Christian Discussion Thread XI: Anicetus’ Revenge

[Great Kauthar]

...what point are you trying to make?

I was wondering how much of Anglicanism remained Catholic, especially in relations to the hierarchy to keep the new religion afloat in it's infancy, while also moving towards Protestantism.

Some Anglicans are still close to Catholicism. Anglo-Catholics for example still say the Tridentine Mass just in the vernacular and afaik don't ordain women. Mainstream Anglicans got infected with the disease of low church Protestantism a long time ago.

[Celritannia]

I was wondering how much of Anglicanism remained Catholic, especially in relations to the hierarchy to keep the new religion afloat in it's infancy, while also moving towards Protestantism.

Some Anglicans are still close to Catholicism. Anglo-Catholics for example still say the Tridentine Mass just in the vernacular and afaik don't ordain women. Mainstream Anglicans got infected with the disease of low church Protestantism a long time ago.

That's a bit rude, calling low church Protestantism a disease.
They didn't get infected, they just altered.

[Dylar]

Happy New Year and Solemnity of Mary, Mother of God!

[Lower Nubia]

Some Anglicans are still close to Catholicism. Anglo-Catholics for example still say the Tridentine Mass just in the vernacular and afaik don't ordain women. Mainstream Anglicans got infected with the disease of low church Protestantism a long time ago.

That's a bit rude, calling low church Protestantism a disease.
They didn't get infected, they just altered.

"A particular quality or disposition regarded as adversely affecting a person or group of people."

Low-church Anglicanism has that quality.

[Celritannia]

That's a bit rude, calling low church Protestantism a disease.
They didn't get infected, they just altered.

"A particular quality or disposition regarded as adversely affecting a person or group of people."

Low-church Anglicanism has that quality.

But they allowed the change to happen, so it's not as if it was by force.

[Lower Nubia]

"A particular quality or disposition regarded as adversely affecting a person or group of people."

Low-church Anglicanism has that quality.

But they allowed the change to happen, so it's not as if it was by force.

And?

[Nazariles]

What do you all think of the Hebrew Roots Movement? Personally, I am a bit divided over the movements views. I could well consider their criticism of the festivities of Christmas and Easter as a bit legitimate, and some of their views on pagan influences on Christian culture is interesting. However, I kinda view them as a bit of a fringe group, considering that the idea of practicing Hebrew traditions and upholding the Torah as the absolute law as a bit new (I know the Adventists practice Sabbath, but most of the ideas from the Hebrew Roots Movement are quite....uh..exotic).

This also makes me wonder about the function of The New Testament, whether it was meant to declare The Old Testament obsolete or just to fulfill it.

[Lost Memories]

All this talk about Anglicanism and its remnants of catholicism made me think about an hypothetical.

If Anglicanism was to merge back into catholicism, would the King/Queen of the United Kingdom be crowned by the Pope?
Or would that remain a local matter, so still under the archbishop of Canterbury?
Or would the whole ceremony be revised, as the current one seems to include the fealty from the crowning archbishop and other bishops, which wouldn't work in catholicism.

[Sundiata]

Oh boy.

[Lower Nubia]

All this talk about Anglicanism and its remnants of catholicism made me think about an hypothetical.

If Anglicanism was to merge back into catholicism, would the King/Queen of the United Kingdom be crowned by the Pope?
Or would that remain a local matter, so still under the archbishop of Canterbury?
Or would the whole ceremony be revised, as the current one seems to include the fealty from the crowning archbishop and other bishops, which wouldn't work in catholicism.

The Archbishop of Canterbury would still do the coronation, as was the case before the Protestant Reformation. No doubt there would be a revision of the service along the lines of the Anglican Ordinariate.

[Lower Nubia]

What do you all think of the Hebrew Roots Movement? Personally, I am a bit divided over the movements views. I could well consider their criticism of the festivities of Christmas and Easter as a bit legitimate, and some of their views on pagan influences on Christian culture is interesting. However, I kinda view them as a bit of a fringe group, considering that the idea of practicing Hebrew traditions and upholding the Torah as the absolute law as a bit new (I know the Adventists practice Sabbath, but most of the ideas from the Hebrew Roots Movement are quite....uh..exotic).

