Topic: The stories of English Catholic Martyrs made me feel guilt.

[Anthony1986]

If RC is a wrong church and concept of papacy is wrong. Then what is the point to died for RC and Pope?

During English Penal Law to be a Catholic priests was an high treason. The penalty was Hanged, drawn and quartered.

 St. Edmund Campion had his  privy parts cut off, before his execution.

St.  Margaret Clitherow a simple woman was being crushed to death by heavy stone on Good Friday.
St. Margaret Clitherow could just joined Church of England in order to save her life.   

They died for the sack of Catholic faith.

They were so sincere about their faith. They died for the wrong faith?

When I am thinking about the stories of English Martyrs it make me very difficult for me to discern where is the true church. RC or EO???

[Anthony1986]

 I am not big fan with St. Thomas More. Because Thomas More burned many Protestants.

[Alkis]

If RC is a wrong church and concept of papacy is wrong. Then what is the point to died for RC and Pope?

During English Penal Law to be a Catholic priests was an high treason. The penalty was Hanged, drawn and quartered.

 St. Edmund Campion had his  privy parts cut off, before his execution.

St.  Margaret Clitherow a simple woman was being crushed to death by heavy stone on Good Friday.
St. Margaret Clitherow could just joined Church of England in order to save her life.   

They died for the sack of Catholic faith.

They were so sincere about their faith. They died for the wrong faith?

When I am thinking about the stories of English Martyrs it make me very difficult for me to discern where is the true church. RC or EO???

EO. :p

[Porter ODoran]

Why stop there? What about the Separatists, or Quakers? Or on the Continent, the Anabaptists? Or the Bogomils or Old Believers or Fratelli? If an authority starts executing people for religious belief, that's a terrifying thing, but I don't see how it alone could prove where the Church is.

[Mor Ephrem]

If RC is a wrong church and concept of papacy is wrong. Then what is the point to died for RC and Pope?

During English Penal Law to be a Catholic priests was an high treason. The penalty was Hanged, drawn and quartered.

 St. Edmund Campion had his  privy parts cut off, before his execution.

St.  Margaret Clitherow a simple woman was being crushed to death by heavy stone on Good Friday.
St. Margaret Clitherow could just joined Church of England in order to save her life.   

They died for the sack of Catholic faith.

They were so sincere about their faith. They died for the wrong faith?

When I am thinking about the stories of English Martyrs it make me very difficult for me to discern where is the true church. RC or EO???

What are all the suicide bombers dying for if Islam is not true?

[Anthony1986]

The Eastern Orthodox Church has many martyrs who rejected Union with Rome like St. Athanasius of Brest-Litovsk.

Both RC and EO martyrs they were all sincere of their faith. It the end it is hard for me to decide based on the story of those martyrs.

[xOrthodox4Christx]

Those same Saints, like Thomas More, burned Protestants alive. Did Protestants die for the wrong faith? We'd say yes. There are Islamic jihadists who do the same.

Addendum: Oh, Antony already made a comment on that. Oh well.

[Alkis]

Just study the history of Church and Christianity and the Holy Scriptures and how each Church interpretes them from antiquity till now. Read the works of the Fathers. Then you will find the Church of Christ.

[xOrthodox4Christx]

If RC is a wrong church and concept of papacy is wrong. Then what is the point to died for RC and Pope?

During English Penal Law to be a Catholic priests was an high treason. The penalty was Hanged, drawn and quartered.

 St. Edmund Campion had his  privy parts cut off, before his execution.

St.  Margaret Clitherow a simple woman was being crushed to death by heavy stone on Good Friday.
St. Margaret Clitherow could just joined Church of England in order to save her life.   

They died for the sack of Catholic faith.

They were so sincere about their faith. They died for the wrong faith?

When I am thinking about the stories of English Martyrs it make me very difficult for me to discern where is the true church. RC or EO???

