church is because I agree with them more on current things. For one, I will NEVER recognize the current Roman Catholic Pope or any other pope as the leader of anything. Secondly, I don't believe anyone is infallible, especially the current Pope of that Roman Catholic Church.

I also fell that the Roman Catholic Church is joining the "We are Arminian, but we are going to sound like Calvinists to bring people in" bandwagon. I don’t believe that Roman Catholic church is the “one true church”.

die in majestic combat, for the glory of odin; Forn Siðr till i die!

[Coltarin]

I'm already Catholic, I don't think I'd like to change.

[Farnhamia]

If you had to choose between Roman Catholicism, Anglicanism or death, what would you choose? I really don’t want to give my opinion after I hear your guy’s opinion. I can hypothesize that most of the folks on Nation states would go with neither because of the high rate of Agnosticism

Edit:
Well, I used to be an atheist when I first joined nationstates.net. I was raised a Roman Catholic but left. The main reason I joined my country's Anglican Church is because I agree with them more on current things. For one, I will NEVER recognize the current Roman Catholic Pope or any other pope as the leader of anything. Secondly, I don't believe anyone is infallible, especially the current Pope of that Roman Catholic Church.

I also fell that the Roman Catholic Church is joining the "We are Arminian, but we are going to sound like Calvinists to bring people in" bandwagon. I don’t believe that Roman Catholic church is the “one true church”.

die in majestic combat, for the glory of odin; Forn Siðr till i die!

Your choice, though I doubt Odin would mind if you stayed alive.