Catholic position on Anglo-Catholics?

[grandfather]

Just watched the ceremony on ABC news. The ceremony I recalled was not the ceremony of his becoming Prince of Wales. It was a different costume. He did say that he was the liege man of his mother the object of his earthly worship if I heard it correctly.

I recall a statement by Flannery O’Connor the Catholic author when the topic of transubstantiation was being discussed. “If all it is is a symbol, then the hell with it”.

If these people have no real authority over the Welch people, their church, or anything else, but they are just very wealthy heirs dressed up officiously, taking meaningless symbolic oaths, it is all just make believe. It had some meaning long ago, but is now a farcical comedy. Show up at functions and make believe you are important. Look dignified. It is empty pomp, glitter, a high office that commands nothing.

What does the queen’s title defender of the faith mean if she has nothing to do with the faith? If she no longer appoints the archbishop of Catherbury, but an elected official does, who ordains him with this power or right? It is the electorate.

Jesus appointed Peter His prime minister and gave him the keys to His Kingdom. The people’s prime minister appoints their archbishop. The prince swears and oath to his mother to be installed in a meaningless office and assume a symbolic title.

I don’t know if this is a comedy or a tragedy. The only responsibility of the job is to look royal. The ABC reporters got it. How embarrassing it would be to have to go through with this meaningless, purely symbolic ceremony.

If the royals have no real duty, no authority to command, other than to look important it is all a show. They are shiny ornaments, and the title defender of the faith is hypocricy, a claim to be what they are not.

 

[GKC]

Just watched the ceremony on ABC news. The ceremony I recalled was not the ceremony of his becoming Prince of Wales. It was a different costume. He did say that he was the liege man of his mother the object of his earthly worship if I heard it correctly.

I recall a statement by Flannery O’Connor the Catholic author when the topic of transubstantiation was being discussed. “If all it is is a symbol, then the hell with it”.

If these people have no real authority over the Welch people, their church, or anything else, but they are just very wealthy heirs dressed up officiously, taking meaningless symbolic oaths, it is all just make believe. It had some meaning long ago, but is now a farcical comedy. Show up at functions and make believe you are important. Look dignified. It is empty pomp, glitter, a high office that commands nothing.

What does the queen’s title defender of the faith mean if she has nothing to do with the faith? If she no longer appoints the archbishop of Catherbury, but an elected official does, who ordains him with this power or right? It is the electorate.

Jesus appointed Peter His prime minister and gave him the keys to His Kingdom. The people’s prime minister appoints their archbishop. The prince swears and oath to his mother to be installed in a meaningless office and assume a symbolic title.

I don’t know if this is a comedy or a tragedy. The only responsibility of the job is to look royal. The ABC reporters got it. How embarrassing it would be to have to go through with this meaningless, purely symbolic ceremony.

If the royals have no real duty, no authority to command, other than to look important it is all a show. They are shiny ornaments, and the title defender of the faith is hypocricy, a claim to be what they are not.

If you recall the ceremony, occasion, perhaps some supporting trivia, with respect to this alleged quote, please post it. Since I think I know the origin, which is something similar to the idea of the “Jesuits’ Oath”, I’ll remain skeptical. IOW, it’s a load of codswallop.

The Queen’s title of Defensor Fidei, while related to that same title given by Leo X to her father, is not the same title, in origin. It exists from an act of Parliament, similarly to the origin of the head of the church one.

The story of how Hank got the title, originally, is a fun one. It’s not merely because of the *Assertio Septem Sacramentorum *.

Your attitude toward a constitutional monarchy, as a form of government is certainly one I’ve heard before. But your attitude toward symbolism and vestments is an odd one for a RC. Certainly I have heard just such criticism of the RC or, indeed, all liturgical Churches, from more extreme reformed or evangelical types. Or from atheists too, for that matter.

GKC

 

[liturgyluver]

Just watched the ceremony on ABC news. The ceremony I recalled was not the ceremony of his becoming Prince of Wales. It was a different costume. He did say that he was the liege man of his mother the object of his earthly worship if I heard it correctly.

I recall a statement by Flannery O’Connor the Catholic author when the topic of transubstantiation was being discussed. “If all it is is a symbol, then the hell with it”.

If these people have no real authority over the Welch people, their church, or anything else, but they are just very wealthy heirs dressed up officiously, taking meaningless symbolic oaths, it is all just make believe. It had some meaning long ago, but is now a farcical comedy. Show up at functions and make believe you are important. Look dignified. It is empty pomp, glitter, a high office that commands nothing.

What does the queen’s title defender of the faith mean if she has nothing to do with the faith? If she no longer appoints the archbishop of Catherbury, but an elected official does, who ordains him with this power or right? It is the electorate.