EO. :p

Precisely. The EO has the character of the Catholic Church (meaning "the Great Church" the "original Church") in a way the modernist Roman Church simply does not.

[Diego]

Why stop there? What about the Separatists, or Quakers? Or on the Continent, the Anabaptists? Or the Bogomils or Old Believers or Fratelli? If an authority starts executing people for religious belief, that's a terrifying thing, but I don't see how it alone could prove where the Church is.

For once, Porter, I agree with you, whole-heartedly.

[Porter ODoran]

I think most of us would sympathize with the Roman Catholic martyrs. Henry VIII etc. weren't good guys in this conflict. Much of the faith does inhere in the Catholic church even now. They are not categorically our enemies, they are simply in schism.

[minasoliman]

This is a tough thing to judge, but the best answer regarding this I think is that we judge based on truth first before who died or suffered for what.  For those outside the faith, we pray and hope God will judge them by their heart.  It may be sad for others to die and suffer for something heretical.  It's tragic, and it's painful to listen about.  But we don't condemn people to hell based on that, and we try our best to err on the side of discernment, that we can discern where the True Church lies, and those who died for the true Church, but we do not make insensitive remarks about those who suffered innocently elsewhere either.

So with that in mind, stick first to searching for the true doctrines, but keep all the judgment on those who were innocently killed outside the faith, including non-Christians, to the judgment of God.

[Antonious Nikolas]

If RC is a wrong church and concept of papacy is wrong. Then what is the point to died for RC and Pope?

During English Penal Law to be a Catholic priests was an high treason. The penalty was Hanged, drawn and quartered.

 St. Edmund Campion had his  privy parts cut off, before his execution.

St.  Margaret Clitherow a simple woman was being crushed to death by heavy stone on Good Friday.
St. Margaret Clitherow could just joined Church of England in order to save her life.   

They died for the sack of Catholic faith.

They were so sincere about their faith. They died for the wrong faith?

When I am thinking about the stories of English Martyrs it make me very difficult for me to discern where is the true church. RC or EO???

I agree with all that has been said here about someone's willingness to die for their beliefs not necessarily meaning that those beliefs are true, up to and including the idea that the willingness of certain individuals to die for Rome doesn't mean that Rome is the Church.  That said, I understand your sympathy for the Roman Catholic martyrs of England.  By and large, they did not know about the Eastern Church in any real sense.  "The Church" for them meant Rome, not the pet project of the local powers that be, and they weren't entirely off-base in holding to that notion.  I for one pray that God accepted their sacrifice.  Leaving an Apostolic Church and going Protestant is never the right thing to do.

[Diego]

Of course, many Anglicans would quibble with the idea of being called Protestant... But I agree with the broad sentiment that ANYONE being forced to die for their beliefs is completely absurd.

[Porter ODoran]

If RC is a wrong church and concept of papacy is wrong. Then what is the point to died for RC and Pope?

During English Penal Law to be a Catholic priests was an high treason. The penalty was Hanged, drawn and quartered.

 St. Edmund Campion had his  privy parts cut off, before his execution.

St.  Margaret Clitherow a simple woman was being crushed to death by heavy stone on Good Friday.
St. Margaret Clitherow could just joined Church of England in order to save her life.   

They died for the sack of Catholic faith.

They were so sincere about their faith. They died for the wrong faith?

When I am thinking about the stories of English Martyrs it make me very difficult for me to discern where is the true church. RC or EO???

I agree with all that has been said here about someone's willingness to die for their beliefs not necessarily meaning that those beliefs are true, up to and including the idea that the willingness of certain individuals to die for Rome doesn't mean that Rome is the Church.  That said, I understand your sympathy for the Roman Catholic martyrs of England.  By and large, they did not know about the Eastern Church in any real sense.  "The Church" for them meant Rome, not the pet project of the local powers that be, and they weren't entirely off-base in holding to that notion.  I for one pray that God accepted their sacrifice.  Leaving an Apostolic Church and going Protestant is never the right thing to do.

