|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: What Exactly is Anglo-Papalism?
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
I think I have a decent idea of what Anglo-Catholicism is, but Anglo-Papalism confuses me. I am putting this thread in Purgatory because I am asking about Anglo-Papalist beliefs more than Liturgy, but if you want to move it to Ecclesiantics you can.
Is Anglo-Papalism mean obeying every teaching and rule of the Roman Catholic Church, including Papal Infallibility (when speaking Ex Cathedra) and Universal Ordinary Jurisdiction, to the farthest extent possible while remaining in the Anglican Communion? (The reason for remaining in the Anglican Communion being, I assume, a belief that one should remain loyal to a communion that has maintained historical continuity since apostolic times and not convert to the RCC as individuals or even as ordinariates (for those APs who are still Anglican) but rather as a whole Church returning "home" - although apostolic succession is another matter (and I am not sure what Anglo-Papalists believe about that)). Or is Anglo-Papalism just extreme Anglo-Catholicism accompanied by a belief that the Bishop of Rome is the rightful leader of all Christians, although some branches of the Universal Church are prevented by unfortunate historical and political reasons from being in full communion with him?
One more question: is there such a thing as liberal (or "affirming") Anglo-Papalism? I am referring to dead horses like ordination of women and homosexuality but are there other ways APs can be liberal?
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
DangerousDeacon
Shipmate
# 10582
|
Posted
I think often "Anglo-Papalism" is a pejorative term for Anglo-Catholics who hold to a very conservative view of the church (e.g. on issues such as the ordination of women); would hold to some form of Papal Primacy; and often would use the Roman Missal instead of BCP, Common Worship, etc. Sometimes it is used just to indicate a strong affinity for gin and lace. But as I said, it is generally a pejorative term, which is why fellow ship-mates may not be biting.
--------------------
'All the same, it may be that I am wrong; what I take for gold and diamonds may be only a little copper and glass.'
Posts: 506 | From: Top End | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by DangerousDeacon:
I think often "Anglo-Papalism" is a pejorative term for Anglo-Catholics who hold to a very conservative view of the church (e.g. on issues such as the ordination of women); would hold to some form of Papal Primacy; and often would use the Roman Missal instead of BCP, Common Worship, etc. Sometimes it is used just to indicate a strong affinity for gin and lace. But as I said, it is generally a pejorative term, which is why fellow ship-mates may not be biting.
I was taught that Anglo-Papist is pejorative but Anglo-Papalist is not. The only Anglo-Papalists I've come across are American though. I guess the Ordinariate falls under Anglo-Papalism?
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
Nearly Jade, but not quite (wrt your last question).
I'm going to try and answer this with a heroic attempt to avoid dead horses - and that's only because I don't think the main point is one; I could well be wrong. My understanding, such as it is, as someone who's climbed a bit down the candle from a situation where many people I know have joined the Ordinariate:
Anglo-Papalism includes fidelity to Rome and the Pope pretty much entirely, but within the Anglican communion. Consequently, the Ordinariate doesn't quite cut it, because while it took many of the Anglo-Papalists, it is not an expression of Anglo-Papalism. Clear? I think I've confused myself.
Basically the principle expression of Anglo-Papalism AIUstoodI when I was one, was being as/more catholic than the Pope and the RC church while working towards the reunion of the CofE with the RC church in toto. As a result, the removal of only part of that wing to the RC church *without taking the rest of the CofE* with them isn't really anglo-papalism so much as just going to be a Roman Catholic. The problem is that as well as tiptoeing round all the dead horses we also get well into no-true-Scotsman territory.
I would say does that make sense, but I suppose a fairer question would be do you understand what I'm trying to say?
And yes, Anglo-Papist is the offensive one.
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
I only know a few very Anglo-Catholic parishes in NYC and Philly, and one in London, so could someone tell me if they (in their opinion) are Anglo-Papalist?
NYC:
Church of the Resurrection (uses the missal)
St. Mary the Virgin, Times Square
St. Ignatius of Antioch
Church of the Transfiguration (The Little Church Around the Corner)
St. Luke in the Fields
Others?
Bronxville, NY:
Christ Church
Philadelphia:
St. Clement's (at least used to use a version of the missal)
London:
St. Magnus the Martyr, London Bridge (uses the missal, I think, unless things recently changed)
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
I only know a few very Anglo-Catholic parishes in NYC and Philly, and one in London, so could someone tell me if they (in their opinion) are Anglo-Papalist?
NYC:
Church of the Resurrection (uses the missal)
St. Mary the Virgin, Times Square
St. Ignatius of Antioch
Church of the Transfiguration (The Little Church Around the Corner)
St. Luke in the Fields
Others?
Bronxville, NY:
Christ Church
Philadelphia:
St. Clement's (at least used to use a version of the missal)
London:
St. Magnus the Martyr, London Bridge (uses the missal, I think, unless things recently changed)
I can't speak for across the pond, but anglo-papalism in England is typically a manifestation within individuals rather than parishes. Also, within English Anglo-Catholicism there were many trad AC parishes using the missal or at least the Roman Rite, so that's not a sound indicator of Anglo-Papalism. Sound-er might be intercessory prayers for the Pope, or, before we end up down in Ecclesiantics, pictures of the Pope on the vestry wall *instead* of anyone more, er, Anglican.
So I'm not sure of the extent to which you can call a parish Anglo-Papalist (at least this side of the Atlantic). The incumbent maybe, but not the parish.
