My parish in NC did this during the Easter Season. I’ve never seen it otherwise. I tried to suggest it in my parish in NJ and the priest said “as long as we mention the Archbishop of Canterbury first.” If he hadn’t made it an explicit stipulation I wouldn’t have cared that much, but it makes no sense to give Canterbury primacy over Rome, so I lost enthusiasm for the idea under those conditions. Probably I should have persisted, though–it would have been a step in the right direction.
We regularly pray for all faithful bishops, specifically mentioning Benedict and Bartholemew.
As having been raised Anglican (now Catholic for over 3 years) my observation is that there is not an “obsession” with being explicitly and obviously non-catholic due to many Anglicans who sincerely believe themselves to be catholic, while rejecting Church teaching on the natural moral law etc. The dispute isn’t about the term Catholic, but rather Roman, which the Book of Common Prayer still containing the 39 articles calls “Romish”. I will admit many if not most Anglicans are much more informed of the Catholic Church than Christian Fundamentalists and this is likely due to similarities in our Liturgies. From my lived Anglican experience and observation, there is an intrinsic amicability between Anglicans and Catholics in regard to the importance of Liturgy and the sense of Mystery in God which Fundamentalists understand not, and so condemn. I know this also to be true from my lived Fundamentalist experience.
You certainly will not find this kind of genuine kindness from Catholics. They don’t even believe that Episcopalian bishops are even bishops.
Speaking of kindness/courtesy, aren’t you the guy that was going to picket against Pope Benedict coming to Washington?
I’m not the same guy.
that’s ok. I don’t agree with the pope on many things but I do on many others, but even so, I would never do something of this caliber. God made us all of different minds and we should all be free to worship how we so choose.
I agree, but I do not believe that the ONE church is solely the RCC of today. I do not believe that the ONE church is the Anglican Communion alone either.
When I went to School in the 1940s I was taught that the Church came to Britain in and about 37AD, in the reign of Tiberius. Later we were taught that the Roman ,"Ecumenical’, or Latin, Councils of the Middle Ages gave precedence to the British Church on account of its antiquity, arriving in Britain about 40AD.
Hippolytus (160AD) mentions Aristobulous as, Bishop of the Britains.) Again, Dorotheus mentions him as Bishop of the Britons. Whilst Ado Archbishop of Venice tells us that Aristobulous was martyred here. Catholic Messenger no 289, in an article written by a Romanist Scholar states quite plainly that at least one “English,” (sic) Bishop was at Nicea.The Catholic Church doesn’t recognize them as Bishops because Henry the VIII, as has been discussed, promoted himself as head of the Church of England. The Church of England went on to incorporate Protestant beliefs in the ‘Low Church’, or evangelical tradition which includes the Consubstantative/Lutheran definition regarding Holy Communion. Add to that the modern errors of the acceptance of contraception, women priests, a practicing homosexual bishop (Gene Robinson) and you get a church which John Henry Cardinal Newman, as an Anglican before his conversion, would have wept over if such modern errors existed in his time. I therefore don’t believe lying is ‘genuine’ - ‘diplomatic’ perhaps, but not based on the truth. The Traditional Anglican Communion would agree with me, which is why they are regarded as a schism by mainstream Anglicans, and why they are in serious dialogue with Pope Benedict.
Actually there is some justification of this, as Augustine build what would become the Anglican church by supressing, with Rome’s encouragement and blessing, the Celtic Church already there. That’s history.
Was this Churchmanship of British antiquity seperated from the Pope? Did they claim independence from the Holy See?When I went to School in the 1940s I was taught that the Church came to Britain in and about 37AD, in the reign of Tiberius. Later we were taught that the Roman ,"Ecumenical’, or Latin, Councils of the Middle Ages gave precedence to the British Church on account of its antiquity, arriving in Britain about 40AD.
The Bishop of Tyre, Dorotheus, (300AD.) said that Simon Zelotes “was at last crucified, slain and buried in Britain.” (Synopsis de Apostol
By the time of Augustine Christianity had been in this country for over 500yrs.
British Churchmanship is of very great antiquity. It might have its troubles today, but it is of the Body!
I don’t think so. My church broke from TEC and joined with the Diocese of Uganda which is led by Archbishop Orombi who was a member of GAFCON along with Archbishop Venibles from the Southern Cone Diocese of South America. We have heard much from other conservative Bishops in the Anglican Communion over the past year or so but never one time have I ever heard it spoken that there are dialogues surfacing that are concerning uniting Anglicans with Rome.
Henry may have retained many Catholic beliefs, however, he did undermind the Pope and thus excommunicated himself. I would argue that they became Protestant as soon as this Protestation against the Pope began. The road to officially incorporate foreign beliefs outside the Church from Protestant sources ensued from Henry’s decision on the remarriage issue against the Holy Father’s decree.
No, Henry VII had everything to do with it. He made a fuss about having an heir so he forced Henry VIII into a marriage with his brothers widow, and VII’s marrying VIII’s sister Margaret off to Scottland, the politics of which ended up in her getting a divorce provided by Rome, which VIII called “shameless sentence sent from Rome.” You can figure what that all ended up.
Assimilated. Like the Amerindians
.I think you have answered the OP in the affirmative.