This also makes me wonder about the function of The New Testament, whether it was meant to declare The Old Testament obsolete or just to fulfill it.

They're bad, bad, heretics. Paul dealt with that lot in the 1st century.

Oh, and a scriptural (Acts 10:9-16) refutation:

"On the morrow, as they went on their journey, and drew nigh unto the city, Peter went up upon the housetop to pray about the sixth hour: And he became very hungry, and would have eaten: but while they made ready, he fell into a trance, And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending upon him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth: Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air. And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat. But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean. And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common. This was done thrice: and the vessel was received up again into heaven."

[Isles of Metanoia]

[New Visayan Islands]

All this talk about Anglicanism and its remnants of catholicism made me think about an hypothetical.

If Anglicanism was to merge back into catholicism, would the King/Queen of the United Kingdom be crowned by the Pope?
Or would that remain a local matter, so still under the archbishop of Canterbury?
Or would the whole ceremony be revised, as the current one seems to include the fealty from the crowning archbishop and other bishops, which wouldn't work in catholicism.

The Archbishop of Canterbury would still do the coronation, as was the case before the Protestant Reformation. No doubt there would be a revision of the service along the lines of the Anglican Ordinariate.

And what of the Anglican Communion?

[Diopolis]

What do you all think of the Hebrew Roots Movement? Personally, I am a bit divided over the movements views. I could well consider their criticism of the festivities of Christmas and Easter as a bit legitimate, and some of their views on pagan influences on Christian culture is interesting. However, I kinda view them as a bit of a fringe group, considering that the idea of practicing Hebrew traditions and upholding the Torah as the absolute law as a bit new (I know the Adventists practice Sabbath, but most of the ideas from the Hebrew Roots Movement are quite....uh..exotic).

This also makes me wonder about the function of The New Testament, whether it was meant to declare The Old Testament obsolete or just to fulfill it.

Anyone else remember Ephraim?

[The New California Republic]

All this talk about Anglicanism and its remnants of catholicism made me think about an hypothetical.

If Anglicanism was to merge back into catholicism, would the King/Queen of the United Kingdom be crowned by the Pope?
Or would that remain a local matter, so still under the archbishop of Canterbury?
Or would the whole ceremony be revised, as the current one seems to include the fealty from the crowning archbishop and other bishops, which wouldn't work in catholicism.

Anglicanism seems to remain distant from Catholicism, and if anything is becoming more distant with the increasingly accepted ordination of women in the Anglican Communion etc.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

I was wondering how much of Anglicanism remained Catholic, especially in relations to the hierarchy to keep the new religion afloat in it's infancy, while also moving towards Protestantism.

Some Anglicans are still close to Catholicism. Anglo-Catholics for example still say the Tridentine Mass just in the vernacular and afaik don't ordain women. Mainstream Anglicans got infected with the disease of low church Protestantism a long time ago.

What's wrong with ordaining women?

[Lower Nubia]

The Archbishop of Canterbury would still do the coronation, as was the case before the Protestant Reformation. No doubt there would be a revision of the service along the lines of the Anglican Ordinariate.

And what of the Anglican Communion?

It would dissolve into the Anglican Ordinariate, a supranational diocese of unique, but Catholic approved, liturgical structures, with Anglican clergy either being ordained (with their consent) into the ordinariate, and prior bishops being given an honourary title.

Is the most likely outcome - of this unlikely outcome.

[Lost Memories]

All this talk about Anglicanism and its remnants of catholicism made me think about an hypothetical.

If Anglicanism was to merge back into catholicism, would the King/Queen of the United Kingdom be crowned by the Pope?
Or would that remain a local matter, so still under the archbishop of Canterbury?
Or would the whole ceremony be revised, as the current one seems to include the fealty from the crowning archbishop and other bishops, which wouldn't work in catholicism.

Anglicanism seems to remain distant from Catholicism, and if anything is becoming more distant with the increasingly accepted ordination of women in the Anglican Communion etc.