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Magic Wand
Shipmate
# 4227
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
I only know a few very Anglo-Catholic parishes in NYC and Philly, and one in London, so could someone tell me if they (in their opinion) are Anglo-Papalist?
NYC:
Church of the Resurrection (uses the missal)
St. Mary the Virgin, Times Square
St. Ignatius of Antioch
Church of the Transfiguration (The Little Church Around the Corner)
St. Luke in the Fields
Others?
Bronxville, NY:
Christ Church
Philadelphia:
St. Clement's (at least used to use a version of the missal)
London:
St. Magnus the Martyr, London Bridge (uses the missal, I think, unless things recently changed)
Hardly S. Clement's these days! Just go to their website to read the sermon about the mission of Anglo-Catholics to "liberate" people from Rome and the East!
Posts: 371 | From: Princeton, NJ | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
S. Bacchus
Shipmate
# 17778
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
The only Anglo-Papalists I've come across are American though.
That's interesting. My impression was that Anglo-Papalism was very much and English phenomenon.
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
I only know a few very Anglo-Catholic parishes in NYC and Philly, and one in London, so could someone tell me if they (in their opinion) are Anglo-Papalist?
I can give an impressionistic opinion, based on websites and rumours (and first-hand experience in the case of S. Magnus).
quote:
NYC:
Church of the Resurrection (uses the missal)
Sort of A-P in an old fashioned kind of way. Probably similar in style to the sort of place where many people might be likely to join the Ordinariate.
quote:
St. Mary the Virgin, Times Square
If 'Affirming Anglo-Papalism' exists (and it probably doesn't), then I get the impression this church would be its cathedral, along perhaps with the Atonement in Chicago (or do I mean the other one).
quote:
St. Ignatius of Antioch
Church of the Transfiguration (The Little Church Around the Corner)
In both cases, definitely NOT Anglo-Papalist in either liturgy or on Dead Horses.
quote:
St. Luke in the Fields
No idea, sorry. But probably not.
quote:
Philadelphia:
St. Clement's (at least used to use a version of the missal)
S. Clement's looks liturgically (more or less) the way many Anglo-Papalist churches would have before 1955. But given that it's current rite isn't actually authorized by Rome, and the fact that its current Rector has been known to be quite critical of the Roman Catholic Church, I would say not Anglo-Papalist.
quote:
London:
St. Magnus the Martyr, London Bridge (uses the missal, I think, unless things recently changed)
S. Magnus, like S. Clement's, is really too idiosyncratic to be Anglo-Papalist (this idiosyncrasy isn't just liturgical, by the way). S. Magnus does have low masses in the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite, though, which would point to a slightly more Anglo-Papalist leaning. Similarly, S. Mary's Bourne Street is fundamentally a liturgically conservative Anglo-Catholic parish with its emphasis equally on the Anglican and the Catholic. All Saints, Margaret Street, is more or less entirely Anglican and without even the slightest hint of Anglo-Papalism.
Well, you may ask, who IS Anglo-Papalist. I would say that S. Alban's, Holborn (MW: here) and Our Most Holy Redeemer, Clerkenwell (MW: here), and tend towards the moderately Anglo-Papalist, although at least one them now uses Common Worship. (The nearby Parish of Old St Pancras/ Camden Team Ministry is perhaps even more moderately Anglo-Papalist).
The only parish in the world that I would say fully embodies the Anglo-Papalist ethos is S. Silas Kentish Town (MW here)). S. Silas uses the Roman Missal and Breviary always, in either English or Latin. They have pictures of various recent Popes on the walls of the church itself. When the English translation of the Ordinary Form changed, S. Silas changed on the very same day. Now, THAT'S what I call Anglo-Papalism.
{You may be wondering whether Anglo-Papalism actually exists outside the housing estates of the London postcodes beginning with N, NW, or EC. The answer, in my admittedly limited experience, would seem to be 'no'.}
[restored semblance of sanity to code]
[ 20. November 2013, 14:27: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
'It's not that simple. I won't have it to be that simple'.
Posts: 260 | Registered: Jul 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
american piskie
Shipmate
# 593
|
Posted
I think that to get a flavour of this (attractive) form of the Higher Nuttiness one should read through the archives of Fr Hunwicke's Liturgical Notes.
I think that to get a fuller understanding of the phenomenon (esp of its decline since the mid-20C) one has to see it in the context of the repression and then legalisation of homosexual behaviour, where cultures of secrecy and coded behaviour largely decayed. I think it's not dissimilar to clever Cambridge boys becoming Soviet spies. "How far can I go?" stuff.
I write this as a member of the Anglo-SedeVacantist persuasion. I'd like the Bp of Rome to exercise the Petrine Ministry, but can't persuade myself he does. [St Peter: Come away in Benedict. Now what have you done with all these churches in your care? B: Churches? You mean ecclesial communities.]
Posts: 356 | From: Oxford, England, UK | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I am dying to know if they are plus royaliste que le roi. Oops, universal translator grinding into action: more royalist than the king.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
S Bacchus:
So use of the prayer book in what is otherwise an attempt to mimic the Sarum Use is definitely not Anglo-Papalism (but it is a type of Anglo-Catholicism). What about an attempted reproduction of the liturgy of the 1547 Prayer Book or even of the Sarum Use before any changes under Henry VIII (but in English translation) - which is something I belive St. Clement's Philadelphia tried at one point? I know it's something never approved by Rome but if it is accompanied by some sence of obedience to the Pope (imparied by the history of the two communions) could it count as Anglo-Papalism? I agree that the current rector of St. Clement's, though, is quite critical of Rome.
To avoid dragging this thread into ecclesiantics, I guess the broader question is, does Anglo-Papalism have to entail obedience to what Rome is requiring liturgically now of its own Latin Rite or could it include any attempt to have a liturgy (possibly with some features unique to the traditions of the British Isles) that reflects the teachings of the Roman Magisterium, either pre or post Vatican II?
Note that St. Mary the Virgin Times Square, which I agree might be termed as Affirming A-P, now uses BCP 1979 with some extras like the Angelus, etc. Can any usage of BCP eucharistic prayers be considerd A-P, if done in an atmosphere that seems otherwise A-P in theology? (I have no idea how A-P the theology of the current rector is).
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wilfried
Shipmate
# 12277
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by S. Bacchus:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
[qb]
[QUOTE] St. Luke in the Fields
No idea, sorry. But probably not.
St. Luke's is decidedly not Anglo-Papalist, litugically, or by any kind of wanabee allegiance to the See of Rome. The liturgy is pretty much straight up BCP79 Rite 2 with nice AC fixings. And seeing as of the three priests, two, including the rector, are women, and two are gay, they clearly have no issue with horsemeat either.
[ 20. November 2013, 18:52: Message edited by: Wilfried ]
Posts: 429 | From: Lefty on the Right Coast | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Patrick
Shipmate
# 305
|
Posted
St Mary the Virgin, NYC, consistently has used Prayer Book texts since Rev. Donald Garfield, Memory Eternal. was rector in the 1960's. True, the minor propers have always been added to the Eucharistic Rite, and some additional prayers like the "Orate fratres" (and, of course, ceremonies such as Benediction after Evensong). But, unlike his predecessors, such as Fr. G. Tabor, Fr. Garfield employed Prayer Book material as a norm, such as the Great Litany in procession in Lent, and added them to the ceremonial at High Mass. Fr. Garfield always used a maniple, if it were part of an older set of vestments. On the other hand, if the set were new creations, such as the Passiontide red High Mass set of vestments he designed, no maniples were crafted. As for the 1979 Prayer Book, Fr. Garfield was on the Rite One Commission for producing that book. A comparison of the English Anglican Missal with the Cowley Fathers' American Missal will show the relative satisfaction of American Episcopalians with the Prayer Book compared to English Anglo Catholic satisfaction with the 1662 Prayer Book. Few Anglo Catholic parishes across the pond ever were extreme enough to use the English Missal. American missals supplemented, not substituted for, Prayer Book texts.
My fondest memories of Smokey Mary's were of the processions before High Mass during Fr. Garfield's tenure. And my memory of my last conversation with Donald Garfield concluded with his saying to me, "Bill, some people are going to Rome. I am going to bed."
I was MC for many years at Christ Church, Bronxville NY. We were a Prayer Book Catholic operation: libretto by Cranmer and choreography by Dearmer/Alcuin. No notable Anglo Papalist inclinations at all, I think.
Posts: 109 | From: Fordham University, Bronx, N.Y. U.S.A. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Magic Wand
Shipmate
# 4227
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
So use of the prayer book in what is otherwise an attempt to mimic the Sarum Use is definitely not Anglo-Papalism (but it is a type of Anglo-Catholicism). What about an attempted reproduction of the liturgy of the 1547 Prayer Book or even of the Sarum Use before any changes under Henry VIII (but in English translation) - which is something I belive St. Clement's Philadelphia tried at one point? I know it's something never approved by Rome but if it is accompanied by some sence of obedience to the Pope (imparied by the history of the two communions) could it count as Anglo-Papalism? I agree that the current rector of St. Clement's, though, is quite critical of Rome.
I don't believe that there was ever a Sarum period at S. Clement's. Under Fr Joiner and Fr Elwell (1920's-1960's) the liturgy was increasingly Roman (although in English). There was some faffing about with the new rites in the 60's and 70's, but then there was a period of returning to the older rites under Frs Fitzhugh, Laister, Swain, and Offerle, until we had what was pretty much the mid-20th century Roman rite in English, which survived until about two years ago when Canon Reid decided that it was time for a change.
Posts: 371 | From: Princeton, NJ | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
...And yes, Anglo-Papist is the offensive one.
Well, 'Papist' is an offensive term for RC*, isn't it? Not the same thing as papalist, even allowing for differences in offensiveness.
*Though for some reason 'pabyddol', which might be thought to be the equivalent in Welsh, appears to be rather less offensive.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
pererin
Shipmate
# 16956
|
Posted
Might be because we're that bit closer to Ulster... ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
"They go to and fro in the evening, they grin like a dog, and run about through the city." (Psalm 59.6)
Posts: 446 | From: Llantrisant | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
Why is support of Dead Horse issues like women's ordination and acceptance of homosexuality considered antithetical to Anglo-Papalism when it is not uncommon in Anglo-Catholicism? Plenty of Roman Catholic clergy and laity have liberal stances on these matters, whether or not they are allowed to. (Note: this is not a dead horse thread. I am not debating the merits of either issue.)
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
S. Bacchus
Shipmate
# 17778
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
Why is support of Dead Horse issues like women's ordination and acceptance of homosexuality considered antithetical to Anglo-Papalism when it is not uncommon in Anglo-Catholicism? Plenty of Roman Catholic clergy and laity have liberal stances on these matters, whether or not they are allowed to. (Note: this is not a dead horse thread. I am not debating the merits of either issue.)
