|
|
Post by connacht4096 on Sept 17, 2021 17:38:37 GMT
hi, there is one thing about a particular religion (not Catholicism luckily), that has me really confused, I cannot understand how that denomination even exists. it is something that I hope there is something I am missing, but I suspect not. I might use somewhat incendiary language in asking it, but everything in the intended question is factual. does anyone mind if I ask the question?
|
|
|
|
Post by cato on Sept 17, 2021 23:37:44 GMT
hi, there is one thing about a particular religion (not Catholicism luckily), that has me really confused, I cannot understand how that denomination even exists. it is something that I hope there is something I am missing, but I suspect not. I might use somewhat incendiary language in asking it, but everything in the intended question is factual. does anyone mind if I ask the question? You can say whatever you like about the Church Of Ireland and her members, just don't be advocating their banning, extermination deportation or acts of hatred towards them. Simple things really. |
|
|
|
Post by connacht4096 on Sept 18, 2021 0:54:56 GMT
how the Anglican church has voluntary adherents?
excuse the wording of this post and any offense it may cause, but this is something I have been confused by for years and would like it if someone could explain the reason behind something I just cannot understand. Any offensive language is used in the hope of securing an explanation of how there is some fact that makes it untrue. What is it that I am missing here? Would love it if someone could give a convincing explanation.
How is anyone a member of the Anglican church? Based on their history, only religious persecution could reasonably keep anyone in that church, think about its origin for only a minute and that’s clear. To be an Anglican, you would have to believe that, what it took to establish the one true religion is not a tradition gradually developing from the founder of the overall religious group (as in Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy), or a major theologian who has discovered how the doctrines of the clerical establishment of the day are a misinterpretation of what the relevant scriptures actually say (as in Lutheranism or Calvinism for instance), nor a grassroots movement (as in Quakerism); but instead that the one true religion was brought to this earth when an overweight serial killer decided he wanted a divorce! Who could possibly believe that? It sounds like some atheist parody religion, not a real denomination. In fact, I think pastafarianism (I. E. the flying spaghetti monster) is less absurd on its face then the origins of the Anglican church. How do millions of people appear to believe in an organization with an origin that ridiculous and horrific ?
Some other denominations have done horrible things sure, and I do not exempt my own, Catholicism, from that; but I think there is a difference, in that the horrible things are not the very act that brought them into existence, just things they did afterwards; but it is a fact that there would be no Anglican church at all if an overweight serial killer had never decided he wanted a divorce. That origin is disgusting enough that, independent of any sacred element, I would never trust an organization created that way for any secular morality. Is every single Anglican stupid? Or do they just blindly accept whatever they are told, never thinking about the origin of the organization telling them things? The closest thing to an explanation I can come up with is that Anglicans have no ability to detect absurdities. The gist of the matter is that, as far as I can tell, the Anglican church, out of all the religions on this planet, has the least in the way of substantive reasons for existing. if they don't believe that it took a serial killer wanting a divorce to establish the one true religion, how do they explain why people should be members of a church that was founded on that? could someone please explain how and why I am wrong? because the facts I mentioned above seem to be true. this is a request for answers. Could anyone please explain what I am missing?
|
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Sept 18, 2021 8:29:00 GMT
I'm no expert, but I'm guessing Anglicans would answer that the Church of England didn't begin with Henry but was a rediscovery of original Christianity that had been overgrown by creeping Papism. That's why it was called a Reformation. There were Protestant ideas in Britain some time before Henry started lusting after Anne Boleyn. John Wycliffe is often named as a predecessor. I found this essay by Peter Hitchens interesting, if not entirely convincing. www.firstthings.com/article/2018/06/latimer-and-ridley-are-forgottenThere are different traditions within Anglicanism. The Anglo-Catholic tradition considers itself a branch of the Catholic Church equal to Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism. They consider Papal Supremacy and other Roman doctrines to be innovations to primitive Christianity. They have a fair claim to be apostolic, although the Catholic Church does not recognise their ordinations. John Henry Newman famously said "To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant." Bur that was well into his life. If a saint of the Church, a man of great erudition and integrity, could adhere to Anglicanism for so many years perhaps we should not be so dismissive of it. |
|
|
|
Post by connacht4096 on Sept 18, 2021 13:31:08 GMT
I find that unconvincing; even if there were ideas of protestentism growing before that; I wouldn't trust an organization founded like that to implement them; even if you agree with those ideas of protestentism, the way the anglican church was founded should still come across and a bit of disgusting opurtunism for a pathetic purpose
|
|
|
|
Post by Tomas on Sept 18, 2021 13:37:11 GMT
Why, it was not founded on Henry VIII as its prophet according to the historical actual facts (yes it´s a fact what he did but meaning here is that Anglicans "grew" out of Protestant heresies and that King was only a catalyst at best/worst, for the records not a proper founder). As to why people still do remain there it is all about "psychologies" as far as one can tell simply. If they have some material comfort many moderns are inclined to take almost any overbuilding - the Marxist term, I´m not sure about the word for it in Englsih - as long as it allows them to drag along in their comforts and the faith or system in question raise no concerns about sins, other than in exception what even they themselves consider appallent grave (in some cases not even then) like the killing of wives like he did. Thus people today don´t care about search for the True Religion at all and only go for the caricatures implanted in their base secular "education" given by the Liberal Left! Anglicanism in that context can be milder than many odder sects and not the very epitome of decadence that you painted them. Just look at comparative religion and there would soon be dozens of far worse examples. That they allow sins to spread, often over all limits, is still only the same pattern that the political Leftists show incessantly.
