Sydney Anglicanism and wyd


Sydney Anglicanism is very anti-Cathlolic …they made a full effort to convert Catholics during WYD. One minister , Mark Gilbert ran a column…this is my reply to him:

The Reverend Mark Gilbert has contributed an article on the media Web page item about Why Anglicans do not accept the Pope.

He sums up his position as regards authority in the following terms…

“The church is the support structure for the truth found in God’s word – always underneath, supporting, testifying, upholding. Never above – interpreting, re-interpreting, dictating and controlling.

The Catholic Church describes its Tradition, Authority and the Bible like a tripod made of three equal legs. Paul describes the Bible as the truth under-girded by the church, which submits to it. “

First of all Mr Gilbert does not explain what he means when he uses the word Church . Is he referring to an invisible body of believers, or a constituted visible hierarchical Church…a city set on a hill which cannot be hid? .

He describes the Catholic Church ‘s model as tradition, authority and the Bible…we would say No.

Mr Gilbert should read the Universal Catechism of the Catholic Church. We know nothing of three legged tripods…we suggest he got that model from liberal Anglicans who talk of Scripture, reason and tradition and call it a three legged stool. It does not belong to us.

We see Christ as the head, the living fount from which come forth both the living waters of Magisterium,Scripture and Sacred tradition

It is for us (The Magisterium), the teaching Chuch that Christ established and that he commissioned to teach unto the end of the age, with his assistance. ( see Matthew ch 28)

We also believe that the Word of God comes to us through this living source of teaching authority and is also to be found in the written and unwritten tradition…the former is called Scripture and the unwritten word, sacred tradition.

Hold fast to the traditions I handed on to you, by word of mouth and by our Epistle…says St Paul

The Church to the Catholic is the living mind and voice of Christ ( he that hears you hears me) on earth. The Church tells us what constitutes the deposit of faith once delivered to the Saints. It was the Church that told us for instance that the Epistle of Barnabas was not Scripture and the Epistle to the Hebrews was, and it is the same Church that assures us that embryo experimentation, invitro conception contraception, abortion etc are sin.

St Augustine of Hippo summed it up beautifully when he said, “ i would not believe the gospels if it were not for the authority of the Catholic Church telling me they are true”

it is impossible for the Church to be above the word of God, for the Church of the living God is Christ’s living voice and Word on earth. Christ is not divided. or downgraded…we know of no ugly contraptions called tripods… Christ’s revelation comes to us as an organic and coherent whole…the full beauty and majesty of Catholic and Apostolic truth.

it is quite obvious that to Mr Gilbert ,his Church is not the living teaching voice of Christ on earth…it is a collection of believers who have no authority but their own collective fallible and subjective interpretation of the Bible, which leads to the myriad of Protestant conflicting doctrines. So Mr Gilbert’s church has no settled view of baptism ,the Lord’s Supper, divorce and re-marriage,the Gospel way of salvation etc…because as he states it is “Never above – interpreting, re-interpreting, dictating and controlling.”


They devoted themselves to the Apostles teaching and fellowship, the breaking of bread and the prayers .( note the definite article… ahint of set liturgical prayer here ) Please note they had no published New Testament…Apostoiic teaching authority was paramount.

If Mr Gilbert’s reading of authority were true ,would not the above passage from Acts have read ( and correct me if I am wrong)

And they continued in obedience to the Written Word of God, fellowship,prayer and the breaking of bread on the first Sunday of the month.

And finally Mr Gilbert, where does St Paul ever use the word Bible and tell us the Scripture is the sole authority for the believer?


You’re obviously an Ocker, Robert. G’day, first of all. Secondly, how (Edited**)** Blessed are you lot to have The Vicar of Christ touch your soil? You fortunate so n sos!

Maybe you needed a blessed visit more than we do!?? :smiley:

MAN! That was some visit! **Absolutely AWESOME! **

I saw the meetings between The Pope and the variety of non-Catholic Christian leaders and heard some of the speech by one of the Anglican ‘bishops?’ I dis not catch his name.