I will try to answer this in a round about way. A friend of mine who is an arch-Anglo-Papalist put it this way 'If Pope Francis were to wake up tomorrow and ordain women, then all of my objections to the ordination of women in the Church of England would disappear that instant'. In many ways, Anglo-Papalism should be understood not simply as Anglicans behaving like Roman Catholics, but instead as Anglicans behaving like ultramontane Roman Catholics. Monty Python's Spanish Inquisition had amongst its two/three/four weapons an 'almost fanatical loyalty to the Pope', and it is this quality that I would say distinguishes Anglo-Papalists from run of the mill Anglo-Catholics. Anglo-Papalists do or don't do X (where X may equal a variety of things, not all of them Dead Horses), because the Pope says X is a good/bad thing, and they regard themselves as being obedient to the Pope. Many other Anglo-Catholics treat the writings of various Popes with a policy that they have a 'vote not a veto' (e.g. we love to quote 'Rerum Novarum' and 'Pacem in Terris', but are fairly unlikely to go on about 'Humanae Vitae'), and will often give equal weight to sources from outside the Roman Catholic Church, both from Orthodox and Anglican sources. This fundamental difference in treating Papal authority is what distinguishes Anglo-Papalism from 'ordinary' Anglo-Catholicism (if there is such a thing!).
As you may have gathered, I am not entirely without sympathy for the Anglo-Papalist viewpoint, but I've never heard a satisfactory answer as to how it can be squared with Apostolicae Curae, and I rather think that it can't.
--------------------
'It's not that simple. I won't have it to be that simple'.
Posts: 260 | Registered: Jul 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
Well fanatical obedience to the Pope does not make much sense when the Pope says your orders are invalid (and in recent decades that ruling has been said by the Vatican to be part of the deposit of faith). Are A-P's hanging on the hope that the participation of Old Catholic bishops in recent C of E Episcopal Consecrations has fixed that problem?
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
Well fanatical obedience to the Pope does not make much sense when the Pope says your orders are invalid (and in recent decades that ruling has been said by the Vatican to be part of the deposit of faith). Are A-P's hanging on the hope that the participation of Old Catholic bishops in recent C of E Episcopal Consecrations has fixed that problem?
Sort of, and if you're that interested read saepium officio, and the commentary around it from both sides. Although they never repudiated SO, the shock waves within the Vatican were quite large at the time....
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pyx_e
Quixotic Tilter
# 57
|
Posted
Within the C of E Anglo-Papalists are a endangered species. The only remaining examples are very old and very confused. The “Pharaoh’s Gold” offered at the first ordination of women caused the first exodus. The more recent opening of the gate to their cage (The Ordinariate) the second and last. The only ones left are too old, lame or sick (often with sexually transmitted diseases like “marriages”) to escape. So they sit in a corner making sad noises.
It is sad for people like me who can remember the glory days when they strode the antediluvian plain like Titans to see them so reduced. But as the Man said “ A man (and in this case it must be a man) cannot serve two masters. “ One cannot Serve the Holy Father and take the Queens shilling. Well at least not with any integrity.
Twenty years ago instead of taking the many positive aspects of a generous respect for Roman Catholicism these half-dinosaur half-fairy cross breeds lead the charge into dark magiks, into divisive gossip, bitterness and schism. They who most understood Christ’s wounds picked up the sword and the spear.
They have left behind a wasteland, of broken church communities and a generation of damaged Christians. And for what? Has the Roman Catholic Church ever closed its doors to you or me or them? No. In the end it was because they, like petty teenagers, wanted to make a stormy exit. What we on the ship call “a flounce.”
Thank God for sensible Anglo Catholics (and there is a difference) who have struggled, fought and wept tears to stay in the C of E. They have seen through the lies and manipulation of the agent provocateurs who while taking a stipend from the C of E were like a virus or a rot in its limbs. These brave men and women of an AC persuasion prove to me time and time again that Catholic worship and Spirituality has a thriving place in the C of E.
Yes, I am still pissed off. Angry for the parishes un-evangelised while these awful too public struggles went on and on. Angry for the souls lost to the Church. Lord have Mercy on me a sinner for my part in it.
Fly Safe,
Pyx_e
--------------------
It is better to be Kind than right.
Posts: 9778 | From: The Dark Tower | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
Betjemaniac, thanks, that's very helpful.
Stonespring, re St Luke's in the Fields, given that it received a glowing review in my lesbian magazine I doubt it's A-P ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
S. Bacchus these American A-Ps are all gay male Episcopalians, most of whom are considering entering the religious life.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
The only time I have seen the English/Anglican/American Missal in use was at the Church of the Resurrection, NYC. Does anyone know more about this parish? Its position on dead horsies? Its history, current rector, and opinions regarding the Pope?
[ 21. November 2013, 11:33: Message edited by: stonespring ]
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
English Missal at St Clement's Philadelphia. I believe daily low Masses at St Mark's Philly use the Anglican Missal. St Timothy's Fort Worth used/uses the American Missal, and my impression from my one time attending there a few years ago was that Grace & St Peter's Baltimore uses the American Missal. There are undoubtedly other places scattered around the US that do so.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
Just to add, I think there are quite a few places that use one of the missals - usually either American or Anglican - for daily low celebrations, but use an adapted form of the 1979 BCP for Sunday and holy day sung or solemn celebrations.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
I think if I were an Anglican I would be an Affirming Anglo-Papalist. What would that be like? Any ideas?
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Deeply confused, I suspect.
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
I think if I were an Anglican I would be an Affirming Anglo-Papalist. What would that be like? Any ideas?
I am not too sure that it would exist given the RCC's stance on Dead Horses ![[Confused]](confused.gif) Affirming Anglo-Catholicism certainly exists though.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Deeply confused, I suspect.
I already knew that ![[Smile]](smile.gif) . I already am an "Affirming" RC. If I were to become an Anglican, I would remain Affirming, would still be highly attached to Catholic ritual and theology (and hence would be Anglo-Catholic), but I would also retain a very strong loyalty to the Pope - just not strong enough to remain in full, visible communion with him. I would prefer Roman Eucharistic prayers (or any Anglican prayers that were basically identical) and would try to do as Rome does, used to do well before things got ugly, or hasn't done yet but based on its own theology should do, in all things. And reunion of the Anglican Communion and all human beings with Rome would continue to be my ultimate goal.
I know it doesn't make sense, but Christianity in general doesn't make that much sense to me either .
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Deeply confused, I suspect.
I already knew that . I already am an "Affirming" RC. If I were to become an Anglican, I would remain Affirming, would still be highly attached to Catholic ritual and theology (and hence would be Anglo-Catholic), but I would also retain a very strong loyalty to the Pope - just not strong enough to remain in full, visible communion with him. I would prefer Roman Eucharistic prayers (or any Anglican prayers that were basically identical) and would try to do as Rome does, used to do well before things got ugly, or hasn't done yet but based on its own theology should do, in all things. And reunion of the Anglican Communion and all human beings with Rome would continue to be my ultimate goal.
I know it doesn't make sense, but Christianity in general doesn't make that much sense to me either .
Tbh with Pope Francis being as he is, outside of extreme conservative evangelicals, there's a lot of love for the Pope in most of the Anglican church. Certainly the stance on the Pope you outline wouldn't be a problem in AffCath circles. I dislike the use of RC prayers in Anglican churches (because why be part of the Anglican church if you won't use the material*?) but certainly there's plenty of room in Common Worship (CoE) for an RC understanding of the Eucharist.
*I have the same attitude towards evangelicals who ditch the lectionary and liturgy, and dislike that more tbh.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
I guess if Anglo-Papalism is all about being socially reactionary, that may not be the best word to use to describe my hypothetically-Anglican self.
I would, as an Anglo-Catholic, push for an officially-sanctioned option of using a Eucharistic Prayer at any Mass that makes mention of prayers for the Pope alongside Anglican hierarchs and all clergy and people, prayers for the dead (and not just a vague remembrance of them), a Consecratory Epiclesis before the words of institution, the Roman version of the words of institution, the intercession of Mary and the Saints (and not just a remembrance of them), and frequent (not just one or two) mentions of the Mass as a sacrifice offered by the priest and people for all kinds of intentions but especially for the sick, the sould in purgatory, and the salvation of humankind . If there can be a Star Wars Eucharistic prayer, why can't there be a flat out explicitly transubstantionalist, Papalist, Marian, sacrificial-as-fudge Eucharistic prayer (that, notedly, would be much better in my mind than RC Eucharistic Prayer II which is almost all I ever hear in this country). TEC doesn't require acknowledgment of The 39 Articles as anything more than a historical document anyway, AFAIK. So why not live up to the true spirit of Anglicanism and let Anglo Catholics go all the way? I'm sure there's a way to write such an anaphora that retains an Anglican flavor (it would probably be in better taste than even the original Latin of the RCC's EP II and III). And TEC doesn't really have enough Con Evos to complain about it. I know that whatever his name is that played a big deal in the drafting of BCP '79 made a point of pointing out that "We are a Reformed Church. We believe that Christ made one complete, sufficient, and unrepeatable sacrifice upon the Cross and we do not presume that our priests can offer any such sacrifice." (my paraphrase) But come on now. The Broad Church has won in the US, although a few bishops and congregations here and there like to pretend otherwise. I don't think that permittance of minor propers, a real offertory, and a ridiculously Ultramontane Eucharistic Prayer as a legally sanctioned option violates the spirit of common prayer being common.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
Stonespring, are you in the US? Because apart from prayers for the Pope and not including Hail Mary, what you described could easily happen using Common Worship in England. And my priest would add in Hail Mary if he could! There is a lot of room for individual tweaking with Common Worship.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Stonespring, are you in the US? Because apart from prayers for the Pope and not including Hail Mary, what you described could easily happen using Common Worship in England. And my priest would add in Hail Mary if he could! There is a lot of room for individual tweaking with Common Worship.
I am in the US. The Episcopal Church does have something valuable in that most parishes use the current Prayer Book and that the Prayer Book does not have so many options as to make the worship in one parish unrecognizeable to the other. I just think if you're going to have two rites, one with two Eucharistic Prayers and one with four (and a frankenmass option that technically shouldn't be the norm for Sundays), one of the official prayers in the prayer book should be a good old fashioned spin off of the Roman Canon or something like it. Rite II, EP D is kind of like the RC Eucharistic Prayer IV in that it is from the same original text, but in BCP '79 it does not have enough the extra RC-isms that Rome added to it to make it be ok for them. Roman-style Eucharistic prayers have been a big part of being Anglican for at least a century (less so in the US than in England, but still). Just allow it already.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
S. Bacchus
Shipmate
# 17778
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
Within the C of E Anglo-Papalists are a endangered species. The only remaining examples are very old and very confused. The “Pharaoh’s Gold” offered at the first ordination of women caused the first exodus. The more recent opening of the gate to their cage (The Ordinariate) the second and last. The only ones left are too old, lame or sick (often with sexually transmitted diseases like “marriages”) to escape. So they sit in a corner making sad noises.
