to think that your religion can't be that important to you

[theevildead2]

if you can just "switch to catholicism" when it suits you?

There is a bit on the news at the moment about women maybe being allowed to be bishops. Apparently some of our local priests will be leaving the church if women get this right???

RR - what I'm saying is, I don't think much of that is distinctively medieval (bar Anselm). I don't think anyone who argues this stuff today has advanced very far.

But I'm pretty sentimental about medieval religion because I work on it and it's hard to read people being very earnest and thinking carefully about things, without wanting to respect them even while you disagree with them.

animula: basically, in the early centuries of the Church, people were trying to think what 'God' might mean. As they understood it, Jesus had been revealed as the Son of God. And they'd agreed that there was a Spirit or Holy Ghost, which was another way in which divinity could make itself known to mankind. But what people couldn't agree on was, how were these elements of God related to one another? You see, many people in those days were familiar with the idea of many divine beings (ie., polytheistic religion). It must have been difficult for early Christians to explain that they believe in only one God - but they thought this God took three forms.

The Arian heresy, as I understand it, describes one of the attempts to define the relationship between the three persons of God. The established Church eventually decided that Arianism got the balance wrong, and didn't accurately represent the relationships between the three persons of God.

This issue about how you describe the relationship between the three persons of God is historically important, because it was one of the reasons for the split between the Eastern and Western Churches (the 'Great Schism'), during which the Eastern Church rejected the authority of the Pope.

I'm less sure about Newman (sorry if that is the bit you wanted to know about most) - I find it really hard to get into the mindset of Anglo-Catholicism. But I think his argument with the Anglican Church had as much to do with his concern about the authority that Church had, as with anything else. Basically, there will always be a question mark over the Anglican Church's claim to be an original church with its own authority, but I think that seemed a radical idea in the Victorian era. As I understand it, he thought the Anglican Church had been too tangled up with man-made structures, whereas the Catholic Church might be closer to what Christ revealed.

But I get immensely confused by Victorian religion in general, so I expect there's a lot more to it!

3hat link unintenional I swar LOL

3hat link unintenional I swar LOL

3hat link unintenional I swar LOL

3hat link unintenional I swar LOL

The feminine form is Jessie, and there is a Jesse tree described in the bible. A flower is predicted to come from the Jesse tree, a flower is surely feminine, therefore according to the prophecy Jesus could have been a girl. 50-50.

My piano teacher was a male Jesse. He was a proud Yorkshireman living near Barnsley and I pity anyone who took the mick out of his name. (Mind you, he had never married and lived at home with his Mum so maybe he was what they used to call a confirmed bachelor, who knows?)

I find it astonishing that people who have spent their lives preaching and believing that transubstantiation is not true are then prepared to say oops I was wrong just because they can't swallow the little problem of female priests. And are then quite happy to swallow not just TS but papal infallability to boot. Makes a mockery of belief quite frankly. I cannot understand why any sane adult can believe in a God or religion, it's ludicrous. And yes in all honesty I do think differently of those who are religious.

Honestly,though, when was the last time youheard a lesson preached that mentioned Transubstantiation at all, letalone it's validity or lack thereof. Anglicanism as a whole hasn't made a fuss about what you're requird to believe on the eucharist in a long time. The people coming over to the Catholic church either already believed in the Real Prescence, or just hadn't thought about something beyond consubstantiation. It's not like we're getting any diehard memorialists converting....

Upon rereading this, I still don't know anything about arianism, but I'm recalling a bit more about Newman. I think what must have caught his attentio n about Arianism was not it's theology but it's pattern. Points come under discussion, the Church makes a definitive statement, the disagreeing parties proclaim "Non serviam" andgo do their own thing. The church continues on it's narrow path as the splinter diverges further andfurther away until it collapses under the weight of accumulated heresy.

Newman rather famously said "To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant." One can't honestly
look at the history of Anglicanism and not wonder how things would have looked had Henry been given his annullment

that would be an ecumenical matter

little red dragon good point. i was trying to show a comparison between sexual heterosexual sin and homosexuality so that christianity was not particularly homophobic.

it is a very difficult one but i still think cchristianity is as relevant today as it was 2000 years ago and christ died for me.

However there are alot of shades of grey in life and the older you get the more you realise this

you do know that papal infallability isn't a general thing about the pope being always right though, it is a very specific thing regarding doctrine and dogma that has been invoked only about a dozen times in the last thousand years or more?

Its a common misconception that it means the pope is never wrong. Another common error even many catholics get wrong is the immaculate conception.

MM - Thank you. That interpretation would fit with "Loss and Gain".
I think I am going to have to go and look at some more work on Newman (I flinch at the thought of reading his work on the Arian controversy).

Thank you to you, too, LRD.

Duplicitous, are you channelling Father Ted?

Mary, I think the reformation and protestanism were coming to England anyway - Henry's falling out with the Pope just gave the reformers a huge opportunity to do away with all the Roman corruption in one huge push. (And for the aristocrats to get their hands on some rather juicy church property, of course.)

Interesting to speculate on how the state would have reacted to protestantism had the king not been rowing with the Pope, though. Would Henry, who was proud of his Papal-awarded status as Defender of the Faith, have burnt protestant martyrs? What would Edward, Mary and Elizabeth have done? Would the English have gone for the Scottish protestant James VI and I if the country had remained Catholic? Can't remember if there were any other Tudor relatives left to choose from, think Henry, Mary and Elizabeth had had them all executed as a threat to the throne.

Sorry I couldn't be more help animula!

edam, I agree Protestantism was coming anyway, whether or not Henry did anything.

If DB can channel Father Ted, I'll remind you all that Eddie Izzard knows Anglicanism is less about the body and blood and more about tea and cake. Oh yes.

Honestly, if Catherine had conveniently died allowing Henry to legitimately remarry, it wouldn't have improved his character one whit. There are still all those monastery lands and church rents to consider, after all. IMHO, the writing was on the wall for the Church in England with the wretched treatment of poor Richard III. I'm guessing what would have happened was Henry bringing in separation of church and state,subjecting the church to taxes likelu justifying it as funding theprotection of the church from incoming protestantism. Modernism would have hit us harder and earlier, like it did in France. I don't think we'd have ended up with more people genuinely practising their religion than we do today.

How do you mean? Richard III was a devout Catholic - there's a monograph on his Book of Hours that looks at all the personalized devotions there, it's very moving. Why would he lead to the C of E?

Yes yes, meant it was the writing on the wall for the Catholic church in England.

[proud Yorkist emoticon]

Yes yes, meant it was the writing on the wall for the Catholic church in England.

Not sure I agree ... but I love the theories.

There is a lot on the media about the King James Bible just now. I heard an actor read a passage this morn. It was impressive..but some actors can make the bus time table sound great.

But they cant make the buses come on time.

I know one of our local nuns. she gives it some wellie when I am talking to her Her faith is impressive. But I am more of a "curious but dont know answers" bloke

KJB is nice writing, agreed!

You've got me on the KJB. Oh, if only things had held off a century,we could have had that

Cranmer was no literary slouch, come to think of it....