Thread: Eccles: Getting to grips with Anglo-Catholicism Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=000502
Posted by Custard123 (# 5402) on
:
I guess this displays my ignorance as much as anything else....
There aren't many ACs around here, and I don't know many personally, but there seem to be hordes of you on the Ship.
I was wondering what makes you tick.
How do you find the balance between the emphasis on tradition and developing and improving that tradition?
What is the emphasis of the life of the church?(obviously sharing the bread and the wine is a huge part)
Why Canterbury rather than Rome?
How do you see the role of the ordained person? Why do you call them "Father"?
Are there typical doctrinal stances on e.g. women's ordination, homosexuality? I'd thought that ACs were pretty conservative on those things, but I've got the impression that's not always the case here....
[ 14. May 2007, 14:21: Message edited by: Belisarius ]
Posted by Sacristan (# 3548) on
:
Improving the tradition?
Posted by The103rd (# 5846) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Custard123:
I guess this displays my ignorance as much as anything else....
There aren't many ACs around here, and I don't know many personally, but there seem to be hordes of you on the Ship.
I was wondering what makes you tick.
How do you find the balance between the emphasis on tradition and developing and improving that tradition?
Tradition? - There are certain things in the church that you could call "Tradition" some of them I really don't like, but other people do, I find that tradition can actually stop change and mean that any change in the church either doesn't ever get changed or a very poor comprimise has to be made.
quote:
Originally posted by Custard123:
What is the emphasis of the life of the church?(obviously sharing the bread and the wine is a huge part)
The "bread and the wine" is called the Eucharist/Mass and we don't believe that it's "bread and wine" it is the body and blood of Jesus Christ - I think the emphasis of the life of the church is the life within the church. Anglo Catholic Churches tend to have a big outreach to both the rich and the poor, most AC churches that I know will be in use most of the week with both Sacred and Secular activities, Weekday Mass is practised in most AC churches, soup run (in my parish), pilgramages, luncheon clubs.
The Church is there for people, it is there from the beginning (Baptism), through the teenage years (First Communion and Confirmation), When you get married (Marrage), when you do something wrong (Reconciliation) and every other festival and sunday when you go to Mass, right to the end (Funeral)
quote:
Originally posted by Custard123:
Why Canterbury rather than Rome?
Ah - for me I have no choice, and when I am older I probably will convert to Roman Catholicism!
quote:
Originally posted by Custard123:
How do you see the role of the ordained person? Why do you call them "Father"?
To me, priests are pretty normal people, they swear when they do something stupid, they know good jokes and they are good friendly people.
But they have been called by God to be priests, I have always understood calling a priest "Father" because we belong to a church family and the leader of the family is the father, and because a priest is the leader of the church family, we should call him father - I'm not sure if that is entirely accurate, I was just told that when I used to go to Sunday School!
quote:
Originally posted by Custard123:
Are there typical doctrinal stances on e.g. women's ordination, homosexuality? I'd thought that ACs were pretty conservative on those things, but I've got the impression that's not always the case here....
My Anglo Catholic church doesn't allow women priests, some do though, although my Anglo Catholic priest is liberal when it comes to Homosexual Clergy - as we feel that it is rather cruel to outcast Homosexuals from the priesthood just because of who they fancy!
I do know another Anglo Catholic Church which takes the complete opposite on Homosexual Priests as the priest of that parish believes that Homosexual priests don't take the bible seriously, so therefore he doesn't approve.
To my knowledge there are some Anglo Catholic Churches that do allow women priests and they refer to their priestesses as "Mother" which confuses me because we call senior nuns "Mother"!
It would be interesting to know about those churches.
-103
[ 05. July 2004, 18:41: Message edited by: The103rd ]
Posted by Custard123 (# 5402) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sacristan:
Improving the tradition?
Well, I very much doubt that Anglo-Catholicism emerged in AD33ish complete with bells in all the right places, correct numbers of candles and scents of incense, etc.
Hence at some point the tradition must have been "improved" from what was previously the case.
Posted by Back-to-Front (# 5638) on
:
May I be so bold as to say that I think that what Sacristan was perhaps getting at, is not so much the idea that you were trying to convey, but the manner in which you expressed it.
Tradition may develop. It may guide and be guided. 'Improved' implies a deficiency to begin with. The Tradition that has been handed down in the Church traces back to the Apostles and to Christ. The starting point, therefore, cannot have been defective.
I generally have little time for Affirming Catholcism, as I don't see how they can reasonably claim to affirm Catholicism, but they convey this idea quite well in their 'Guidelines for Christian Living today'.
quote:
Catholic tradition is like an organic growth, which remains rooted and fed by the inheritance of the past, but also evolves and adapts to new knowledge and experience, testing the compatibility of the new in the light of the old.
The full text may be found here.
I hope this helps.
Posted by Custard123 (# 5402) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Back-to-Front:
May I be so bold as to say that I think that what Sacristan was perhaps getting at, is not so much the idea that you were trying to convey, but the manner in which you expressed it.
In that case I wholeheartedly apologise for any offence caused. "Developed" or "grown" is a much better way of putting it.
[ 05. July 2004, 21:06: Message edited by: Custard123 ]
Posted by Carys (# 78) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Custard123:
I guess this displays my ignorance as much as anything else....
There aren't many ACs around here, and I don't know many personally, but there seem to be hordes of you on the Ship.
I was wondering what makes you tick.
How do you find the balance between the emphasis on tradition and developing and improving that tradition?
Tradition is important but it is also living. Thus I don't think that there should be a conflict between tradition and its development.
quote:
What is the emphasis of the life of the church?(obviously sharing the bread and the wine is a huge part)
The Eucharist is very definitely at the heart of (Anglo-)Catholicism. It is where we receive the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ.
quote:
Why Canterbury rather than Rome?
In my case, because of various Marian Dogmas, the infallibility of the Pope and the admission of women to the priesthood.
quote:
How do you see the role of the ordained person?
Interesting question, I'm not quite sure whether I can put my thoughts into words on this one. The priest isn't exactly a Leader because that gets the dynamics wrong. Nor is evangelism their primary concern -- they nurture us in our mission. Worship and prayer is important which is why I think the duty of the clergy to say the office is important (although one in which the laity should be encouraged to join).
I see Ordination as a sacrament where the one ordained receives the Spirit to enable them to fulfil this task (and TBH I think those who don't see it as a sacrament but follow the call are very brave or strong because it's such a major responsibility I don't know how they can contemplate it without a sacramental understanding).
quote:
Why do you call them "Father"?
Tradition! TBH, I'm not entirely sure about this one. I know arguments against it better than for it, but I find it works. Calling the vicar Fr X is a good level of formality.
quote:
Are there typical doctrinal stances on e.g. women's ordination, homosexuality? I'd thought that ACs were pretty conservative on those things, but I've got the impression that's not always the case here....
There is a strong grouping within Anglo-Catholicism which opposes the ordination of women. Some are 'impossiblists' (ie women cannot be ordaind) others take the line that the CofE does not have the authority to change Tradition (and personally I do find the Tradition argument the strongest against it) unilaterally (ie without Rome and Constaniople). There are others (and I would include myself in this group) who are strongly in favour of it. At the A-C church I attend, there is an agreement that a woman won't celebrate but women from the congregation have been supported to ordination and we've had female ordinands on attachment (who have functioned as sub-deacons although there are those who have to be warned when this is going to occur). There are those who are strongly against and those strongly for and we muddle along together.
Carys
Posted by corpusdelicti (# 5124) on
:
quote:
How do you find the balance between the emphasis on tradition and developing and improving that tradition?
Tradition is important to ACs generally. Consistent worship practice provides a link between worshippers past, present and future which I see as vital. Development comes as part of the development of the church as a whole, both Anglican and universal. To me local novelty and experimentation is not important, long-term universal growth in the church is.
quote:
What is the emphasis of the life of the church?
Much like any church: community, fellowship, worship. Liturgy is central, particularly regular mass and the daily office. Not that I attend them much ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
, but to know they are there.
quote:
Why Canterbury rather than Rome?
Because I'm an Anglican not a Roman Catholic! I don't beleive in transubstantiation, preistly celibacy or male-only preisthood for a start.
quote:
How do you see the role of the ordained person? Why do you call them "Father"?
I'm quite low chuch on this, to me the priest is the person called and trained to do that job. In theory anyone could give communion, but I think it ought to be someone who really understands what they are doing. "Father" is an honourific, and less impersonal that calling someone vicar or pastor.
quote:
Are there typical doctrinal stances on e.g. women's ordination, homosexuality?
No. Anglo-Catholicism is a movement based primarily around worship style and has no single doctrine. Some ACs don't want women as priests, many are liberal on sexuality.
I think ACs are often more liberal because the focus is on worship and tradition. There is little biblicism involved, so anyone who comes to worship God is welcome. Anyone can be an AC - as long as you drink GIN ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posted by Custard123 (# 5402) on
:
Thanks folks for your responses so far - they've been helpful.
FWIW Carys, I guess it depends what you mean by "sacramental". I'd agree that God equips those he has called by his Spirit, and therefor that those who have been called to be ordained should be doing it in God's strength.
I wouldn't, however, describe ordination as a sacrament (Article 25). I don't think that the ceremony of ordination better equips the person to fulfil the role, but that God does, sometimes doubtless through the ceremony and sometimes not.
Still a bit puzzled on the whole "Father" front (that was one of the reasons I notionally rejected AC as a child).
Also interested as to how traditions come to develop if there is such an emphasis on maintaining them (as there often seems to be in AC).