I see where you're coming from, although I don't entirely agree. It's demonstrably incorrect to say that all Anglo-Papalist priests are 'very old', though. Fr Rowlands of Kentish Town, who must be the very model of a modern Anglo-Papalist, is not yet 60. I know of priests of very A-P credentials who are in their twenties (many of them are members of the Sodality of the Precious Blood, a group of celibate male priests, headed almost inevitably by Fr Rowlands himself).
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
And my priest would add in Hail Mary if he could!
What IS stopping him? We said a 'Hail Mary' at mass today. Well, actually, I said several silently but we said one aloud at the end of the intercessions. We're not Anglo-Papalist by any measure (although I suspect the vicar may have some leanings in that direction, but he's also happy to wear surplice and scarf, so I think he may just enjoy a variety of liturgical styles).
--------------------
'It's not that simple. I won't have it to be that simple'.
Posts: 260 | Registered: Jul 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cara
Shipmate
# 16966
|
Posted
S Bacchus wrote :
Quote: Fr Rowlands of Kentish Town, who must be the very model of a modern Anglo-Papalist.....
end quote
Am I the only one who heard the similar words of a certain song from the Pirates of Penzance tripping through the brain....?!
Thanks S Bacchus--whether intentional (as I suspect) or not, this afforded a much-needed smile!
--------------------
Pondering.
Posts: 898 | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
Stonespring makes some interesting, if rather unexplicated, points about TEC's Eucharistic theology. Although the prayerbook language is hazy in many ways, I would think that most theologically educated laity, and certainly most clergy, view the Eucharist as a mandatory and continual re-presentation of the sacrificial and atoning life, death, and resurrection of Christ, our incarnate God. This atonement was uniquely made once and for all, but the Eucharist is the effective means by which the Church corporately appropriates the merits of this sacrifice unto itself, and indeed unites itself in the present with the atoning sacrifice once offered and consummated at a specific point in what we experience as linear time. Through this anamnoesis of Christ in the Eucharist, He becomes effectively present for us in the elements of bread and wine that are offered up, is tangibly in the midst of His gathered Church - the Eucharistic assembly - and we receive the grace of the one eternal sacrifice through our assisting in this Eucharistic sacrifice and most tangibly through taking Our Risen Lord into our physical selves in the reception of the Holy Communion.
TEC clergy and laity might express these ideas in different words, but I would propose that I am here representing what most would affirm.
Or this could just be my own wishful thinking as to the views of my fellow American Episcopalians.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
I think if I were an Anglican I would be an Affirming Anglo-Papalist. What would that be like? Any ideas?
It would be like half the churches in the Diocese of Southwark.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Until this thread, had never heard of this. A main point of Anglicanism is that we specifically do not have a centralised authority. Anglicansonline has a helpful essay about where we may stand as Anglicans: The Centrist Moment.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cara
Shipmate
# 16966
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Stonespring makes some interesting, if rather unexplicated, points about TEC's Eucharistic theology. Although the prayerbook language is hazy in many ways, I would think that most theologically educated laity, and certainly most clergy, view the Eucharist as a mandatory and continual re-presentation of the sacrificial and atoning life, death, and resurrection of Christ, our incarnate God. This atonement was uniquely made once and for all, but the Eucharist is the effective means by which the Church corporately appropriates the merits of this sacrifice unto itself, and indeed unites itself in the present with the atoning sacrifice once offered and consummated at a specific point in what we experience as linear time. Through this anamnoesis of Christ in the Eucharist, He becomes effectively present for us in the elements of bread and wine that are offered up, is tangibly in the midst of His gathered Church - the Eucharistic assembly - and we receive the grace of the one eternal sacrifice through our assisting in this Eucharistic sacrifice and most tangibly through taking Our Risen Lord into our physical selves in the reception of the Holy Communion.
TEC clergy and laity might express these ideas in different words, but I would propose that I am here representing what most would affirm.
Or this could just be my own wishful thinking as to the views of my fellow American Episcopalians.
Nicely put, S V K.
I think this is indeed what I believe though I don't think I'd have expressed it as comprehensively as this.
I'm interested that you think this "high" an idea of communion--"taking our Risen Lord into our physical selves"-- is general in TEC--I'm not contradicting you, I only know one EC parish.
What I liked about TEC as I experienced it was a fairly traditional approach to service and sacraments (and of course Communion service weekly) combined with a liberal approach socially...
--------------------
Pondering.
Posts: 898 | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mother Julian
Ship's librarian
# 11978
|
Posted
S. Bacchus wrote: quote:
The only parish in the world that I would say fully embodies the Anglo-Papalist ethos is S. Silas Kentish Town (MW here)). S. Silas uses the Roman Missal and Breviary always, in either English or Latin. They have pictures of various recent Popes on the walls of the church itself. When the English translation of the Ordinary Form changed, S. Silas changed on the very same day. Now, THAT'S what I call Anglo-Papalism.