|
|
|
|
Post by connacht4096 on Sept 18, 2021 15:15:38 GMT
Why, it was not founded on Henry VIII as its prophet according to the historical actual facts (yes it´s a fact what he did but meaning here is that Anglicans "grew" out of Protestant heresies and that King was only a catalyst at best/worst, for the records not a proper founder). As to why people still do remain there it is all about "psychologies" as far as one can tell simply. If they have some material comfort many moderns are inclined to take almost any overbuilding - the Marxist term, I´m not sure about the word for it in Englsih - as long as it allows them to drag along in their comforts and the faith or system in question raise no concerns about sins, other than in exception what even they themselves consider appallent grave (in some cases not even then) like the killing of wives like he did. Thus people today don´t care about search for the True Religion at all and only go for the caricatures implanted in their base secular "education" given by the Liberal Left! Anglicanism in that context can be milder than many odder sects and not the very epitome of decadence that you painted them. Just look at comparative religion and there would soon be dozens of far worse examples. That they allow sins to spread, often over all limits, is still only the same pattern that the political Leftists show incessantly. the anglican church had no existence before Henry VIII, and came into being with him at its head. so weather they would formally acknowledge him as a prophet does not detract from it being their origin. I did not say they were the epitome of decadence in practice today, I said their origin was absurd and immoral; |
|
|
|
Post by cato on Sept 19, 2021 11:03:35 GMT
Most people belong to a religion because they are born into it, including the vast bulk of catholics and I presume Anglicans. Being part of a religion has a lot to do with history , family and sense of place.
Most people have little sense of history particularly religious history. Henry Viii bought into a long tradition of state control of churches that we can still see today in Eastern orthodoxy where the church has a very close and to catholic eyes, an often subservient role to the state. The idea of state control over ecclesiastical matters goes back to Constantine and was a major cause of Church state conflict for over a millennium. When seeking his annulment Henry researched all this history in order to get out of a potential Papal refusal and to pressurise Rome.
Henry previously had defended papal supremacy and catholic orthodoxy. He had previously received a papal dispensation to marry Catherine who had been betrothed to his infant brother Arthur. After he failed to produce a male heir he came to believe he had been cursed for breaching an incest prohibition from the book of Leviticus. The real story of Henry's religious views is more complex and interesting than a cartoon black and white version. The pope was also a nephew of Queen Catherine.
Why do people convert nowadays to Anglicanism? I suspect mainly because a marriage partner is Anglican.
Some convert because they like the ceremonial and high liturgy combined with theological liberalism. Parish liturgies as opposed to cathedral ceremonies are generally as low as the standard catholic ones though. Ex catholics do seem to make up a large number of converts to Anglicanism in Ireland. Many modern Irish catholics are effectively Anglican in their theological views but simply can't be bothered or get offended when the logical consequence of their views are pointed out to them.
|
|
|
|
Post by cato on Sept 19, 2021 11:53:11 GMT
Catholic historian and pro life advocate JJ Scarisbrick's 1968 biography of Henry viii is very good on Henry's religious motivations and his intense interest in theology if you want some background on him.
|
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Sept 19, 2021 11:56:25 GMT
I think a lot of Christians today are not particularly worried about denominational differences. I know an Evangelical who often attends Mass.
I don't agree with this attitude-- doctrine is important-- but surely we can be happy that they have Christ in their lives. We don't know how grace operates outside the visible limits of the Catholic Church.
|
|
|
|
Post by cato on Sept 19, 2021 14:39:13 GMT
I think a lot of Christians today are not particularly worried about denominational differences. I know an Evangelical who often attends Mass. I don't agree with this attitude-- doctrine is important-- but surely we can be happy that they have Christ in their lives. We don't know how grace operates outside the visible limits of the Catholic Church. I have noticed the same phenomena among some Nigerian Christians who don't "get" the Reformation or see it as a purely European event with no relevance for modern believers. I have also seen suggestions that in the long run this side stepping of historical divisions may help restore unity. I am a bit sceptical. |
|
|
|
Post by connacht4096 on Sept 19, 2021 17:41:52 GMT
so far no one has been able to explain what fact I am missing as to this.
|
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Sept 19, 2021 17:49:48 GMT
so far no one has been able to explain what fact I am missing as to this. You asked why anyone would voluntarily practice Anglicanism and we have offered many suggestions. As Samuel Johnson once said: "I have given you an answer, I cannot give you an understanding." |
|
|
|
Post by connacht4096 on Sept 19, 2021 17:51:55 GMT
at best they seem to be completely ignoring the elephant in the room. that their church was founded because an overweight serial killer decided he wanted a divorce.
|
|
|
|
Post by cato on Sept 19, 2021 18:10:54 GMT
at best they seem to be completely ignoring the elephant in the room. that their church was founded because an overweight serial killer decided he wanted a divorce. I think you have may have made your mind up already regardless of what any one will say. |
|