Posted by Fooferan (# 6830) on
:
quote:
I see Ordination as a sacrament where the one ordained receives the Spirit to enable them to fulfil this task (and TBH I think those who don't see it as a sacrament but follow the call are very brave or strong because it's such a major responsibility I don't know how they can contemplate it without a sacramental understanding).
We Lutherans have only two sacraments, Baptism and Holy Communion. That is because we use a fairly strict definition of sacrament. It is something
1) instituted by Christ, 2) has earthly elements, 3) the Word of God, and 4) conveys grace in the narrow sense--that is, faith unto eternal life.
Word and Sacrament together are known as the Means of Grace (again, conveying forgiveness, life, and salvation). Fairly traditional or "high" Lutherans tend to think of confession/absolution as a sort of mini-Sacrament, but not a full sacrament as there is no essential earthly element; they sort of fold it in as a continuation of the baptized life lived in the Word.
Ordination is not seen as a Sacrament as it is not salvific. There is no promise from God to bring the priest to salvation via being a priest. Nor are there necessary earthly elements (except the laying on of hands, if you want to see that as an "element".) We do believe that ordination is a solemn and blessed occasion in which the Holy Spirit is poured out or stirred up in a special way to bless and strengthen ministry--but most Lutherans would see even this as an extension of the baptismal blessing and vocation to Christian life.
We also do not believe that the pastor gets "magic fingers" to confect the sacrament. We believe that the validity of the sacrament resides in the proclamation of the Word of promise together with the earthly elements, and it is effective when it is received in faith. It doesn't depend on the presider being ordained--that's just a matter of good order. (I myself have presided at Holy Communion by special permission of the bishop and the parish pastor.)
Posted by The103rd (# 5846) on
:
Wow - I think that from those other responses I'm probably the most "Romish" Anglo-Catholic who has just posted!
We have prayers for the Pope (and the Patriarch in Constantinoble) at our masses and we have LOADS of Marian stuff.
As for transubstatiation - I believe in that and I think you'll find that most people who go to my church would believe that! I was taught that at first communion classes and I will always hold onto that (prehaps that's one of the reasons that I might leave)
-103
Posted by Saint Chad (# 5645) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Custard123:
There aren't many ACs around here, and I don't know many personally
You state your location as Manchester, I would have thought there were more than a few A-Cs there! Try looking here, you should be able to find an A-C parish nearby.
Also have a look here. You might find some if you go to the meet!
Posted by Saviour Tortoise (# 4660) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Custard123:
I wouldn't, however, describe ordination as a sacrament (Article 25). I don't think that the ceremony of ordination better equips the person to fulfil the role, but that God does, sometimes doubtless through the ceremony and sometimes not.
Interestingly, the CofE website section on "what it means to be an Anglican" appears to be in contradiction with the 39 articles on this:
quote:
The two sacraments ordained by Christ himself - Baptism and the Supper of the Lord - are administered with unfailing use of Christ's words of institution, and the elements are ordained by him
Okay. No problem there.
But then we get:
quote:
Central to worship for Anglicans is the celebration of the Holy Eucharist, also called the Holy Communion, the Lord's Supper or the Mass. In this offering of prayer and praise, the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ are recalled through the proclamation of the word and the celebration of the sacrament. Other important rites, commonly called sacraments, include confirmation, holy orders, reconciliation, marriage and anointing of the sick.
(Emphasis mine)
I don't have any problem with this statement at all. But it is interesting to see something on the CofE website which (at least very nearly) contradicts the 39 articles!
Posted by Saint Chad (# 5645) on
:
That statement doesn't contradict Article XXV, it explains it.
Posted by The103rd (# 5846) on
:
I was always taught that there are 7 Sacraments - since when have there only been 2 in the anglican church? Why wasn't I told about it and why do we still practise all 7 sacraments?
-103
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The103rd:
I was always taught that there are 7 Sacraments - since when have there only been 2 in the anglican church? Why wasn't I told about it and why do we still practise all 7 sacraments?
We practice many many rites. Two of them are sacraments instituted by the Lord. Seven of them are, according to Cranmer, "commonly called" sacraments - but aren't really. That's the traditional Anglican position.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
quote:
Why do you call them "Father"?
Tradition! TBH, I'm not entirely sure about this one. I know arguments against it better than for it, but I find it works. Calling the vicar Fr X is a good level of formality.
To be honest I think its's little more than a badge of membership.
Protestants stopped calling priests "Father" as a way of marking themselves off from Roman Catholics. Later on, that part of the CofE that thought of itself as "not really Protestant" started using "Father" because of its Roman associations, as a way of marking themselves as distinct from the majority of Anglicans.
But that's about it. It's more a fashion or a habit or a badge than anything with much doctrinal significance.
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
My twopenn'orth:
quote:
How do you find the balance between the emphasis on tradition and developing and improving that tradition?
Tradition is a living thing, and therefore not static. Tradition develops as the Church faces new challenges and grows in the knowledge of God. We are formed and nurtured by the past but not imprisoned by it.
quote:
What is the emphasis of the life of the church?(obviously sharing the bread and the wine is a huge part)
The Eucharist is absolutely central to the life of the Church, as is the daily rhythm of morning and evening prayer and as are the other sacraments. Then, of course, there are the other things that churches do - teaching, pastoral work, outreach, evangelism.
quote:
Why Canterbury rather than Rome?
Papal infallibility would be the short answer. The longer answer would be to say that I believe that the Church is divided not, as I understand Rome's position, that Rome is the Church and the rest of us, at least in some sense, are not.
quote:
How do you see the role of the ordained person? Why do you call them "Father"?
The primary role of bishops, priests and deacons is sacramental, although each of them have important leadership, teaching and pastoral roles. The term Father is a traditional term which reminds us that a good clergy person has a similar relationship with his flock to that of a good Father. (The same applies mutatis mutandis to Mother, for female clergy).
quote:
Are there typical doctrinal stances on e.g. women's ordination, homosexuality? I'd thought that ACs were pretty conservative on those things, but I've got the impression that's not always the case here....
Broadly speaking ACs tend to be less 'liberal' about the ordination of women than homosexuality although that is, of course, a massive generalisation as you will find ACs in the 'pro' and 'anti' camp on both issues. (I am 'pro' on both, as it happens). The unifying issues for ACs tend to be a high view of the Church and of the sacraments (of which, for ACs, there are seven). ACs tend to be doctrinally orthodox - ACism (IMV) makes no sense at all without the doctrines of the incarnation and the trinity.
Posted by Custard123 (# 5402) on
:
Thanks all for your continuing enlightenment of my understanding of AC.
There are large parts of the conurbation of Manchester that are not in the diocese of Manchester. As it happens, I'm in the diocese of Chester.
My problem with calling people "Father" is Matthew 23:8-12....
quote:
"But you are not to be called 'Rabbi,' for you have only one Master and you are all brothers. And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. Nor are you to be called 'teacher,' for you have one Teacher, the Christ. The greatest among you will be your servant. For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted."
And yes, I realise that my occupational title is therefore quite ironic. I assume the ACs have all spotted something I have missed on this. After all, I am frequently a little slow on these things and haven't really thought about this in detail since childhood...
[ 06. July 2004, 12:43: Message edited by: Custard123 ]
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
I've yet to meet anyone who insists on addressing his biological father by his given name as it is unscriptural to call him father. Which would be the obvious literal meaning of the passage. Prescient as our Lord was, I find it implausible that he was warning his disciples about the wiles of the Catholic clergy.
Patriarchal authority in antiquity was rather stronger than the authority of a modern father - Roman fathers only lost the right to kill their disobedient children in (IIRC)the reign of the Emperor Constantine. Jesus is using hyperbole to demonstrate that the obedience due to ones Father, which was emphatically that of an inferior to a superior, was therefore relativised by the obedience which is due to God.
[ 06. July 2004, 13:02: Message edited by: Callan ]
Posted by Carys (# 78) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Custard123:
My problem with calling people "Father" is Matthew 23:8-12....
quote:
"But you are not to be called 'Rabbi,' for you have only one Master and you are all brothers. And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. Nor are you to be called 'teacher,' for you have one Teacher, the Christ. The greatest among you will be your servant. For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted."
And yes, I realise that my occupational title is therefore quite ironic. I assume the ACs have all spotted something I have missed on this. After all, I am frequently a little slow on these things and haven't really thought about this in detail since childhood...
I'm never quite sure what to make of this passage either. However, you notice the irony about the fact that you're profile tells us you are a teacher. Round here, there are quite a few professors -- should Christians not address them as Professor X? Also, I don't know about you but I call my father, father (or at least dad). Thus we don't take this passage literally on a number of fronts but it is frequently pulled out as a reason not to call priests 'father'; this seems somewhat inconsistent to me. I conclude rather tentatively that we're dealing with hyperbole here. The point is that God is our Father and our Teacher and our Rabbi beyond all human fathers, teachers and rabbis. I'm not sure we have to take the bit about not using the terms for humans literally -- at least I know of no part of the Church which has consistently.
As to sacraments, I regard all seven as sacraments but acknowledge a difference between the two dominical 'sacraments of the Gospels' and the five 'commonly-called sacraments'. The first two are directly salvific and normative for all Christians whilst the other five are helpful in the Christian life but not all Christians will experience all of them (indeed for the Romans all 7 is quite difficult -- one would have to enter the priesthood as a widower!).
On Rome or Canterbury, I have to admit that whilst being thoroughly committed to Canterbury myself, I do wonder why places which use the Roman Missal in its entirety (personally I like CW) and pray for 'our Pope' etc remain Anglican. If we use unauthorised liturgy, how can we complain about evangelicals who ditch liturgy entirely? Much as I love the diversity of Anglicanism there are times at which I wish for a bit more adherence to the centre.