{You may be wondering whether Anglo-Papalism actually exists outside the housing estates of the London postcodes beginning with N, NW, or EC. The answer, in my admittedly limited experience, would seem to be 'no'.}
Anglo-Papalism certainly does exist outside London. My modest little preaching shack, Ss Agnes & Pancras, Toxteth Park, Liverpool would seem to fit the bill - we introduced the new translation of the mass the first week it was authorised, we usually pray for the Holy Father in the Mass, along with the "Hail Mary" at the conclusion of the intercessory prayers, and parts of the mass are regularly sung in Latin. Mind you, we also pray for the Ecumenical Patriarch, and the Coptic Pope as well. Tellingly, we pray for our Bishop, Bishop Glyn, and also the Bishop of Liverpool. The Archbishop of Liverpool has presided at our Mass, although he did not consecrate the host, he received the Most Holy Sacrament at the hand of our parish priest.
I can't but help believe that, following General Synod this last week, Anglo-Papalism in England is coming to the crossroads - we either go forward in unity with the Catholic Church, or we accept that we are High Anglicans. There will be some, perhaps my parish that take up a position analogous to the Non-Jurors after 1689. Others, probably the majority, will find reasons to accept the settlement. A few will swim the Tiber, or the Bosphorus.
Posts: 359 | From: the banks of the mighty River Mersey | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arpeggi
Apprentice
# 17487
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Magic Wand:
Hardly S. Clement's these days! Just go to their website to read the sermon about the mission of Anglo-Catholics to "liberate" people from Rome and the East!
I'm glad you brought this up. I really enjoyed the sermon that Canon Reid gave to the Society of Catholic Priests.( Audio , Text)
I found it a bold statement of the future of progressive Anglo-Catholicism and an end to the sort of "don't ask don't tell" that has affected places like S. Clem's for decades.
[ 23. November 2013, 02:11: Message edited by: Arpeggi ]
Posts: 7 | From: Brooklyn, NY | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
I only know a few very Anglo-Catholic parishes in NYC and Philly, and one in London, so could someone tell me if they (in their opinion) are Anglo-Papalist?
As betjemaniac notes, central to Anglo-Papalism was the notion that the CofE - or, more aptly, the provinces of Canterbury and York - were integral provinces of the Western Catholic church isolated from their patriarch by a peculiar set of historical and political circumstances. It doesn't, therefore, really "translate" outside of the established church there. Christians in the U.S. who are minded to Rome don't really have the same kind of incentive to remain outside of its fold, much less in Canada, which had an RC hierarchy long before an Anglican one. Outside of England, those who would be Anglo-Papalists haven't really any reason not to become Actual Papalist. The Episcopal Church, always a minority even when it punched above its weight in public life, isn't the national church of Americans, and the logic which awaits the wholesale reunion of the provinces of Canterbury and York doesn't apply to provinces I-VIII (much less IX).
Apologies if I missed someone mentioning it, but Michael Yelton's Anglican Papalism is of course the standard history. My favourite are the bits about St Saviour's, Hoxton in London, which adopted wholesale the traditional Roman Rite, in Latin, between the wars. The story goes that, under episcopal ban, it invited the famous Bishop Weston of Zanzibar for an episcopal visitation. Since English was not customary in the parish, and unwilling to use Latin, Weston celebrated in Swahili instead!
As for the Sodality of the Precious Blood, what's become of it these days? Its ever-slender web footprint has now evaporated altogether.
[ 23. November 2013, 05:25: Message edited by: LQ ]
Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by S. Bacchus:
I know of priests of very A-P credentials who are in their twenties (many of them are members of the Sodality of the Precious Blood, a group of celibate male priests, headed almost inevitably by Fr Rowlands himself).
So why don't they just clear off to the Ordinariate? Couldn't have something to do with the CofE's better stipends and pensions, and the fact that the RCC expects its clergy to do as they're told, could it?
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Stonespring makes some interesting, if rather unexplicated, points about TEC's Eucharistic theology. Although the prayerbook language is hazy in many ways, I would think that most theologically educated laity, and certainly most clergy, view the Eucharist as a mandatory and continual re-presentation of the sacrificial and atoning life, death, and resurrection of Christ, our incarnate God. This atonement was uniquely made once and for all, but the Eucharist is the effective means by which the Church corporately appropriates the merits of this sacrifice unto itself, and indeed unites itself in the present with the atoning sacrifice once offered and consummated at a specific point in what we experience as linear time. Through this anamnoesis of Christ in the Eucharist, He becomes effectively present for us in the elements of bread and wine that are offered up, is tangibly in the midst of His gathered Church - the Eucharistic assembly - and we receive the grace of the one eternal sacrifice through our assisting in this Eucharistic sacrifice and most tangibly through taking Our Risen Lord into our physical selves in the reception of the Holy Communion.
TEC clergy and laity might express these ideas in different words, but I would propose that I am here representing what most would affirm.
Or this could just be my own wishful thinking as to the views of my fellow American Episcopalians.
I agree that that is probably what most Episcopal clergy believe, and I think that most Episcopalian laity (based on my limited knowledge) have a relatively high view of the Eucharist.
I guess my main question is why in the Episcopal Church, which already allows for so much diversity of thought, the Roman Canon or a prayer like it in its specificity and redundancy about the priest and congregation's sacrifice, prayer for the dead, intercession of the saints, offering of the Eucharistic sacrifice for others living and dead, and prayer for the Pope among other clergy and people of God, is not one of the authorized Eucharistic prayers. At this point in history only a very small minority of Episcopalians would wish this, but I also think that only a minority (I'm not sure how small) of Episcopalians would be ideologically opposed to authorizing the use of the Roman Canon. If Rite II Eucharistic Prayer D can be largely based on the same texts as RC Eucharistic Prayer IV, why can't there be a Prayer E based on Eucharistic Prayer I (or that basically is Eucharistic Prayer I, given its use in Sarum and BCP 1547)?
