Archbishop of Canterbury?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Image_of_God
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The conversation between the 3 or 4 of you has been very interesting, informative and even friendly. 👍 Ever since I read a little bit about John Henry Newman’s search for the ‘middle-road’ between the Catholic and Anglican churches this has been an interesting topic for me.

If you are a Baptist, this topic should be off-limits for you! :tsktsk: You should know that associating with papists and wanna-be papists will send you straight to Hades. Just kidding. I am an x-Southern Baptist / new Catholic 😃
 
rr1213 said:
Are the Catholics likely to give back the plunder they took when they sacked Orthodox Constantinople?
Click to expand...
The Church has been returning “plunder” stolen from Orthodox lands. However, this theft was never sanctioned by the Church in our case as it was in the case of the English.
 
Semper_Fi said:
The Church has been returning “plunder” stolen from Orthodox lands. However, this theft was never sanctioned by the Church in our case as it was in the case of the English.
Click to expand...
That’s one of the things I love about the Catholic Church…it can do no wrong. Every Pope, every Bishop, every Priest, every Deacon, every Doctor and Theologian, every Layman, every Employee and Everyone Associated With the Church can, and does, do wrong but the Church itself is never responsible. The Lutheran and Anglican Churches have never done wrong either…Martin and Henry, on the other hand…
 
Semper_Fi said:
So the Articles in the Anglican Communion are seen more as a suggested guide for Christian life than as canon law as in say the Catholic Church?

Does the Anglican Communion have an equivilent to canon law or canon lawyers, or church tribunals?
Click to expand...
++ It has canons, canon lawyers, church courts - *and *archdeacons 😃 (we got rid of ours at Trent).
Does each individual Church in the Anglican Communion have to have the same Articles as the Archbishop of Canterbury?
Click to expand...
++ No. ECUSA (for instance), omits those of purely English interest - some of them are more relevant to the realities of a 16th & 17th century monarchical society than to those of an 18th century non-European republic; so they went. The Church of Ireland has its Articles, which were approved in 1615. Yet all three Churches are equally members of the Anglican Communion.
Thanks!
Click to expand...
 
GKC said:
Yep. Who recognise the supremacy of the Pope. The TAC would not do that. The rumors of the discussion were that certain doctrines were to be “optional” All reasonable people knew that was not realistic. +Hepworth had a good heart. But let mejknow if and when you see this happening.

GKC
Click to expand...
++ It’s probably all for the best: if the rest of us have to swallow the whole shooting match, what in tarnation made them think they could come in otherwise - on their own conditions, at that ? Who the [insert intensive here] do they think they are, for crying out loud ?

That’s not being like the elder brother, BTW, because the Prodigal Son didn’t make conditions - or not the sort the TAC seem to have been angling for. He at least had the good grace to put himself in the wrong, which is what he was; which is why the EB’s attitude is significant.

Besides, the notion of an apostate (which is what Hepworth is, canonically) being made a bishop, is enough to make one puke 🙂
 
Gottle_of_Geer said:
++ It’s probably all for the best: if the rest of us have to swallow the whole shooting match, what in tarnation made them think they could come in otherwise - on their own conditions, at that ? Who the [insert intensive here] do they think they are, for crying out loud ?

That’s not being like the elder brother, BTW, because the Prodigal Son didn’t make conditions - or not the sort the TAC seem to have been angling for. He at least had the good grace to put himself in the wrong, which is what he was; which is why the EB’s attitude is significant.

Besides, the notion of an apostate (which is what Hepworth is, canonically) being made a bishop, is enough to make one puke 🙂
Click to expand...
Seems a little harsh to me, but whatever is the case, it was certainly never in the cards. Those RCs who had heard of it and thought well of it, were thinking along the lines of a mass submission. What the poor TACs were thinking (and I doubt there was any such lllusions at the higher levels, the enthusiasum was grass root) is a puzzle. I know there was one very sincere TAC adherent who used to post around here who had the word for sure, sub rosa, of course, that wheels were in motion, meetings were going forward at the highest level, can’t reveal yet, but any day now, etc, etc. I used to reason with him. I think his heart was broken, eventually.

Still, people who know people say that, some day…

I’ll wait. Halifax never gave up.

GKC
 
Fr_Ambrose said:
Orthodox bishops…consecrating non-Orthodox bishops???

http://img175.imageshack.us/img175/6153/toofunny2ax.gif
Click to expand...
Yes, believe it or not, dearest Father Ambrose. There are a few isolated instinces in which Orthodox bishops co-consecrated at Anglican consecrations.

There have been at least four Anglican consecrations at which bishops of the Patriarchate of Constatinople assisted, and succession from at least three of them can be traced today. The first such bishop was LYCURGUS, Archbishop of Syra and Tinos, who on the 2nd February 1870 assisted John Jackson, Bishop of London, at the consecration of Henry Mackenzie as Bishop of Nottingham, who on the 25th April 1877 assisted Archbishop Tait at the consecration of Edward White Benson as Bishop of Truro (see main list).

ucl.ac.uk/~ucgbmxd/success2.htm
 
Semper_Fi said:
Yes, believe it or not, dearest Father Ambrose. There are a few isolated instinces in which Orthodox bishops co-consecrated at Anglican consecrations.

There have been at least four Anglican consecrations at which bishops of the Patriarchate of Constatinople assisted, and succession from at least three of them can be traced today. The first such bishop was LYCURGUS, Archbishop of Syra and Tinos, who on the 2nd February 1870 assisted John Jackson, Bishop of London, at the consecration of Henry Mackenzie as Bishop of Nottingham, who on the 25th April 1877 assisted Archbishop Tait at the consecration of Edward White Benson as Bishop of Truro (see main list).

ucl.ac.uk/~ucgbmxd/success2.htm
Click to expand...
I used to have that site bookmarked too.

I’d appreciate Fr. A’s take on it.

GKC
 
GKC said:
I used to have that site bookmarked too.

I’d appreciate Fr. A’s take on it.

GKC
Click to expand...
Probably nothing, since the Bishops are from a different jurisdiction than his. 👍
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top