Jesus appointed Peter His prime minister and gave him the keys to His Kingdom. The people’s prime minister appoints their archbishop. The prince swears and oath to his mother to be installed in a meaningless office and assume a symbolic title.

I don’t know if this is a comedy or a tragedy. The only responsibility of the job is to look royal. The ABC reporters got it. How embarrassing it would be to have to go through with this meaningless, purely symbolic ceremony.

If the royals have no real duty, no authority to command, other than to look important it is all a show. They are shiny ornaments, and the title defender of the faith is hypocricy, a claim to be what they are not.

Your posts are an embarrassing rant - as well as being poorly drafted - and you have already made quite offensive remarks about individual members of the Royal Family which are quite unneccessary. You obviously have no idea about how constituational Monarchies work. They don’t just exisit here in the UK but in other European Countries too - including the Catholic countries of Spain and Belgium.

This post was about the Catholic position on Anglo-Catholics not an opportunity for you to engage in some rude and irrelevant rant.

 

[zaida]

Hi everyone - I was the original poster, posted the question. You all have given me LOADS to think about!

I do hope people stay “kind” on these forums, and not get into any sort of bashing of other people’s traditions…I always go by the rule “the worst way to convert someone or to get them to listen is to insult who they already are”…

surely RC’s, Anglicans, eastern orthadox, etc etc have come to a place where we can all, at least, be kind and uplifting? After all, we all love Christ, and surely that should be a point we meet on?

Anyway, thanks so much for all the comments, its given me a lot to think over.

Z

 

[liturgyluver]

Hi everyone - I was the original poster, posted the question. You all have given me LOADS to think about!

I do hope people stay “kind” on these forums, and not get into any sort of bashing of other people’s traditions…I always go by the rule “the worst way to convert someone or to get them to listen is to insult who they already are”…

surely RC’s, Anglicans, eastern orthadox, etc etc have come to a place where we can all, at least, be kind and uplifting? After all, we all love Christ, and surely that should be a point we meet on?

Anyway, thanks so much for all the comments, its given me a lot to think over.

Z

I am glad you find the comments helpful. I agree with you - we have a common bond in our love of Christ Jesus, which should be our strength. If we follow His message of love and mutual respect, then we can see and appreciate the positive strengths we all have as Christians. With love and Peace

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

Being that we have people here from many parts of the world, lets try to be a little respectful.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

Just watched the ceremony on ABC news. The ceremony I recalled was not the ceremony of his becoming Prince of Wales.

What event was it?

It was a different costume. He did say that he was the liege man of his mother the object of his earthly worship if I heard it correctly.

I recall a statement by Flannery O’Connor the Catholic author when the topic of transubstantiation was being discussed. “If all it is is a symbol, then the hell with it”.

If these people have no real authority over the Welch people, their church, or anything else, but they are just very wealthy heirs dressed up officiously, taking meaningless symbolic oaths, it is all just make believe. It had some meaning long ago, but is now a farcical comedy. Show up at functions and make believe you are important. Look dignified. It is empty pomp, glitter, a high office that commands nothing.

What does the queen’s title defender of the faith mean if she has nothing to do with the faith? If she no longer appoints the archbishop of Catherbury, but an elected official does, who ordains him with this power or right? It is the electorate.

Jesus appointed Peter His prime minister and gave him the keys to His Kingdom. The people’s prime minister appoints their archbishop. The prince swears and oath to his mother to be installed in a meaningless office and assume a symbolic title.

I don’t know if this is a comedy or a tragedy. The only responsibility of the job is to look royal. The ABC reporters got it. How embarrassing it would be to have to go through with this meaningless, purely symbolic ceremony.

If the royals have no real duty, no authority to command, other than to look important it is all a show. They are shiny ornaments, and the title defender of the faith is hypocricy, a claim to be what they are not.

I’d be happy to engage in further discussion with you if you wish to say anything constructive. I am not willing to continue any discussion if all you are prepared to contribute is this poorly informed polemic. I would like to point out that people from Wales are Welsh. The proper name of the senior archdiocese in the Church of England is Canterbury.

 

[Contarini]

All Anglicans are not Episcopalians. However, all Episcopalians are Anglicans. That is why I posed the question. When citing Anglicans many people on this board write “Anglicans/Episcopalians”. I don’t see why they add Episcopalians because it isn’t necessary.

Because it’s confusing, and people want to be sure they are covering everyone. As an Anglican/Episcopalian (i.e., an Episcopalian and thus an Anglican) myself, I get your point but I think you’re being a bit picky.

It is important to keep pointing out that Episcopalians are Anglicans, of course.