This is very perceptive. There was no buffet of church choices in that day as there is in America now, and to the extent that Catholic martyrs saw themselves as abiding in the ancient faith, I am sure in that much they pleased God.

[Antonious Nikolas]

Of course, many Anglicans would quibble with the idea of being called Protestant...

So would every so-called "Non-Denominational" mega-churcher I've ever met.  I don't find the protestations (no pun intended) of either sect to be overly convincing though.  If, as I've read, all of the Reformation formularies of the CoE are Protestant and Reformed, the very Protestant Homily on the Salvation of Mankind is to be regarded as an authoritative or even characteristic Anglican document, etc., the Church of England is Protestant.  I've never subscribed to the notion of the "via media" or of the "big tent church" embracing Reformed and non-Reformed elements.  I'm not sure we should have this tangential discussion in this thread though.

[Antonious Nikolas]

If RC is a wrong church and concept of papacy is wrong. Then what is the point to died for RC and Pope?

During English Penal Law to be a Catholic priests was an high treason. The penalty was Hanged, drawn and quartered.

 St. Edmund Campion had his  privy parts cut off, before his execution.

St.  Margaret Clitherow a simple woman was being crushed to death by heavy stone on Good Friday.
St. Margaret Clitherow could just joined Church of England in order to save her life.   

They died for the sack of Catholic faith.

They were so sincere about their faith. They died for the wrong faith?

When I am thinking about the stories of English Martyrs it make me very difficult for me to discern where is the true church. RC or EO???

I agree with all that has been said here about someone's willingness to die for their beliefs not necessarily meaning that those beliefs are true, up to and including the idea that the willingness of certain individuals to die for Rome doesn't mean that Rome is the Church.  That said, I understand your sympathy for the Roman Catholic martyrs of England.  By and large, they did not know about the Eastern Church in any real sense.  "The Church" for them meant Rome, not the pet project of the local powers that be, and they weren't entirely off-base in holding to that notion.  I for one pray that God accepted their sacrifice.  Leaving an Apostolic Church and going Protestant is never the right thing to do.

This is very perceptive. There was no buffet of church choices in that day as there is in America now, and to the extent that Catholic martyrs saw themselves as abiding in the ancient faith, I am sure in that much they pleased God.

Thanks and amen! 

[Diego]

Well, I agree in many ways. The Church of England in her 39 Articles (which, if you can read them WITHOUT having them induce 40 Winks, you are right up there with the very few of us who can) attempted to drive a middle road between Rome and Geneva. They did not succeed in this, Anglo-Catholic protestations notwithstanding.

But that was hardly my point. In fact, from personal experience I can assure you that Anglo-Catholics are sincere in their thought patterns, and the fact that both Rome AND Orthodoxy have allowed the Book of Common Prayer to be used with only minor alterations is proof of that, and the idea that the text can be read in a Catholic light. The Nordic Catholic Church, which is a break-off from the liberal Church of Norway, and has requested union with Rome (and I expect that this will be granted, eventually) is proof that Lutheran Service Books can also be so read. In fact, a few Lutheran converts to the Antiochean Orthodox Church actually wanted to create a third Western Rite. This was denied, not due to any doctrinal issues with the Rite proposed, but for the entirely logical reason that introducing yet a THIRD Western Rite would be confusing, unnecessary, and superfluous.

[Diego]

Unfortunately, I must close for the evening, as I have much research for my book to do before I sleep. Pray for me, a sinner.

[Porter ODoran]

Well, I agree in many ways. The Church of England in her 39 Articles (which, if you can read them WITHOUT having them induce 40 Winks, you are right up there with the very few of us who can) attempted to drive a middle road between Rome and Geneva. They did not succeed in this, Anglo-Catholic protestations notwithstanding.