Carys
[Cross posted with Callan who said something similar!]
[ 06. July 2004, 13:07: Message edited by: Carys ]
Posted by Crotalus (# 4959) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ken:
Protestants stopped calling priests "Father" as a way of marking themselves off from Roman Catholics.
Priests (at least secular priests) were not called "Father" until long after the reformation; in mediaeval times they were called "Sir".
Among English recusants priests were addressed as "Mr" until the late nineteenth century. It seems that use of the title "Father" arose at the same time in RC and AC circles. I have indeed heard the opinion maintained that the first English (secular) priest to be called "Father" was Charles Lowder (an anglican - of St Peter's, London Docks)
Posted by shareman (# 2871) on
:
Sticking in my paddle:
quote:
Originally posted by Custard123:
How do you find the balance between the emphasis on tradition and developing and improving that tradition?
What is the emphasis of the life of the church?(obviously sharing the bread and the wine is a huge part)
I think the two are linked. Tradition, as opposed to traditions, is the faith that has been handed to us. We are not merely a group of people here and now, we are a part of the Communion of Saints, united across time, so our responsibility to each other goes across space and time too. We have received something, and as we grow and the Spirit leads us into all truth, we will add to, and sometimes subtract from, that which we will in our turn, pass on. This sense of connectedness across time and space is very important for me.
The Mass is a vital part of this. It is our spiritual food, as the BCP says. In it the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ once and for all offered on the Cross, as it has at every Mass since the beginning. We are not offering a new sacrifice, or even re-offering the sacrifice, it becomes the same sacrifice, and unites us to Christ's sacrifice and to all the others who have offered it in the last 2000 years, and they and the angels join with us to offer it.
I remember reading of a group of Christians captured in North Africa during one of the Roman persecutions. They were captured at Mass, and the soldiers asked them why they insisted on coming together to do this despite the risks. Their answer was: "We must do this. It is what we do. We cannot be Christians without it." Pretty powerful to think that when we offer the sacrifice we are uniting with such people.
quote:
Why Canterbury rather than Rome?
Same as most others, I'm not Roman Catholic. I don't think the Pope is anything more than a bishop, and while I respect him, he isn't my bishop, any more than the Archbishop of Nigeria is my bishop. Being bishop of the capital of the Old Western Roman Empire might give him some authority, though why we should base authority on the structure of an Earthly Empire that the ancient Church was quite at odds with is beyond me, but the Church has bishops, not kings. If I couldn't be Anglican, I'd be Orthodox, not Roman.
As to the other questions, I feel the same as others.
The sacramental life of the Church is vital to my practice of the Faith, and I really wouldn't be able to function fully in my faith if I had to attend a church where the Sacraments were not regularly celebrated, especially the Mass. I'm not dissing other ways of being Christian, but for me, this is a vital point. Our God gives us grace through the small things of His own creation: bread, wine, water, human touch. It's the way He works. He being God, one assumes that He could have redeemed us any way He wanted to, but He didn't. He put on creation, as the Orthodox say, and used the stuff He had created to redeem that creation. It gives me such a strong sense of the presence of God in everything. Very verbose, I'm sorry, but I can't put it any more succinctly, and even then I have the feeling I've left out a lot of what it means to me. I just can't find all the words.
[ 06. July 2004, 13:17: Message edited by: shareman ]
Posted by Young fogey (# 5317) on
:
quote:
I guess this displays my ignorance as much as anything else....
There aren't many ACs around here, and I don't know many personally, but there seem to be hordes of you on the Ship.
I was wondering what makes you tick.
How do you find the balance between the emphasis on tradition and developing and improving that tradition?
Of course the Solemn (High) Mass wasn't around in A.D. 33 as has been pointed out! Dogma, kerygma, the basic stuff of the faith, doesn't change - and defined doctrines expressing that faith are irrevocable - but other expressions of it can and do, always at a glacial pace.
quote:
What is the emphasis of the life of the church?(obviously sharing the bread and the wine is a huge part)
That there is a body that is the church, not just an association of the like-minded. As the teaching (magisterial) voice of God, guided by the Holy Spirit, it is infallible and sinless, yet paradoxically made up of fallible, sinful people. The part about the Eucharist has been answered.
quote:
Why Canterbury rather than Rome?
I think the answer for most sincere ACs is simply that they were born Anglicans, from the Anglicans they first learnt the Catholic faith and as long as they can practise that faith where they are there's no reason to change, however important the Pope is in theory. As an AC friend (who believes the Pope is the Vicar of Christ) says, St Thomas Aquinas says the good of souls is the No. 1 priority and, owing to Vatican II etc., that's not always possible among the present-day RCs.
quote:
How do you see the role of the ordained person? Why do you call them "Father"?
This is one of the foundation stones of Catholicism, Anglo or otherwise: the apostolic ministry. In short, Jesus ordained the apostles to continue His presence: either they were bishops or something unique above and beyond bishops. Anyway, they ordained the first bishops who ran the local churches and celebrated the Eucharist ('the breaking of the bread') for them on Sundays. Then these ordained deacons to do charitable work, and when local churches (dioceses) grew too big for the bishop to celebrate the Eucharist for the whole community, the bishop ordained presbyters (elders)/priests to share in that aspect of his ministry, representing him at the local (parish) church.
The 'father of the family' analogy is a good one. The Book of Common Prayer calls the bishop 'reverend father in God'. To borrow an explanation from the Eastern Orthodox, he has that title in his own right as successor to the apostles - priests are given it as a courtesy because they represent him.
Just like strictly speaking there is only one Priest in Christianity, Christ, and bishops and priests share in that priesthood. When we talk about priests, plural, as in Frs Smith and Jones, we're using shorthand.
The history of calling priests 'Father' is varied. Getting back to the Orthodox, they not only call all priests that but also deacons and full-fledged monks not necessarily priests. In the Western Church for a long time only priests who were monks or members of religious orders were called that. In non-English-speaking countries it's still so, AFAIK - a French priest is Monsieur l'Abbé, right? Spanish and Italian ones are Don Antonio, for example. Padre Antonio would be a monk.
In English 'Father' wasn't unknown among Protestants. Back in penal times (when RCs were persecuted), RC priests went by 'Mister' while at the same time, in the northern American colonies, there were Congregational ministers who went by 'Father'.
What happened among RCs in the 1800s was the Irish called all priests 'Father' and, after RC emancipation, the usage spread, including among Anglo-Catholics for the reasons given in this thread. Party badge? Quite right but with loads of doctrine behind it.
quote:
Are there typical doctrinal stances on e.g. women's ordination, homosexuality? I'd thought that ACs were pretty conservative on those things, but I've got the impression that's not always the case here....
Putting on my asbestos suit and risking sliding into Dead Horses territory, let's talk about these.
As has been written here, because ACs identify primarily with RCs and also with the Orthodox as parts of the Church Catholic, and because the consensus among them officially is that the ordination of women is impossible, genuine ACs oppose it, either for impossibilist or authority reasons.
There are former ACs and mainstream Anglicans who are somewhat high-church in their worship style who accept it - churches where 'Mother Smith' might be the rector.
As for homosexuality, of course historically the AC movement has had many homosexual men in it, both for its æsthetics and its erudition. Part of its charm and its worldly-wise sophistication - such has been around since the fall of humanity and all are loved and welcome in God's house.
That said, real ACs, a rare breed, don't make excuses for the practice by altering the liturgy, the preaching, the advice in the confessional or the catechetical instruction to say it's acceptable.
As for ACism being only a worship style, to paraphrase Flannery O'Connor, if that's all it is then I say to hell with it.
ACism's 19th-century founding fathers, the Oxford Movement divines, like their High Church forebears, were concerned first and foremost with doctrine and not much if at all with ceremonial! They worshipped much like other Anglicans, the only difference being perhaps they were more conscientious about wearing the surplice and other things called for in the Prayer Book. The adoption of Roman Catholic ceremonial (actually called for technically in the Ornaments Rubric of the Prayer Book) was by their followers later.
As for the numbering of the sacraments, it was fluid throughout much of the church's history until the reaction to the Protestants in the 1500s - there were mediæval Catholics who thought there were as many as 20! I think with Trent the number and which ones were pinned down to seven and the ones all Catholics know today; the Orthodox, reacting to the RCs reacting to the Protestants, adopted the same reckoning, proving they are part of the great Catholic family.
Posted by Custard123 (# 5402) on
:
Still thinking about the "Father" issue.
I think Matt 23 is talking about two (linked) things:
- we shouldn't aim to be in positions of leadership to make us feel better than others (with titles as a part of that). Leaders should serve.
- we shouldn't treat leaders as if they are qualitatively better than us - we should avoid giving them "guru" status
I guess that sets limits on what is meant, whatever we call ordained people.
quote:
Originally posted by shareman:
Sticking in my paddle:
The Mass is a vital part of this. It is our spiritual food, as the BCP says. In it the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ once and for all offered on the Cross, as it has at every Mass since the beginning. We are not offering a new sacrifice, or even re-offering the sacrifice, it becomes the same sacrifice, and unites us to Christ's sacrifice and to all the others who have offered it in the last 2000 years, and they and the angels join with us to offer it.
That's interesting, partly because it clashes with what I vaguely remember thinking about ACs and RCs. Though I think I'd want to say that we don't offer it - Christ does. Is that type of belief (that it's a participation in Christ's once for all sacrifice rather than a re-offering of it) common among ACs?