 

[defenderoftruth]

Because we don’t agree with certain dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church, such as papal supremacy and infallibility. I also do not believe in temporal punishment and the ‘treasury of merits’. I believe that Christ paid the penalty for all our sins on the Cross.

Yep. I’m high church Anglo-Catholic too…I’ve read alot and studied alot and came REAL REAL close to becoming RC but just can’t because of the papal stuff and some of the Marian stuff. (besides the “treasury of merits” thing)

 

[defenderoftruth]

Episcopalians generally believe in a female priesthood, social doctrines that accept and or promote homosexuality etc. (at least here in the U.S.) Episcopalians in Africa have some female clergy but from what I understand they are waiting for them to “die off” and not making anymore female clergy. Anglicans outside of the U.S. are generally in England, Scotland, Australia, and Africa some of which again accept female priests/homosexuality.

I belong to the “continuing Anglican” movement that is not in communion with Canterbury because we saw what was coming way back in the 1970’s and left the Episcopal Church USA and have since become several groups that basically agree on everything but small stupid things. We don’t believe in female clergy AT ALL. (no deacons, priests or bishops-only men can and should be) and are completely against homosexuality because it’s sinful and sends people to hell. Our services are like that of the pre-Vatican II days (but in English). The clothing, the smells, the bells, the chanting, the facing east-the altar not the people etc. There is a new group that formed after the Cont. Movement just a year or two ago called the ACNA (anglican church in north america) they are episcopalians that disagree with homosexuality but are still ok with female deacons/priests (not bishops).

My husband and I tried going to a few services at an ACNA church nearby but the modern language (instead of the thees and thous in the service) were annoying, and they had women serving at the altar (which we don’t agree with-which is interesting since even RC’s have extraordinary ministers that are women) We don’t think women should give the body/blood to anyone. That’s a man’s place.

And I’m a woman btw.

Just some info for ya.

 

[hosemonkey]

There are many lunatic stories out there like Pope Joan, the Davinci Code saying Jesus and Mary Magdalene had children and descendents, and others. Their purpose is to attack the legitimate Church. Churchmen have enough sins and do enough damage, but there are also bizarre fables, lies, created to discredit the Church.

Some heresies are understandable in that the questions we wrestle with are difficult. Understanding things like justification, predestination, the christological controversies of the early centuries was tough stuff and it is understandable that sincere intelligent people would struggle with it.

Excellent post insofar as pointing out the rot that has affected the COE. As far as the various ceremonies and entitlements that British royalty are wont participate in, many are accidents of history and are beloved by the British people, for the most part. As one of Welsh heritage, in spite of all the wrongs perpetrated upon the Welsh by the Sassenach invaders, the Welsh still love the pomp and ceremony.

 

[grandfather]

Excellent post insofar as pointing out the rot that has affected the COE. As far as the various ceremonies and entitlements that British royalty are wont participate in, many are accidents of history and are beloved by the British people, for the most part. As one of Welsh heritage, in spite of all the wrongs perpetrated upon the Welsh by the Sassenach invaders, the Welsh still love the pomp and ceremony.

Thank you for your service, sailor.

 

[grandfather]

sanpadrepio.com/PadrePioChristmas.htm

He comes to take His throne,
our only king,
rules heaven and earth.

The rest are foolish pretenders,
corrupt posers,
besotted and glazed
with the riches of this world of show.

.

 

[TypesAndShadows]

Just watched the ceremony on ABC news. The ceremony I recalled was not the ceremony of his becoming Prince of Wales. It was a different costume. He did say that he was the liege man of his mother the object of his earthly worship if I heard it correctly.

I recall a statement by Flannery O’Connor the Catholic author when the topic of transubstantiation was being discussed. “If all it is is a symbol, then the hell with it”.

If these people have no real authority over the Welch people, their church, or anything else, but they are just very wealthy heirs dressed up officiously, taking meaningless symbolic oaths, it is all just make believe. It had some meaning long ago, but is now a farcical comedy. Show up at functions and make believe you are important. Look dignified. It is empty pomp, glitter, a high office that commands nothing.

What does the queen’s title defender of the faith mean if she has nothing to do with the faith? If she no longer appoints the archbishop of Catherbury, but an elected official does, who ordains him with this power or right? It is the electorate.

Jesus appointed Peter His prime minister and gave him the keys to His Kingdom. The people’s prime minister appoints their archbishop. The prince swears and oath to his mother to be installed in a meaningless office and assume a symbolic title.

I don’t know if this is a comedy or a tragedy. The only responsibility of the job is to look royal. The ABC reporters got it. How embarrassing it would be to have to go through with this meaningless, purely symbolic ceremony.

If the royals have no real duty, no authority to command, other than to look important it is all a show. They are shiny ornaments, and the title defender of the faith is hypocricy, a claim to be what they are not.