Not my point, but ok.

[Lost Memories]

The Archbishop of Canterbury would still do the coronation, as was the case before the Protestant Reformation. No doubt there would be a revision of the service along the lines of the Anglican Ordinariate.

And what of the Anglican Communion?

It would dissolve into the Anglican Ordinariate, a supranational diocese of unique, but Catholic approved, liturgical structures, with Anglican clergy either being ordained (with their consent) into the ordinariate, and prior bishops being given an honourary title.

Is the most likely outcome - of this unlikely outcome.

Are you talking about this ordinariate?

A personal ordinariate, sometimes called a "personal ordinariate for former Anglicans"[1][2] or more informally an "Anglican ordinariate",[3] is a canonical structure within the Catholic Church established in accordance with the apostolic constitution Anglicanorum coetibus of 4 November 2009[4][5][6][7] and its complementary norms.[8] The ordinariates were established in order to enable "groups of Anglicans"[9] to join the Catholic Church while preserving elements of their liturgical and spiritual patrimony. They are juridically equivalent to a diocese, "a particular church in which and from which exists the one and unique Catholic Church",[10] but may be erected in the same territory as other dioceses "by reason of the rite of the faithful or some similar reason".[10]

Three primarily Anglophone ordinariates were established between 2011 and 2012:
Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham (England and Wales, Scotland)
Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of Saint Peter (United States, Canada)
Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of the Southern Cross (Australia, Japan)

Seems pretty recent, at first i thought you were talking about an older structure, from before the reformation. Or that is was more of an original idea.

[The New California Republic]

Anglicanism seems to remain distant from Catholicism, and if anything is becoming more distant with the increasingly accepted ordination of women in the Anglican Communion etc.

Not my point, but ok.

Just pointing out that the scenario indicated is highly unlikely.

[Lost Memories]

Not my point, but ok.

Just pointing out that the scenario indicated is highly unlikely.

Does an "hypothetical" question have to be likely? Or what other word would you use to describe an... "hypothetical" scenario where the focus is on figuring out the most likely outcome given the premise? And not the likeliness of the premise itself?

Maybe "hypothetical" wasn't the correct word, what should i have used to be linguistically correct? Dear sir*

[The New California Republic]

Just pointing out that the scenario indicated is highly unlikely.

Does an "hypothetical" question have to be likely?

For a hypothetical to be of any real use it should have some semblance to reality.

[Lost Memories]

Does an "hypothetical" question have to be likely?

For a hypothetical to be of any real use it should have some semblance to reality.

Reply the whole post please.
"hypothetical" is just a word, you're getting hung up on a word while missing entirely the point. If the word doesn't work, then what was the correct word for the meaning i have expressed?

Or there is no linguistic issue, but more of a case of "questioning the question instead of answering it" ?


edit. honestly, if it's the latter my reply will still be "not the point, but ok"
in the former case instead i'm actually curious, i assumed it was pretty clear what i was meaning, but one can never be sure

[The New California Republic]

"hypothetical" is just a word, you're getting hung up on a word while missing entirely the point. If the word doesn't work, then what was the correct word for the meaning i have expressed?

Not getting hung up on it at all. You focused on that specific word before I did.

Or there is no linguistic issue, but more of a case of "questioning the question instead of answering it" ?

I would have thought this were clear from what I said, I made it pretty apparent.

[Lost Memories]

"hypothetical" is just a word, you're getting hung up on a word while missing entirely the point. If the word doesn't work, then what was the correct word for the meaning i have expressed?

Not getting hung up on it at all. You focused on that specific word before I did.

Or there is no linguistic issue, but more of a case of "questioning the question instead of answering it" ?

I would have thought this were clear from what I said, I made it pretty apparent.

Ok then


edit. actually, i think that had i used "conditional" or "supposition" instead of the word "hypothetical" this tiny self-circlejerk would had not even a linguistic basis, but basis have no importance when the intended aim is to sidetrack, reasons can always be made up afterwards...
All in all, thanks California for making me look up more precise words to use the next time i'll propose a thought experiment.