Note - I'm actually one of those who think that the breaking of the bread is a beneficial, efficacious and vital act of remembrance of what Jesus did, but that the only sacrifice we offer is our lives in response to the sacrifice that Jesus has already offered. I strongly suspect this is straying into Dead Horses though, so I'll stop.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crotalus:
quote:
Originally posted by Ken:
Protestants stopped calling priests "Father" as a way of marking themselves off from Roman Catholics.
Priests (at least secular priests) were not called "Father" until long after the reformation; in mediaeval times they were called "Sir".
If so, then the first part of my supposition could not be true. Though its hard to see why a fashion emerging amongst Anglo-Catholics would spread so quickly over the Roman church - were not priests called "Father" in French and Spanish and other languages? So English-speaking Roman Catholics might have loan-translated from those languages?
Even so, the the second part could be and I suspect is true. Most Anglicans & other Protestants feel uneasy about "Father" because it sounds Roman Catholic to them. And Anglo-Catholics keep it up for the same reason.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Young fogey:
Putting on my asbestos suit and risking sliding into Dead Horses territory, let's talk about these.
As has been written here, because ACs identify primarily with RCs and also with the Orthodox as parts of the Church Catholic, and because the consensus among them officially is that the ordination of women is impossible, genuine ACs oppose it, either for impossibilist or authority reasons.
There are former ACs and mainstream Anglicans who are somewhat high-church in their worship style who accept it - churches where 'Mother Smith' might be the rector.
That's not "risking sliding into". That's diving in from the high board. So I guess it will have to go unanswered here.
Posted by Carys (# 78) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Young fogey:
Putting on my asbestos suit and risking sliding into Dead Horses territory, let's talk about these.
As has been written here, because ACs identify primarily with RCs and also with the Orthodox as parts of the Church Catholic, and because the consensus among them officially is that the ordination of women is impossible, genuine ACs oppose it, either for impossibilist or authority reasons.
There are former ACs and mainstream Anglicans who are somewhat high-church in their worship style who accept it - churches where 'Mother Smith' might be the rector.
So those who disagree with you on this issue are not 'genuine ACs'? Thank you very much. ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
There is genuine disagreement amongst ACs on this matter.
Carys
Posted by seasick (# 48) on
:
An issue on which tradition-believing ACs may differ? ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posted by The103rd (# 5846) on
:
From the different posts and comments - there are many different strains of ACV (Anglo Catholic Virus )
I think that I probably have the ACTTRCAP strain of it.
ACTTRCAP stands for "As close to the Roman Catholics as possible"
-103
Posted by Young fogey (# 5317) on
:
As you probably know behind your rhetoric, Carys, I agree with the Church Catholic - that's what matters, not me - and apparently you don't. I'm sure this has been covered in Dead Horses.
[ 06. July 2004, 15:28: Message edited by: Young fogey ]
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
As neither Rowan Williams, nor Pope John Paul II appear to be 'proper Catholics' in the eyes of Young Fogey, Carys, I suggest that we are in good company.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
Do I hear the skirl of the bagpipes of a True Scotsman?
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Do I hear the skirl of the bagpipes of a True Scotsman?
The traditional musical accompaniment of the Charge of the Dead Horse Brigade.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Young fogey:
As you probably know behind your rhetoric, Carys, I agree with the Church Catholic - that's what matters, not me - and apparently you don't.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Posted by Carys (# 78) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Young fogey:
As you probably know behind your rhetoric, Carys, I agree with the Church Catholic - that's what matters, not me - and apparently you don't. I'm sure this has been covered in Dead Horses.
The branch of the Church Catholic of which I am a part ordains women to the priesthood.
Carys
Posted by corpusdelicti (# 5124) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Young Fogey:
As has been written here, because ACs identify primarily with RCs and also with the Orthodox as parts of the Church Catholic, and because the consensus among them officially is that the ordination of women is impossible, genuine ACs oppose it, either for impossibilist or authority reasons.
I'll try and skate around the obvious hellish/dead horse issues of claiming some of us aren't "genuine" ACs.
It seems that there are essentially two kinds of Anglo-Catholic:
The ANGLO-Catholics are definitely Anglicans, with all that entails. They will, thus, usually support women priests, prefer BCP / CW services and possibly be slightly uncomfortable with some of the more Marian activities of some ACs (I know I am).
They are Anglicans who happen to worship in a more catholic way.
Anglo-CATHOLICS are what Young Fogey describes. They see themselves as catholic first. They just happen to be Anglicans by chance or by birth. They are unlikely to support women priests as it isn't Catholic doctrine. They might prefer Roman Rite services etc.
Most AC churches probably have a mix of the two kinds. I think both are equally genuine forms of Anglo-Catholicism.
Posted by The103rd (# 5846) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by corpusdelicti:
quote:
Originally posted by Young Fogey:
As has been written here, because ACs identify primarily with RCs and also with the Orthodox as parts of the Church Catholic, and because the consensus among them officially is that the ordination of women is impossible, genuine ACs oppose it, either for impossibilist or authority reasons.
I'll try and skate around the obvious hellish/dead horse issues of claiming some of us aren't "genuine" ACs.
It seems that there are essentially two kinds of Anglo-Catholic:
The ANGLO-Catholics are definitely Anglicans, with all that entails. They will, thus, usually support women priests, prefer BCP / CW services and possibly be slightly uncomfortable with some of the more Marian activities of some ACs (I know I am).
They are Anglicans who happen to worship in a more catholic way.
Anglo-CATHOLICS are what Young Fogey describes. They see themselves as catholic first. They just happen to be Anglicans by chance or by birth. They are unlikely to support women priests as it isn't Catholic doctrine. They might prefer Roman Rite services etc.
Most AC churches probably have a mix of the two kinds. I think both are equally genuine forms of Anglo-Catholicism.
Hmm - I think I'm the second type of Anglo-Catholic. Prehaps we should be known as "Roman Rite Anglo-Catholics"
If one is uncomfortable with Marian Activities then they are not Catholic - Catholic's say the Rosary and say daily Hail Mary's - that's what Catholics do and that can't be changed. I think that the first lot of ACs that you have described are more "High Church" not Anglo Catholic (That's my opinion, please don't kill me)
One question for you all about Anglo Catholics - why are there Anglo Catholics who are so stubborn about change?
-103
[ 06. July 2004, 16:57: Message edited by: The103rd ]
Posted by Carys (# 78) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The103rd:
One question for you all about Anglo Catholics - why are there Anglo Catholics who are so stubborn about change?
Human nature?
Carys
Posted by shareman (# 2871) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The103rd:
One question for you all about Anglo Catholics - why are there Anglo Catholics who are so stubborn about change?
-103 [/QB]
Oh, you mean like letting priests marry, saying Mass in English, not being in allegiance to the Pope, and all that other difficult Reformation stuff? (The sarcasm isn't meant to be all that nasty, just a little.....frustrated). I guess for some people, change itself isn't felt to be very Catholic, that is to say, they use their "Catholicism" to wrap their Conservative nature in. Now that's probably more than a little simplistic, I guess, but certainly a factor. For me, the Refomation isn't just a little blip that we can hide under the rug. Many of the changes brought in by the Reformation were necessary, and I don't see why we should turn back the clock. I know, it's a fine line, and some would say that claiming the catholicity of the Anglican Church and returning to many Catholic practices, like the veneration of the Mother of God, for instance, is a similar turning back of the clock, but that's another argument.
Another question would be "Why are there so many, AC and otherwise, who seem so obsessed with change, often, apparently, change for the sake of it?
Posted by The103rd (# 5846) on
:
quote:
Another question would be "Why are there so many, AC and otherwise, who seem so obsessed with change, often, apparently, change for the sake of it?
Change is good (Oh my gosh, I sound like a McDonald's advert - evil evil evil!)
-103
Posted by seasick (# 48) on
:
quote:
103 said:
that's what Catholics do and that can't be changed
So who decides what change is good and what isn't?
Posted by shareman (# 2871) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The103rd:
quote:
Another question would be "Why are there so many, AC and otherwise, who seem so obsessed with change, often, apparently, change for the sake of it?
Change is good (Oh my gosh, I sound like a McDonald's advert - evil evil evil!)
-103
When liturgical reform was big in these parts, it used to be said that the biggest sin of the Anglican Church was "We've never done it that way before" implying "So we can't do that now." I'd suggest that that statement is still valid, just that it now implies "So let's do it that way, it's new." Fact is, not all change is good, not all conservatism is bad. If change is so good, why is it that Anglo-catholics with such a love for Rome seem to consider that the changes of the Reformation were bad?
Note to Custard123: See what you've started, one of those AC infighting things that are either intensely boring or staggeringly silly to everybody watching.
Note to Seasick: Well, Cosmo or Fiddleback come to mind.
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on
:
Genuine development is good. Unwarranted change is not. If it ain't broke, don't fix it!
Thurible
Posted by seasick (# 48) on
:
But one man's genuine development is another man's unwarranted change, is it not? One might cite the example of the abomination, er, nave altar.
Posted by The103rd (# 5846) on
:
Reformation has it's good points and it's bad points.
If it wasn't for the Reformation - the Catholic Church wouldn't have seen the need for Vatican II as it wouldn't have had any other churches to compete with.
Although - we are out of communion with the holy church of Rome - which is a bad thing.
Nave Altars are cool - don't try to annoy me!
-103
Posted by Siegfried (# 29) on
:
Geneva Gown ON
The Anglo-catholicism for beginners thread may be of interest to those reading this current thread.
Geneva Gown OFF
Posted by The103rd (# 5846) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by seasick:
quote:
103 said:
that's what Catholics do and that can't be changed
So who decides what change is good and what isn't?
Why the Vicar of Christ™ is the only person in authority to change things!
-103
Posted by seasick (# 48) on
:
Sorry, but you asked for this:
The Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this Realm of England.
Posted by The103rd (# 5846) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by seasick:
Sorry, but you asked for this:
The Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this Realm of England.
Well - I'm a Romish Anglo Catholic and in my eyes, he does!
-103
[ 06. July 2004, 18:19: Message edited by: The103rd ]
Posted by shareman (# 2871) on
:
Even less in this realm of Canada. And who gave him such jurisdiction as he does over his own flock? Why, his predecessors who grabbed power they weren't entitled to. Our Orthodox bretheren couldn't tolerate that 1000 years ago, it took us another 500 years to get fed up. I'd suggest that a monarchical Papacy is decidedly NOT Catholic. I'll stop now, since this is Dead Horse territory.
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The103rd:
If it wasn't for the Reformation - the Catholic Church wouldn't have seen the need for Vatican II as it wouldn't have had any other churches to compete with.
If it was the Reformation that led to Vatican II, how come it took them so long?!
Posted by The103rd (# 5846) on
:
Because the reformation led to other churches being setup! Those churches started to get more people into them because they had english spoken services that people could understand. Those people started to leave and the RC Church felt threatened. They also were a little "old fashioned" as they were still speaking Latin whilst other churches spoke in native tongues (and in plain old tongues) so they did Vatican II!
-103
Posted by seasick (# 48) on
:
For example on the issues of Orders, "Ecclesial Communities" and such like?
Posted by seasick (# 48) on
:
Apols. That was in response to 103's in my eyes he does post.
Posted by Custard123 (# 5402) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Siegfried:
Geneva Gown ON
The Anglo-catholicism for beginners thread may be of interest to those reading this current thread.
Geneva Gown OFF
Jolly interesting, as is the current conversation. Thanks.
Also decidedly odd when I realised I knew the OPer fairly well IRL...
I am getting the strong impression then that ACism is pretty independent of theological evangelicalism / liberalism.
So in other words, it would be possible to have someone who was both an evangelical and an AC, or a liberal and an AC, or for that matter a charismatic and an AC (as I suspect 103 might be - apologies if not).
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on
:
How do you find the balance between the emphasis on tradition and developing and improving that tradition?
As has been covered above, you simply mean ‘developing’ the Tradition. (I do assume you mean ‘Tradition’ rather than ‘traditions’? The former is the Faith once and for all delivered to the saints of old; the latter is what man has made up in his quest to worship.) How do I personally balance fidelity to Holy Tradition and the need to develop it? Firstly, I’d say that it isn’t necessarily necessary to develop it. However, sometimes the Church has understood that the Spirit is guiding Her into a new understanding. That in itself is fine, but “Developed Tradition” must never be contrary to the prior understanding of Tradition. The Ordination of Women to the Ministerial Priesthood could be drawn in here as an example of how the Church of England, as one branch of The Church, must seek to balance Tradition and the development of that Tradition. Is the OoWttMP contrary to Tradition, or a valid development of it? I wish I knew is all I can say.
What is the emphasis of the life of the church?(obviously sharing the bread and the wine is a huge part)
The Mass/Eucharist/Holy Communion/Lord’s Supper/Breaking of Bread (can’t think of anymore alternatives at the moment, but I’m sure that there are some) is an absolutely enormously huge part of the life of the Church. Our Lord instituted the Mass (obviously not in its liturgical entirety) that we, the People of God, might be fed by His Living Word so as to be the People of God. It is at the Mass that we offer ourselves, with Christ on Calvary, to the Father - and He responds with an outpouring of Love.
The Incarnation is also an incredibly important emphasis. The fact that God Himself joined the quest of humanity to live our lives for God sanctifies our very existence. God understands our pain, and our joy. He too has experienced it. It is that which enables us to strive towards living our lives as God’s people.
I suppose, in short, though, the emphasis of the life of the Church is that quest to be built into the People of God.
Why Canterbury rather than Rome?
I came to Faith as an Anglican. I was walking past my parish church one day and saw a sign outside declaring “This church seeks to uphold the Catholic Faith within the Church of England”. Coming from a family of ‘political’ (if not theological) Protestants, I was very confused as they’d always told me the Church of England was Protestant. I went in, felt entirely at home, and came to realise, gradually, that I believed what they were saying.
Why haven’t I left, though? a) (and most importantly) I don’t see the need to, certainly not at present. I believe the Church of England to be a valid branch of the Catholic Church, with a valid three-fold order and seven, valid, sacraments. b) I don’t believe in Papal Infallibility. c) I don’t believe in transubstantiation, as such. (And 103, are you sure that you definitely believe in transubstantiation, rather than the Real Presence? I’m far, far more comfortable saying that I believe in the Real Presence, but will leave the technicalities of what that means to the Lord, thank you very much. One of the priests at one of the churches I worship at declares (at the “Ecce Agnus Dei”) “This is Jesus, born of Mary.” (Well, he did on Mothering Sunday, and does on Marian feasts) or “This is Jesus, who sends forth the Spirit” (Pentecost.). How it is, I’ve no idea. That it is, I’m sure. d) I don’t believe in the need for mandatory priestly celibacy - even when there are dispensations from this discipline.
How do you see the role of the ordained person? Why do you call them "Father"?
Good question - sure you’re not my DDO? I assume that, by ‘ordained person’, you mean priest, rather than deacon? I see him, basically, as someone who works with, and definitely for, the People of God, enabling them to work to become God’s People.
Why do we call them Father? Well, because that's what they are. They are our spiritual fathers, the heads of our parish families.
Are there typical doctrinal stances on e.g. women's ordination, homosexuality? I'd thought that ACs were pretty conservative on those things, but I've got the impression that's not always the case here.…
In the sort of AC circles in which I personally mix, we’re likely to be conservative, or at least hesitant, about both the OoWttMP and about the ‘practice’ of homosexuality. AC-ism is, though, very broad (we are Anglicans, after all) and so people do tend to disagree. However, what I think we’d all want to do was not jeopardise the unity of AC-ism, as much as is possible. We can, even if we profoundly disagree, work and pray together. And that is, after all, what counts!
Thurible
(Apologies if that’s a little long, but they weren’t exactly questions that could be answered in one word. )
Posted by corpusdelicti (# 5124) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The103rd:
If one is uncomfortable with Marian Activities then they are not Catholic - Catholic's say the Rosary and say daily Hail Mary's - that's what Catholics do and that can't be changed. I think that the first lot of ACs that you have described are more "High Church" not Anglo Catholic (That's my opinion, please don't kill me)
Fair point, but I'm not trying to be (Roman) Catholic. I'm trying to be an Anglican.
I don't see Anglo-Catholicism as some kind of "halfway house" between the two churches, but as a movement within Anglicanism which happens to use aspects of traditonal Catholic practice.
Since Marianism isn't very Anglican I sometimes feel uncomfortable with parts of it, like the rosary.
I don't think the Oxford movement saw themselves as becoming more Roman (can anyone confirm or contradict this?), more that they were resurrecting aspects of the Laudian and pre-Reformation English church.
You might call this viewpoint High-Church Anglicanism, but since you can be high church without smells and bells I don't think it's sufficient.
Posted by The103rd (# 5846) on
:
Yes - I do consider myself as a charismatic anglo-catholic - If you ever get the chance to go on the Walsingham Youth Pilgramage you will be able experience the amazing beauty of Charismatic Catholicism within the Anglican Church, maybe one day (but not now) I will tell you about something that happened in that tent to me that I will never forget.
As with transubstatiation - I studied that for a long time at a point in my life where I found myself questioning all religion, and I was planning on leaving the church completly, I decided rather than leaving the church, to try to understand it a little more - and that actually made my beliefs stronger.
Whilst having Charismatic tendancies and I like a good alt.mass - I view myself as quiet conservative in my morals and practises. I don't believe that Women can be validly ordained as priests, my Parish Priest says that if the pope allowed Women priests, then he would accept them - but I don't think I would even see them as valid if the Pope saw them as valid (please don't hit me), I have all kinds of Marian Stuff (eg. Rosary, Virtual Rosary (PC Version), Virtual Rosary (Palm OS Version), Multi Colored Rosary, Glow-in-the-dark Rosary, Our Lady of Walsingham Statue, Our Lady of Lourdes Statue, Our Lady of Lourdes glow-in-the-dark Statue)
And I have taken part in an Anglican Tridentrine Mass a few times.
Mass is central to my worship which I attend at least once a week, sometimes 2 or 3 times (I have gone to mass every Sunday without exception for about 3 years and before that one sunday where I went to a BBQ I had a good record of about 6/7 years!)
Homosexuals - I think it's rather cruel to exclude them from priesthood, as long as a priest is a man - I don't have a problem with it.
Marrage of Homosexuals - not possible! - Marrage is only for the procreation of life! Prehaps a "ceremony of partnership" within the church would be more suitable - although I am very unsure about how the issue of sex could be sorted, as I have always been taught, and I believe that sex should only be preformed for the procreation of life! (i'm also anti-abortion and I am hoping to take part in a pro-life march in the summer)
Female Servers - again, not a problem for me (I actually quite like to serve next to a girl at church )
OK - that's my rather odd version of Anglo Catholicism put into one post - you might agree that it's pretty much like Roman Catholicism but I am an Anglo Catholic!
Good innit?
-103
Posted by seasick (# 48) on
:
I'm even more confused over what jurisiction you see the Pope as having now, 103. You say change is good, and that the Pope has the authority to change things, but that doesn't extend to the ordination of women. What is his jurisdiction in your view, and on what grounds is it limited?
Posted by The103rd (# 5846) on
:
Right - there is this thing called "Apostolic Succession" that I believe in - it's a rather silly little thing that allows validly ordained priests and bishops to be able to trace their way back to Peter and then to Jesus. Now, none of those priests and bishops in that really long line have ever been women, Jesus didn't have discipless' and I don't think he ever would in modern times!
The Pope can change certain things, but surely if one pope says "ah, women priests are ok now" and then he finds that he has made a mistake, you get women bishops, those women bishops ordain both men and women who are not valid. The result: True Christianity dies out - then we're basically f*cked.
The pope can change other things because they can always be changed back! But women priests cannot be reversed once apostolic sucession has messed up.
If Novus Ordo masses were found to be wrong, they could always revert back to Tridentrine masses.
Also women priests is too much of a talking point, it would do exactly what it has done to the anglican church - it would split it completly.
Now this topic is starting to sound a little like a dead horses topic - sorry about that.
-103
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
Originally posted by The 103rd:
quote:
The Pope can change certain things, but surely if one pope says "ah, women priests are ok now" and then he finds that he has made a mistake, you get women bishops, those women bishops ordain both men and women who are not valid. The result: True Christianity dies out - then we're basically f*cked.
Make your mind up. Either the Pope is the Vicar of God and can pronounce infallibly on these matters, in which case he could, in theory, pronounce that the ordination of women was a good thing. Alternatively he isn't in which case your Anglo-Papalism is, to coin a phrase, basically f*cked.
Posted by The103rd (# 5846) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Originally posted by The 103rd:
quote:
The Pope can change certain things, but surely if one pope says "ah, women priests are ok now" and then he finds that he has made a mistake, you get women bishops, those women bishops ordain both men and women who are not valid. The result: True Christianity dies out - then we're basically f*cked.
Make your mind up. Either the Pope is the Vicar of God and can pronounce infallibly on these matters, in which case he could, in theory, pronounce that the ordination of women was a good thing. Alternatively he isn't in which case your Anglo-Papalism is, to coin a phrase, basically f*cked.
This is my story
This is my song
And I'm sticking to it!
I seriously doubt that the Roman Catholic Church would be foolish enough to allow women priests anyway!
-103
Posted by Siegfried (# 29) on
:
Geneva Gown ON
Ordination of women is a Dead Horse. No more of it on this thread, or any other MW thread.
Geneva Gown OFF
Posted by Cosmo (# 117) on
:
Let's just get our notions of Papal Infallibility a bit better worked out shall we?
The Pope, through his position as Vicar of Christ, is not infallable about everything. If the Pope said it was raining and it wasn't then it wouldn't mean it was raining. Where the Pope can be regarded as infallible is on major points of doctrine and dogma where he speaks on behalf of the Church that he has been called to lead. That Church is regarded as the Body of Christ and, as such, is guided and led by the Holy Spirit which, being divine, cannot be mistaken. Therefore the Pope, on certain major issues of dogma such as the Assumption of Our Lady is speaking the mind of the Church of God and thus the will of the Holy Spirit.
I agree that the major objection to this is that, as weak and sinful men, we may misread or misinterpret the will of the Paraclete. However, it can be argued that God would not want, on such weighty issues, His Church to teach errors which might lead his chosen people away from the truth. Thus the Pope, as Vicar of Christ, is infallible as he pronounces the will of God through His Church.
You can disagree with this (as many RC's do of course) but it has a certain logic.
In this way a Pope cannot simply say 'women can be ordained priests' and then a later one say 'no they can't'. A Pope, in such a matter as this, has to speak on behalf of the Church for ever not simply his own mind or wish at that particular time.
(by the way, this is not a post about the ordination of women; merely one about the Holy Father)
Cosmo
[ 06. July 2004, 21:55: Message edited by: Cosmo ]
Posted by The103rd (# 5846) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Siegfried:
Geneva Gown ON
Ordination of women is a Dead Horse. No more of it on this thread, or any other MW thread.
Geneva Gown OFF
I said that further up actually, but people ignored me.
-103
Posted by The103rd (# 5846) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Cosmo:
Let's just get our notions of Papal Infallibility a bit better worked out shall we?
The Pope, through his position as Vicar of Christ, is not infallable about everything. If the Pope said it was raining and it wasn't then it wouldn't mean it was raining. Where the Pope can be regarded as infallible is on major points of doctrine and dogma where he speaks on behalf of the Church that he has been called to lead. That Church is regarded as the Body of Christ and, as such, is guided and led by the Holy Spirit which, being divine, cannot be mistaken. Therefore the Pope, on certain major issues of dogma such as the Assumption of Our Lady is speaking the mind of the Church of God and thus the will of the Holy Spirit.
I agree that the major objection to this is that, as weak and sinful men, we may misread or misinterpret the will of the Paraclete. However, it can be argued that God would not want, on such weighty issues, His Church to teach errors which might lead his chosen people away from the truth. Thus the Pope, as Vicar of Christ, is infallible as he pronounces the will of God through His Church.
You can disagree with this (as many RC's do of course) but it has a certain logic.
In this way a Pope cannot simply say 'women can be ordained priests' and then a later one say 'no they can't'. A Pope, in such a matter as this, has to speak on behalf of the Church for ever not simply his own mind or wish at that particular time.
(by the way, this is not a post about the ordination of women; merely one about the Holy Father)
Cosmo
My poor head, I don't suppose many people have the chance to have this conversation to this degree of complexity at the ripe old age of 16.
Right, let's see if I can understand what you have just said.
What the pope says is pretty much right, he's a well educated man, who is serving God.
I can't do anything that is against my consiounce - if the pope told me to do something, or to accept something that I thought was wrong, I wouldn't do it and I wouldn't agree with it.
If I felt he was going to ruin Christianity, I would do something to stop it.
Take the Society of St Pius X, they are Catholic, they call themselves catholic - although the church in Rome doesn't see them as catholics anymore - but they have decided that they think that Novus Ordo Masses are wrong and that the only true mass is the Tridentrine Mass. I respect them for that - and I think it's good that they are standing up for their beliefs because they feel that anything other than the Latin Mass is invalid and that the pope made a rather big decision.
As of yet - the pope hasn't made a wrong decision in my humblest of opinions, I do think that the Anglican Church did.
I don't think that the pope will make a decision about allowing women into priesthood - as he is right.
I hope I understood what you were trying to get at and I hope you understand what I'm trying to say
-103
Posted by corpusdelicti (# 5124) on
:
quote:
The 103rd said:
Our Lady of Lourdes glow-in-the-dark Statue
The badge of a true Anglo-Catholic! I bow down before you my friend
Posted by The103rd (# 5846) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by corpusdelicti:
quote:
The 103rd said:
Our Lady of Lourdes glow-in-the-dark Statue
The badge of a true Anglo-Catholic! I bow down before you my friend
Oh comeon - my momma used to put it by my bedside when I was young and scared of the dark!
-103
Posted by Saviour Tortoise (# 4660) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Saint Chad:
That statement doesn't contradict Article XXV, it explains it.
Ah yes, so it does. Just gone back and re-read article 25. It doesn't quite say what I'd always thought it said!
(I'm pleased to find, however, that I'm more in agreement with it than I thought I was!)
(Sorry for the delayed response - only just got a web connection back...)
Posted by Custard123 (# 5402) on
:
I'm pretty sure papal infallibility is also a dead horse, so I won't ask about the Crusades, etc....
How interesting that of the four main "parties" within the C of E (ACs, charismatics, evangelicals, liberals) only evangelicals and liberals seem to be mutually exclusive. And even then, it's complicated, because there are lots of ways in which people can be evangelical or liberal.
Posted by Carys (# 78) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Custard123:
I'm pretty sure papal infallibility is also a dead horse, so I won't ask about the Crusades, etc....
I'm not sure whether papal infallibility is a dead horse, but the question you are not asking reveals a large misunderstanding of the doctrine. The doctrine (which is a modern innovation only being promulgated in the 19th Century c. 1870 I believe) is very narrow in scope and only applies to certain things, mainly doctrinal. I've certainly never heard it applied to the crusades, indeed did not the Pope offer an apology for them a couple of years back?
Carys
Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The103rd:
As of yet - the pope hasn't made a wrong decision in my humblest of opinions
What about his views on the validity of AngloCatholic sacraments, then?
Posted by The103rd (# 5846) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
quote:
Originally posted by The103rd:
As of yet - the pope hasn't made a wrong decision in my humblest of opinions
What about his views on the validity of AngloCatholic sacraments, then?
I don't think he even knows of Anglo Catholics - we need to force him to go to an AC Mass - At the moment he thinks we're a load of prots!
Oh, and I don't think it was THIS pope who made the decision, I think the sacraments would said to be invalid a very long time ago.
-103
Posted by Crotalus (# 4959) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by CIII:
At the moment he thinks we're a load of prots!
And that Rowan Williams is a doubtfully baptized layman!
Posted by wayward crucifer (# 152) on
:
And he seems to be careful to avoid saying anything that could be taken as recognizing Anglican orders. I gather, that when he visited Canturbury in 1982, despite being given several opportunities to by comments made by Abp. Runcie, he did not say anything that could have understood as accepting Runcie's episcopal nature.
And what's a century to the Roman Church?
Wayward
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The103rd:
Jesus didn't have discipless' and I don't think he ever would in modern times!
-103
He certainly wouldn't have had in his own time -- look at the scandal Mary Magdalene caused -- but I'm not so sure about modern times.
Posted by The103rd (# 5846) on
:
I actually can understand why the pope wouldn't see Anglican Orders as valid - i mean, there are churches in the Church of England who are distinctivly protestant. They pride themselves by saying that "Communion is a SYMBOL of the body and blood of christ" and they have women "ministers" and the strangest thing is that we are in communion with them - yet we are completly different. If the holy church in Rome was to see our orders as valid, then the RC Church would have to change docterines etc. to be able to hold the Protestant Churches (if the protestant churches didn't storm out in protest)
And the RC Church can't exactly say "Well Anglo-Catholic churches are allowed into our communion, but all the rest of the church of england, you aren't invited"
I'm not entirely comfortable with having the more protestant bodies of the church of england in communion with myself - so Rome definatly won't like it!
-103
Posted by Custard123 (# 5402) on
:
Did Rome rescind Cranmer's bishophood? If not, they really ought to recognise all of the C of E folk.
On the whole papal infallibility thing, I understand it only refers to proclamations made ex cathedra, but I vaguely remembered there was such a proclamation at the time of the Crusades that anyone killing an infidel gained a place in heaven or something.
The issue would be that if the Pope had made two contradictory infallible proclamations, then the system doesn't seem to work.
[ 07. July 2004, 12:44: Message edited by: Custard123 ]
Posted by The103rd (# 5846) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Custard123:
Did Rome rescind Cranmer's bishophood? If not, they really ought to recognise all of the C of E folk.
On the whole papal infallibility thing, I understand it only refers to proclamations made ex cathedra, but I vaguely remembered there was such a proclamation at the time of the Crusades that anyone killing an infidel gained a place in heaven or something.
The issue would be that if the Pope had made two contradictory infallible proclamations, then the system doesn't seem to work.
Yeah - I think the Roman Catholic Church say that the first archbishop of canterbury was ordained in the nag's head in LDN.
-103
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Custard123:
Did Rome rescind Cranmer's bishophood?
Yes, sort-of, in a kind of way. And then they burned him.
You need to catch up on some Reformation History. Where's my copy of Acts and Monuments when I need it?
Ah... Google is my friend...
Read some of the sorry story of Cranmer's condemnation, recantation, re-condemnation, de-recantation and eventual martyrdom at
justus.org
Also of course of Latimer and Ridley, who were more consistent, though also martyred.
[quote]Be of good cheer, Master Ridley, and play the man, for we shall this day light such a candle in England as I trust by God' grace shall never be put out. [quote]
Posted by Custard123 (# 5402) on
:
I knew Mary had Cranmer, Latimer, Ridley et al executed. I was wondering whether Rome had decided that Cranmer was never a bishop...
Oh, while I'm on here,
How would you define Anglo-Catholicism?
What are the distinctive beliefs / practices which help you tell whether someone is AC or not?
Posted by Elephenor (# 4026) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Custard123:
I was wondering whether Rome had decided that Cranmer was never a bishop...
So far as I am aware there has never been any suggestion that Cramner was not a bishop (a secret and illegal marriage does not invalidate consecration), and indeed a Papal Legate (a title - and powers - he continued to employ for some time after the split from Rome).
The rot supposedly set in with Archbishop Parker, I understand.
[ 07. July 2004, 14:35: Message edited by: Elephenor ]
Posted by The103rd (# 5846) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Custard123:
How would you define Anglo-Catholicism?
What are the distinctive beliefs / practices which help you tell whether someone is AC or not?
As discussed further up in the discussion - beliefs vary between Anglo Catholics - there are ACs like me who are more like Roman Catholics but in the Anglican Communion, and then there are Anglo Catholics which are more like Anglicans who have a Medieval style of service that is more like the pre reformation style services and then there are Anglo Catholics who worship in a style like the Oxford Movement with some Catholic things, but no marian stuff and it is still distictavly Anglican.
-103
Posted by Mountain Man (# 5115) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The103rd:
Marrage is only for the procreation of life!
Really? So where does that leave people like my fiancé and myself who don't want to have children then? I think you'll find marriage is bigger than just procreation.
Posted by The103rd (# 5846) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mountain Man:
quote:
Originally posted by The103rd:
Marrage is only for the procreation of life!
Really? So where does that leave people like my fiancé and myself who don't want to have children then? I think you'll find marriage is bigger than just procreation.
You get married to be able to have intercourse don't you? Intercourse is meant for procreation of life innit! Pretty Simple! If you aren't planning on having kids then there is no point in doing it is there? That's my opinions and you might not like it, but that's it!
You can love somebody without needing to be married, but if you want to do 'it' then you should be married first.
-103
[ 07. July 2004, 14:53: Message edited by: The103rd ]
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Custard123:
I was wondering whether Rome had decided that Cranmer was never a bishop...
Hardly. They couldn't do that because they appointed him in the first place - or at least approved his appointment.
I don't think the Roman church thinks that you can stop being a priest or bishop - but you can be removed from any office you hold and the duties and rights and privileges that go with it.
Posted by Saviour Tortoise (# 4660) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The103rd:
quote:
Originally posted by Mountain Man:
quote:
Originally posted by The103rd:
Marrage is only for the procreation of life!
Really? So where does that leave people like my fiancé and myself who don't want to have children then? I think you'll find marriage is bigger than just procreation.
You get married to be able to have intercourse don't you? Intercourse is meant for procreation of life innit! Pretty Simple! If you aren't planning on having kids then there is no point in doing it is there? That's my opinions and you might not like it, but that's it!
You can love somebody without needing to be married, but if you want to do 'it' then you should be married first.
-103
Henry. That may qualify as the most offensive thing you've ever said on the ship.
Posted by The103rd (# 5846) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Saviour Tortoise:
quote:
Originally posted by The103rd:
quote:
Originally posted by Mountain Man:
quote:
Originally posted by The103rd:
Marrage is only for the procreation of life!
Really? So where does that leave people like my fiancé and myself who don't want to have children then? I think you'll find marriage is bigger than just procreation.
You get married to be able to have intercourse don't you? Intercourse is meant for procreation of life innit! Pretty Simple! If you aren't planning on having kids then there is no point in doing it is there? That's my opinions and you might not like it, but that's it!
You can love somebody without needing to be married, but if you want to do 'it' then you should be married first.
-103
Henry. That may qualify as the most offensive thing you've ever said on the ship.
OK - prehaps I should withdraw that last comment - I was trying to explain it without causing offense but obviously I have caused offense. Sorry.
-103
Posted by Mountain Man (# 5115) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The103rd:
You get married to be able to have intercourse don't you?
Actually we are getting married because we love each other.
I like the way the BCP puts it :-
It was ordained for the mutual society, help, and comfort, that the one ought to have of the other, both in prosperity and adversity.
Anyone who gets married just for sex might like to look at the bit of the service that says;
nor taken in hand, unadvisedly, lightly, or wantonly, to satisfy men's carnal lusts and appetites, like brute beasts that have no understanding
quote:
Intercourse is meant for procreation of life innit! Pretty Simple! If you aren't planning on having kids then there is no point in doing it is there?
No. Plenty of other reasons.
Posted by Siegfried (# 29) on
:
Geneva Gown ON
I don't know where to begin. ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
Papal Infallibility is not a Dead Horse to the best of my knowledge, but discussions of that are beyond the scope of MW. Take that to Purgatory.
Discussions of the purpose of intercourse are not by any stretch of the imagination a subject for MW. Take them to Purgatory as well, but do watch how you word things, to avoid being called to Hell.
"My worship pracitice is better than your worship practice" isn't a discussion. It's just bickering and generally rude. Knock it off.
This thread had better justify it's existence as more than just a nastier version of the AC for Beginners thread referred to earlier, else it will be closed.
Geneva Gown OFF
Posted by Fooferan (# 6830) on
:
Oh dear, can I comment while staying in the purview of the MW?
According to BCP 1662, quote:
duly considering the causes for which Matrimony was ordained.
First, It was ordained for the procreation of children, to be brought up in the fear and nurture of the Lord, and to the praise of his holy Name.
Secondly, It was ordained for a remedy against sin, and to avoid fornication; that such persons as have not the gift of continency might marry, and keep themselves undefiled members of Christ's body.
Thirdly, It was ordained for the mutual society, help, and comfort, that the one ought to have of the other, both in prosperity and adversity.
AFAIK inability to procreate has not kept people from marrying in the CofE. No fertility tests or such to qualify....
Posted by Fooferan (# 6830) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Fooferan:
Oh dear, can I comment while staying in the purview of the MW?
According to BCP 1662, quote:
duly considering the causes for which Matrimony was ordained.
First, It was ordained for the procreation of children, to be brought up in the fear and nurture of the Lord, and to the praise of his holy Name.
Secondly, It was ordained for a remedy against sin, and to avoid fornication; that such persons as have not the gift of continency might marry, and keep themselves undefiled members of Christ's body.
Thirdly, It was ordained for the mutual society, help, and comfort, that the one ought to have of the other, both in prosperity and adversity.
AFAIK inability to procreate has not kept people from marrying in the CofE. No fertility tests or such to qualify....
[ETA--Sorry Mountainman, somehow missed your post before posting]
Posted by Siegfried (# 29) on
:
Geneva Gown ON
No, you didn't stay in bounds.
I mean it. No more discussions of the purpose of sex.
Geneva Gown OFF
[ 08. July 2004, 04:09: Message edited by: Siegfried ]
Posted by The103rd (# 5846) on
:
I'll put this thread into a different gear shall I?