If I can cut through some of this horror at other people’s culture, I’d like to share a startling insight from an 8 year old, when we were learning about America.

“So, Americans view their flag like we view the Queen, except instead of waving like this Queenly wave it waves like this wibbly arms.”

If you keep this in mind, everything makes a bit more sense. From my perspective as a young British person, the American practice of displaying the country’s flag by the altar is kind of horrifying. This is probably equivalent to how you feel about the Queen being a symbolic figurehead in Anglicanism, and actually in our government and justice system. If you imagine her as a walking flag, this might make more sense to you.

 

[TrueLight]

Where the pope is, there is the Church.

The head of the Catholic Church is the pope. The pope decides what and who is Catholic.

I know what you’re saying, but the head of the Catholic Church is Christ.

This might have been said already because I didn’t read through the whole thread.

 

[ESMDHokie77]

If I can cut through some of this horror at other people’s culture, I’d like to share a startling insight from an 8 year old, when we were learning about America.

“So, Americans view their flag like we view the Queen, except instead of waving like this Queenly wave it waves like this wibbly arms.”

If you keep this in mind, everything makes a bit more sense. From my perspective as a young British person, the American practice of displaying the country’s flag by the altar is kind of horrifying. This is probably equivalent to how you feel about the Queen being a symbolic figurehead in Anglicanism, and actually in our government and justice system. If you imagine her as a walking flag, this might make more sense to you.

nice story about that kid.

I know many protestant churches in the US that display a US Flag and an ecclesial flag near their pulpit, but I’ve never seen this in a Catholic Church.

 

[GKC]

Episcopalians generally believe in a female priesthood, social doctrines that accept and or promote homosexuality etc. (at least here in the U.S.) Episcopalians in Africa have some female clergy but from what I understand they are waiting for them to “die off” and not making anymore female clergy. Anglicans outside of the U.S. are generally in England, Scotland, Australia, and Africa some of which again accept female priests/homosexuality.

I belong to the “continuing Anglican” movement that is not in communion with Canterbury because we saw what was coming way back in the 1970’s and left the Episcopal Church USA and have since become several groups that basically agree on everything but small stupid things. We don’t believe in female clergy AT ALL. (no deacons, priests or bishops-only men can and should be) and are completely against homosexuality because it’s sinful and sends people to hell. Our services are like that of the pre-Vatican II days (but in English). The clothing, the smells, the bells, the chanting, the facing east-the altar not the people etc. There is a new group that formed after the Cont. Movement just a year or two ago called the ACNA (anglican church in north america) they are episcopalians that disagree with homosexuality but are still ok with female deacons/priests (not bishops).

My husband and I tried going to a few services at an ACNA church nearby but the modern language (instead of the thees and thous in the service) were annoying, and they had women serving at the altar (which we don’t agree with-which is interesting since even RC’s have extraordinary ministers that are women) We don’t think women should give the body/blood to anyone. That’s a man’s place.

And I’m a woman btw.

Just some info for ya.

Your story is somewhat like mine.

Except for the “woman” part

GKC

 

[Matthew_Holford]

I think you’re being a bit picky.

I am not being picky. I am asking a genuine question. Why do people write “Anglican/Episcopalian”? It’s as if they’re saying the Anglican Communion and the Episcopal Church; that somehow it is set apart from the rest of the Anglican Communion. People are going to the trouble of typing “Anglican/Episcopalian” rather than just “Anglican”. I am interested why they are suffixing Anglican with reference to a single member of the Anglican Communion.

 

[ltwin]

I am not being picky. I am asking a genuine question. Why do people write “Anglican/Episcopalian”? It’s as if they’re saying the Anglican Communion and the Episcopal Church; that somehow it is set apart from the rest of the Anglican Communion. People are going to the trouble of typing “Anglican/Episcopalian” rather than just “Anglican”. I am interested why they are suffixing Anglican with reference to a single member of the Anglican Communion.

Because in America there are people who have no idea what an “Anglican” is. If you say “Episcopalian” it makes a lot more sense. If you remember, we had a whole revolutionary war with England, so using the name “Episcopal” was a matter of loyalty. Today, its common to hear both Anglican and Episcopalian among Anglicans in the US, but most people outside of Anglicanism don’t use Anglican.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

Because in America there are people who have no idea what an “Anglican” is. If you say “Episcopalian” it makes a lot more sense. If you remember, we had a whole revolutionary war with England, so using the name “Episcopal” was a matter of loyalty. Today, its common to hear both Anglican and Episcopalian among Anglicans in the US, but most people outside of Anglicanism don’t use Anglican.

Thank you! That’s the answer I was looking for. I didn’t know that Americans wouldn’t know what Anglican meant.