I understand the Anglican wish to emphasize that despite everyone's different beliefs, we are all in communion with each other and pray in common - thus the choice of common prayers that touch on general themes without veering too far in a Reformed or Catholic direction. I just think that, at least in the US, adding a Roman Canon or Roman Canonesque EP to the list of authorized prayers (even if it is in an addendum and not in the main text of the BCP) would not be damaging to the big-tent nature of Anglicanism in this country. However, I am speaking as a non-Episcopalian, so I am open to hear why I am wrong.
Does anyone know any more about Church of the Resurrection, NYC (Upper East Side)? So far all I have heard is that it is a kind of old-fashioned A-P Church.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
Originally posted by S. Bacchus:
I know of priests of very A-P credentials who are in their twenties (many of them are members of the Sodality of the Precious Blood, a group of celibate male priests, headed almost inevitably by Fr Rowlands himself).
So why don't they just clear off to the Ordinariate? Couldn't have something to do with the CofE's better stipends and pensions, and the fact that the RCC expects its clergy to do as they're told, could it?
I think being arsey is ingrained in A-C types (in the CoE at least). I don't mean that as a criticism either.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
S. Bacchus
Shipmate
# 17778
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
I think if I were an Anglican I would be an Affirming Anglo-Papalist. What would that be like? Any ideas?
It would be like half the churches in the Diocese of Southwark.
I think we are at risk in this thread of confusing Anglo-Papalism with Anglo-Catholicism more broadly. The former is a small subsection of the latter. Anglo-Papalism can be difficult to pin down — and it is by no means simply synonymous with the 'highest' end of Anglo-Catholicism — but I think most educated churchmen
'know it when they see it.'
It is also possible for a person, church, or service, to have Anglo-Papalist elements without being entirely Anglo-Papalist. When Forward in Faith installed its new Director, the service certainly looked (in many ways, a mass concelebrated by a large number of male priests is one of the clearest signs of Anglo-Papalism; many traditional but non-AP Anglo-Catholic parishes eschew concelebration) the part, but the actual rite used was in some ways intended to show just how Anglican an occasion it was, from using prayers from the BCP to distinctly Anglican (and Presbyterian, and Lutheran) music. The fact it ended up looking rather like an Ordinariate service was probably inevitable without being intentional, if you see what I mean.
It's also possible to be too negative about Anglo-Papalism. I was just reading this morning Barry Spurr's book on T.S. Eliot's religion, which included a quote from a social historian who argued that Anglo-Papalists were to a large extent the only members of the Church of England to have any real contact with the working classes. I myself have been profoundly moved by the obvious and genuine devotion in Anglo-Papalist parishes and by their zeal in witnessing to Christ in their communities.
I would not describe myself as an Anglo-Papalist, nor would any of the churches at which I've been a regular worshiper fall under that heading, but I would be very sorry to see a Church of England without at least a few Anglo-Papalists.
--------------------
'It's not that simple. I won't have it to be that simple'.
Posts: 260 | Registered: Jul 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
S. Bacchus - the group my church is in is AffCath and have concelebration at all our joint services.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
S. Bacchus
Shipmate
# 17778
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
S. Bacchus - the group my church is in is AffCath and have concelebration at all our joint services.
Interesting, but not wholly surprising. Concelbration is something of a shibboleth with regards to where one stands on the liturgical reforms of the last 70 odd years. I might put it this way:
Church that (inspired by the ecumenical liturgical movement) has concelebration but uses Anglican rite, and has female priests: not Anglo-Papalist.
Church that eschews concelebration and uses Common Worship dressed up to look as much like the English Missal as possible: not Anglo-Papalist.
Church that has concelebration only by male priests, uses the new translation of the Modern Roman Rite, and follows GIRM to the letter (even if a much more elaborate manner than typically found in actual RC churches): very likely to be Anglo-Papalist.
Aff-Cath(ish), not Anglo-Papalist (although I'm not sure if they're concelebrating either).
Traditional Anglo-Catholic, but not Anglo-Papalist.
Anglo-Papalist.
It may sound like Anglo-Papalism can be defined by a combination of liturgy and a stance on dead horse issues (one in particular). To an extent, this is true, but it goes deeper than that. It's an ethos that incorporates both, but which has at its root the real belief that the statement Roma Locuta Est – Causa Finita Est is true, for Anglicans as much as for Roman Catholics.
You will have noticed that I keeping mentioning and alluding to one London parish in particular. There are a few reasons for this, including my own experience and the availability of good photographs. But it's also true that full-fledged Anglo-Papalism is actually extremely uncommon. The idea that Anglicans should listen to what Rome says is almost universal amongst Anglo-Catholics, and I should think not rare even amongst Evangelicals, but the extreme view of the primacy of the Roman pontiff found amongst Anglo-Papalists is not common in the Church of England, and seems almost unknown outwith it (except amongst Roman Catholics of course, and not even all of them!).
Perhaps it would be helpful to substitute 'Anglo-ultramontism' for 'Anglo-Papalism'.
--------------------
'It's not that simple. I won't have it to be that simple'.
Posts: 260 | Registered: Jul 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
Not all AffCath parishes have female priests though - ours don't! Happy to have female priests is probably a better way of putting it. We have very few female clergy in our town.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