But that was hardly my point. In fact, from personal experience I can assure you that Anglo-Catholics are sincere in their thought patterns, and the fact that both Rome AND Orthodoxy have allowed the Book of Common Prayer to be used with only minor alterations is proof of that, and the idea that the text can be read in a Catholic light. The Nordic Catholic Church, which is a break-off from the liberal Church of Norway, and has requested union with Rome (and I expect that this will be granted, eventually) is proof that Lutheran Service Books can also be so read. In fact, a few Lutheran converts to the Antiochean Orthodox Church actually wanted to create a third Western Rite. This was denied, not due to any doctrinal issues with the Rite proposed, but for the entirely logical reason that introducing yet a THIRD Western Rite would be confusing, unnecessary, and superfluous.

I guess that may be a difference between me and you, whether you take as an acceptable witness her "thirty-nine articles" or her deposition of her lawful bishops. There's an old saying, Actions speak louder than words.

[Justin Kolodziej]

Well, I agree in many ways. The Church of England in her 39 Articles (which, if you can read them WITHOUT having them induce 40 Winks, you are right up there with the very few of us who can) attempted to drive a middle road between Rome and Geneva. They did not succeed in this, Anglo-Catholic protestations notwithstanding.

But that was hardly my point. In fact, from personal experience I can assure you that Anglo-Catholics are sincere in their thought patterns, and the fact that both Rome AND Orthodoxy have allowed the Book of Common Prayer to be used with only minor alterations is proof of that, and the idea that the text can be read in a Catholic light. The Nordic Catholic Church, which is a break-off from the liberal Church of Norway, and has requested union with Rome (and I expect that this will be granted, eventually) is proof that Lutheran Service Books can also be so read. In fact, a few Lutheran converts to the Antiochean Orthodox Church actually wanted to create a third Western Rite. This was denied, not due to any doctrinal issues with the Rite proposed, but for the entirely logical reason that introducing yet a THIRD Western Rite would be confusing, unnecessary, and superfluous.

They picked the wrong Westen Rite Vicarate. 
ROCOR already has four: Sarum Liturgy, Restored Liturgy of St. Gregory the Great, English Liturgy, and there is one (incredibly tiny) parish saying they use the Liturgy of St. Ambrose of Milan. What's a few more in a German rite?

[TheTrisagion]

People die for incorrect beliefs all the time. We cannot identify what is true on the basis of who and how many died for a particular believe. That is a non-sequitur.

[Antonious Nikolas]

Well, I agree in many ways. The Church of England in her 39 Articles (which, if you can read them WITHOUT having them induce 40 Winks, you are right up there with the very few of us who can) attempted to drive a middle road between Rome and Geneva. They did not succeed in this, Anglo-Catholic protestations notwithstanding.

But that was hardly my point. In fact, from personal experience I can assure you that Anglo-Catholics are sincere in their thought patterns, and the fact that both Rome AND Orthodoxy have allowed the Book of Common Prayer to be used with only minor alterations is proof of that, and the idea that the text can be read in a Catholic light. The Nordic Catholic Church, which is a break-off from the liberal Church of Norway, and has requested union with Rome (and I expect that this will be granted, eventually) is proof that Lutheran Service Books can also be so read. In fact, a few Lutheran converts to the Antiochean Orthodox Church actually wanted to create a third Western Rite. This was denied, not due to any doctrinal issues with the Rite proposed, but for the entirely logical reason that introducing yet a THIRD Western Rite would be confusing, unnecessary, and superfluous.

I'm not sure precisely what your point is, other than that some Anglicans erroneously believe their church to be a Middle Way.  What are you trying to say here?  What do you consider them to be?

[Diego]

Well, I agree in many ways. The Church of England in her 39 Articles (which, if you can read them WITHOUT having them induce 40 Winks, you are right up there with the very few of us who can) attempted to drive a middle road between Rome and Geneva. They did not succeed in this, Anglo-Catholic protestations notwithstanding.

But that was hardly my point. In fact, from personal experience I can assure you that Anglo-Catholics are sincere in their thought patterns, and the fact that both Rome AND Orthodoxy have allowed the Book of Common Prayer to be used with only minor alterations is proof of that, and the idea that the text can be read in a Catholic light. The Nordic Catholic Church, which is a break-off from the liberal Church of Norway, and has requested union with Rome (and I expect that this will be granted, eventually) is proof that Lutheran Service Books can also be so read. In fact, a few Lutheran converts to the Antiochean Orthodox Church actually wanted to create a third Western Rite. This was denied, not due to any doctrinal issues with the Rite proposed, but for the entirely logical reason that introducing yet a THIRD Western Rite would be confusing, unnecessary, and superfluous.

They picked the wrong Westen Rite Vicarate. 
ROCOR already has four: Sarum Liturgy, Restored Liturgy of St. Gregory the Great, English Liturgy, and there is one (incredibly tiny) parish saying they use the Liturgy of St. Ambrose of Milan. What's a few more in a German rite?

Now that IS interesting. Even in the Roman Church, only the Church in Milan uses that Rite. I am inclined to agree with you, but I also understood the Antiocheans saying it would have been superfluous, in the sense that few people would have used it. Of course, whether the proposed Rite was from German origin or Scandinavian origin I do not know. But, it is interesting.

As for whether any Anglicans are right or not about being Catholic, I do not presume to claim knowledge of that. I, as any sensible Lutheran, believe that the Church can be found wherever the Word of God is truly preached, and the Sacraments properly administered. That implies that the Church Catholick is in both EO and OO, Rome, the Assyrian Church, and to the extent that their orders are valid (ie, not female), the Old Catholics, the Anglicans, and the Lutherans. Naturally, we are by FAR AND AWAY the best! 

JUST KIDDING!

I do not expect you to agree with me. Such an expectation would be clearly stupid on my part.

Some have even argued, rather convincingly, that John Wesley was ordained a Bishop by an Eastern Orthodox Bishop. From a Western, rather legalistic perspective on ministry, that would make Churches descending in THAT tradition (Methodist, Wesleyan, African Methodist Episcopal, etc) somewhat valid as well. And their understanding of Sacrament as Holy Mystery bears some similarity to Orthodoxy's own, though that cannot and should not be stretched too far.

I guess my only point is that Orthodoxy has one thing we lack, and that is the idea that the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church inheres in her, and only in her. Whilst I certainly respect your beliefs on this matter, I cannot in good conscience agree. I perceive such a claim to be purely indefensible. Given the fact that most of the early heresies were in the East, and the fact that they are hardly unified even now (finding a time when ALL 15 Canonical Orthodox Churches are in communion with each other ALL at the same time is virtually impossible to do, and that does not even include the OO and the Assyrians), one must question the idea that total truth can be found there to the exclusion of any place else.

Granted, we have not got much room to brag! My particular part of Lutheranism is closed Communion to anyone other than us and the 35 or so Churches in the world that are in Full Altar Fellowship with us. Although this rule is often broken in practice (many Pastors will allow believers in the Objective Real Presence to receive, and St. Louis can whistle up a rope), the theory is still there, and often enforced.

Anyway, enough babbling for the evening/morning! Have a good night, all, and pray for me, a sinner.

[Sharbel]

If RC is a wrong church and concept of papacy is wrong. Then what is the point to died for RC and Pope?

During English Penal Law to be a Catholic priests was an high treason. The penalty was Hanged, drawn and quartered...   

They died for the [sake] of Catholic faith.

They were so sincere about their faith. They died for the wrong faith?

When I am thinking about the stories of English Martyrs it make me very difficult for me to discern where is the true church. RC or EO???

First off, they were innocents killed by a tyrant.  Secondly, hopefully they didn't hold on to their beliefs because of Rome or the pope, but because they believed in Jesus Christ and His Sacraments.  To Catholics, they were martyrs; to non-Catholics, they were arguably confessors.


Holy English Martyrs, pray to Jesus Christ, our God, for us!

[Antonious Nikolas]

Well, I agree in many ways. The Church of England in her 39 Articles (which, if you can read them WITHOUT having them induce 40 Winks, you are right up there with the very few of us who can) attempted to drive a middle road between Rome and Geneva. They did not succeed in this, Anglo-Catholic protestations notwithstanding.

But that was hardly my point. In fact, from personal experience I can assure you that Anglo-Catholics are sincere in their thought patterns, and the fact that both Rome AND Orthodoxy have allowed the Book of Common Prayer to be used with only minor alterations is proof of that, and the idea that the text can be read in a Catholic light. The Nordic Catholic Church, which is a break-off from the liberal Church of Norway, and has requested union with Rome (and I expect that this will be granted, eventually) is proof that Lutheran Service Books can also be so read. In fact, a few Lutheran converts to the Antiochean Orthodox Church actually wanted to create a third Western Rite. This was denied, not due to any doctrinal issues with the Rite proposed, but for the entirely logical reason that introducing yet a THIRD Western Rite would be confusing, unnecessary, and superfluous.

They picked the wrong Westen Rite Vicarate. 
ROCOR already has four: Sarum Liturgy, Restored Liturgy of St. Gregory the Great, English Liturgy, and there is one (incredibly tiny) parish saying they use the Liturgy of St. Ambrose of Milan. What's a few more in a German rite?

Now that IS interesting. Even in the Roman Church, only the Church in Milan uses that Rite. I am inclined to agree with you, but I also understood the Antiocheans saying it would have been superfluous, in the sense that few people would have used it. Of course, whether the proposed Rite was from German origin or Scandinavian origin I do not know. But, it is interesting.

As for whether any Anglicans are right or not about being Catholic, I do not presume to claim knowledge of that. I, as any sensible Lutheran, believe that the Church can be found wherever the Word of God is truly preached, and the Sacraments properly administered. That implies that the Church Catholick is in both EO and OO, Rome, the Assyrian Church, and to the extent that their orders are valid (ie, not female), the Old Catholics, the Anglicans, and the Lutherans. Naturally, we are by FAR AND AWAY the best! 

JUST KIDDING!

I do not expect you to agree with me. Such an expectation would be clearly stupid on my part.

Some have even argued, rather convincingly, that John Wesley was ordained a Bishop by an Eastern Orthodox Bishop. From a Western, rather legalistic perspective on ministry, that would make Churches descending in THAT tradition (Methodist, Wesleyan, African Methodist Episcopal, etc) somewhat valid as well. And their understanding of Sacrament as Holy Mystery bears some similarity to Orthodoxy's own, though that cannot and should not be stretched too far.

I guess my only point is that Orthodoxy has one thing we lack, and that is the idea that the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church inheres in her, and only in her. Whilst I certainly respect your beliefs on this matter, I cannot in good conscience agree. I perceive such a claim to be purely indefensible. Given the fact that most of the early heresies were in the East, and the fact that they are hardly unified even now (finding a time when ALL 15 Canonical Orthodox Churches are in communion with each other ALL at the same time is virtually impossible to do, and that does not even include the OO and the Assyrians), one must question the idea that total truth can be found there to the exclusion of any place else.

Granted, we have not got much room to brag! My particular part of Lutheranism is closed Communion to anyone other than us and the 35 or so Churches in the world that are in Full Altar Fellowship with us. Although this rule is often broken in practice (many Pastors will allow believers in the Objective Real Presence to receive, and St. Louis can whistle up a rope), the theory is still there, and often enforced.

Anyway, enough babbling for the evening/morning! Have a good night, all, and pray for me, a sinner.

Well, like you said, we'll never agree on this subject, but there's really very little point in each of us belaboring the official stances of his respective communion.  Cheers.

[Diego]

And cheers to you!