Are there any dioceses where you are more likely to find an Anglo Catholic Church?
-103
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The103rd:
Are there any dioceses where you are more likely to find an Anglo Catholic Church?
London. Chichester.
Posted by Cosmo (# 117) on
:
Truro and bits of Exeter. If by Anglo-Catholic you include Aff-Caff shacks then Southwark is crawling with them. Wakefield has quite a few. Some dioceses are more traditional than others (Peterborough for example or Sodor and Man) but not neccessarily A/C. Otherwise you're left with the city centres and the slums up and down the country.
Overseas you have the Dioceses of Fort Worth, Quincy and most of the Church in South Africa. Depending on which missionary society missioned them, the dioceses in Africa vary. The Church in Nigeria is almost exclusively evangelical whereas Ghana is very A/C (especially Kofidura - sp?) The most Anglo-Catholic diocese in the world is probably Ballarat (mind you, it's pretty small).
Cosmo
Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on
:
Parts of Oxford, certainly the city itself. I understood that the church in the West Indies was pretty A/C - is that actually true?
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
I understood that the church in the West Indies was pretty A/C - is that actually true?
Many of our West Indian parishioners have what they would call a "High Church" background. They point out that back in Jamaica or Barbados if you wanted to be an evangelical you probably were a Baptist, so the Anglicans tended to get the ritual-lovers.
Some of them have even been seen to cross themselves ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
- a rarity in our evangelical church.
Whether their home churches would have come up to the rarified standards needed to qualify as "Anglo Catholic" for the discerning ritualists on the Ship is something I'm not qualified to comment on.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Cosmo:
If by Anglo-Catholic you include Aff-Caff shacks then Southwark is crawling with them.
I can certainly confirm this about our bit of Southwark. Of the 7 parishes in our deanery 3 are "open evangelical" and the others more or less Aff-Cath (though if you don't count places like St. Paul's, Deptford or All Saint's, Hatcham as "Anglo Catholic" your candle must be very High indeed) There are 22 parishes in neighbouring Lewisham deaneries, and almost all are some sort of AC. (Including IIRC at least 2 FiF)
Things are even further up the candle in Brighton, (my home town) where Anglicanism was more or less a sea of mostly poorly attended Anglo-Catholic parishes with 2 or 3 islands of Evangelicalism - with much larger congregations. There is now a plan afoot to transfer St. Peter's Brighton (the new parish church for the town - the old one is St. Nicholas on Dyke Road) to one of the evangelical congregations in the hope that they will be large enough to raise enough money to look after the building. I suspect the plan will come to nothing.
Posted by Hooker's Trick (# 89) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Cosmo:
Overseas you have the Dioceses of Fort Worth, Quincy
and of course almost all of the Diocese of Chicago and almost anyplace in Wisconsin.
Posted by Back-to-Front (# 5638) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Henry103:
Marrage is only for the procreation of life!
I'm sorry to hear that your strain of Anglo-Catholicism excludes from Holy Matrimony, those who are infertile, and those who are past child-bearing age.
Does your parish priest have a pastorally-sensitive process set up for occasions when he is confronted with a couple incorporating one or more infertile person enquiring about marriage?
I would be interested to know if there are any tailor-made liturgies for the blessing of such relationships instead of a wedding, and if so, what your views on this are on the adoption of liturgies based on theology that is not in accordance with your aforementioned ACTTRCAP Catholic outlook.
Posted by Pax Britannica (# 1876) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Cosmo:
The most Anglo-Catholic diocese in the world is probably Ballarat (mind you, it's pretty small).
I would venture to offer Your Grace the diocese of Sarawak. Albeit within the orbit of Singapore (which, though exceedingly sound in many ways, has gone sadly astray in the wearing of birettas and the use of incense) the influence of His Highness Rajah James Brooke in establishing an independent diocese in his dominions enabled a quite different churchmanship which has flourished to this day. As is invariably the case, Full Catholic Privileges™ ensure large and thriving congregations in that southern isle. High Mass at S. Thomas Cathedral, Kuching, is quite an experience.
Posted by Fooferan (# 6830) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
<snip> I understood that the church in the West Indies was pretty A/C - is that actually true?
This was true in my experience. I was in the Diocese of Guyana (which included Suriname), part of the Province of the West Indies. Things had a very "Catholic" flavor, and indeed our priest and the bishop were on very good terms with the RC in Paramaribo (capitol of Suriname).
People crossed themselves, prayed the Hail Mary, etc. The Eucharist was celebrated with all due ceremony including incense, whenever Father Thomas could make it over from Guyana (once a month or less). Things were a bit looser when we lay readers did Morning Prayer; we often didn't have an organist--usually didn't sing Matins w/gusto.... ![[Help]](graemlins/help.gif)
Although--dare I mention it--the WI BCP seems to owe much to the 1979 Episcopal Prayer Book....
Bishop George ("his Lordship") didn't have a problem with my preaching and leading services as a lay reader, but when personnel are scarce you take what you can get. . . .
Posted by jlg (# 98) on
:
Casting a stern eye at Back-to-Front:
Quick Hostly Reminder
Since we're on a new page, and some people might not be aware of previous Host Warnings:
Any discussion of procreation as the sole purpose of marriage belongs in Hell or Purgatory and is not a suitable subject for MW.
Posted by Panis Angelicus (# 3795) on
:
Fr. Crotalus: You may be right about Fr. Lowder being the first English priest to be called "Father," but I do think the Americans were quite ahead of the English if that is the case. James Lloyd Breck was referring to men like Richard Fish Cadle as "Father Cadle" back in 1841:
quote:
Brother Hobart suggests the propriety of his preceding us by a week or two, as Father Cadle wished to visit his mother before returning West, not having seen her for five years. Brother Adams and myself leave for New York to-morrow morning to digest preliminaries. We hope to return to Bristol, with permission to remain until the first of September.
from his letters
quote:
Originally posted by Crotalus:
quote:
Originally posted by Ken:
Protestants stopped calling priests "Father" as a way of marking themselves off from Roman Catholics.
Priests (at least secular priests) were not called "Father" until long after the reformation; in mediaeval times they were called "Sir".
Among English recusants priests were addressed as "Mr" until the late nineteenth century. It seems that use of the title "Father" arose at the same time in RC and AC circles. I have indeed heard the opinion maintained that the first English (secular) priest to be called "Father" was Charles Lowder (an anglican - of St Peter's, London Docks)
Posted by Fooferan (# 6830) on
:
More thoughts on A/C practice in the West Indies....
Some of the finer points of A/C observance as put forth on the MW board depend on funds and resources not available worldwide. Our paraments and linens weren't all quite up to snuff. I worked on getting some new stuff made, but was only able to take it so far-- and that was with my donating significantly towards fabric. The priest wasn't around much of the time, leaving things in the hands of not-always-well-informed laypeople. Sometimes people were confused as to the liturgical season/color. We had one server, and when he didn't show up--well, you make do.
Not to mention that the climate is not at all conducive to the donning of full vestments. . . . (I'm not mad, I'm just roasting in the tropical heat and humidity.) No air conditioning of course. The church didn't even have a vacuum cleaner to properly care for the section of red carpet at the front (the rest of the floor was concrete). I always had to spritz my legs with bugspray or they'd be eaten alive during the service, and it doesn't do for the leader to be scratching away in the prie dieu. (Sometimes my baby played beneath it though.)
Posted by Panis Angelicus (# 3795) on
:
PB, are you sure it's not the Diocese of Kuching you're meaning?
One of their parishes has a website on which we can find out that we are their "humble visitors."
There's also St. Helena, quite an Anglo-Catholic place, with ordained subdeacons and I believe a constitutional ban of some kind on innovations in the apostolic ministry.
quote:
Originally posted by Pax Britannica:
quote:
Originally posted by Cosmo:
The most Anglo-Catholic diocese in the world is probably Ballarat (mind you, it's pretty small).
I would venture to offer Your Grace the diocese of Sarawak. Albeit within the orbit of Singapore (which, though exceedingly sound in many ways, has gone sadly astray in the wearing of birettas and the use of incense) the influence of His Highness Rajah James Brooke in establishing an independent diocese in his dominions enabled a quite different churchmanship which has flourished to this day. As is invariably the case, Full Catholic Privileges™ ensure large and thriving congregations in that southern isle. High Mass at S. Thomas Cathedral, Kuching, is quite an experience.
Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on
:
Tangent alert:
quote:
Originally posted by Fooferan:
I was in the Diocese of Guyana (which included Suriname), part of the Province of the West Indies.
This reminds me of an occasion a few years back when we hosted a service for the Association of Guyanese Nurses. I was cringing in embarrassment when the visiting preacher kept referring to "your beautiful island" .
Posted by Fiddleback (# 2809) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The103rd:
I'll put this thread into a different gear shall I?
Are there any dioceses where you are more likely to find an Anglo Catholic Church?
-103
Llandaff, traditionally, but less so these days.
Posted by Sir George Grey. (# 2643) on
:
I think it takes a very particular kind of argument to say that Article XXV allows for seven sacraments simply because the other five aren't explicitly ruled out. Including words like 'corrupt' in their description, and also using 'state of life' as opposed to 'Sacrament of the Gospel' makes the intentions of the authors pretty clear IMHO.
The Catechism in the 1662 BCP explicitly states that there are two only.
Better to quote Anglicans Online:
quote:
The Thirty-Nine Articles were important at the Reformation, but are less so today.
It might not be un-Anglican to believe in seven sacraments, but it can't be done from the Thirty Nine Articles.
[ 12. July 2004, 06:56: Message edited by: Sir George Grey. ]
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0