One of the things he said was to ‘pointedly’ state to the Pope that his denomination DID NOT AGREE with what Catholicism teaches or state; nor what Catholicism say compared to what The Bible teaches!..basically, from the snippet they showed, he was preaching a sermon to the gathering, of why he and his denomination disagreed with Catholicism; he even mentioned women priests as some shot for equal rights or something!

**I thought, THEN WHY **** GO TO WHERE THE HEAD OF THE CATHOLIC FAITH IS ?? Why bother??!! **

Grandstanding? Wouldn’t your ‘statements’ have more weight if you, as an Anglican bishop, stand in the ‘picket line’ outside with a placard protesting AGAINST Catholicism??

It struck me that the meeting with the heads of the non-Christian religions, Muslim, Orientals etc. is probably where this guy should have been!

Anyway, that was some visit. The ‘news’ reported that it drew the largest amount of people than every other visitor, ever!




I suppose these anglicans are the ones supporting women priests and bishops?

they probably dont want anything to do with the CC since she threatens their hereticals ways.

i am not surprised. he also felt threatened by the holy father’s visit that the people could see the Truth. so he had to come up with attacks to the Truth.


No the Diocese of Sydney is fundamentalist Protestant-Evangelical…and they do not have women priests, but do want lay presidency.


oh. the other type of anti Catholics.


WOW! No wonder they call the land down under the land of thunder!


It is clear, therefore, that sacred tradition, Sacred Scripture and the teaching authority of the Church, in accord with God’s most wise design, are so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without the others, and that all together and each in its own way under the action of the one Holy Spirit contribute effectively to the salvation of souls.

I agree that this is not a three-legged stool and that the metaphor has served us Anglicans ill (as its relative the “quadrilateral” has in the case of the Methodists). Any metaphor that implies that there are distinct witnesses to the truth operating over against each other is an easy target for adherents of “sola scriptura,” and more seriously such a metaphor has (in our case) led to a serious downgrading of the authority of Scripture. But you need to take this up with Catholic apologists who are unwittingly caricaturing the doctrine they want to defend.

I would respectfully disagree with your statement that the Church is in some sense itself the Word of God. The Church is the Body of Christ, and that’s surely enough dignity without adding titles that are not warranted by Sacred Tradition.



The Anglican Archbishop and Dean of Sydney are both striong Evangelicals. the Dean apppeared on a tv programme condemning Catholicism…here is my reply:

I have just watched the chatroom…and felt it should be re-named the “ Set Agenda”

The Dean sems to feel that modern Roman Catholicism dates from the Council of Trent… ( an idea popularised by TC Hammond in his book, The HundredTexts).However would he agree with a J W who said modern Christianity began with the Council of NIcea and the invention of the Trinity?
All that Trent did was to set in concrete doctrines and beliefs held for centuries before,and condemn heretical propositions.

Definition of the Holy Trinity in 325 AD does not mean that Christians before that date did not believe our Blessed Lord was God.

Would St Paul have known what was meant by the Hypostatic Union.?Yes , but the term would be unfamiliar tohim.

Similarly the early Church spoke of the assumption of Mary and it was formally defined centuries later…as was the real presence in 1215., when it came under attack

If the Dean holds to a theory that Romanism is a corrupt apostate version of Christianity, it is good for him to reflect that his Baptist friends see infant baptism as one of its dregs and a mark of Constantinian apostasy.

On Grace…the Catholic Church does not confine God’s grace to sacraments. However sacraments are vehicles of that Grace… For example as we confess “one baptism for the remission of sins.” The bishops who drew up that claiuse that Dean Jesnsen regularly recites , believed it meant water baptism. As does every Christian commentator before Calvin, including Luther.

Indulgencesa are biblical as well…and reflect the temporal punishment due our sins…whom the lord loveth he chastises.

The Dean uses the phrase faith alone “ several times and yett he only place where that exact phrase is used iin Scripture is a dirrect refuation of it, in the Book of James.

We also note with interest how Dean Jensen refuses to call Catholics fellow or brother Christians, but fellow creatures under Heaven!

I wonder if he his happy with the GAFCON desire for ecumenical dialogue and co-operation with the Church of Rome?


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit