I attended a CoE prep school in England in the early 1980s and our headmaster, who was an Anglican minister, called himself catholic and sometimes even Catholic.Sadly, they are that.
But for Anglicans to refer to themselves as Catholic is not all that new. Vernon Staley wrote that old Anglican classic THE CATHOLIC RELIGION, back 3 years before Apostolicae curae, the Catholic League was formed before WWI. Off the top of my head.
But, motley. Yep.
GKC
My impression is that it looks like the Anglo-Catholics have been able to carve our a niche for themselves. They know that they can’t run the Church of England, but they feel that they’re not being pushed out either. They have a few bishops, they’ll continue to have a few bishops, and they are therefore able to keep their own line of Apostolic Succession. They’re a Church within a Church; in communion with the whole body, but capable of some kind of independent life.Novocastrian will know better than me, but the impression I gained from watching part of the debate at York was that much of the Anglo-Catholic wing of Synod was either approving of the consecration of women bishops or was willing – in many cases with considerable grace – to accept the change, trusting in the fulfilment of the promises that their position will safeguarded. Acceptance was less forthcoming, I thought, from the conservative evangelical “headship” wing. I heard nobody say the change would cause them to leave the church.
In all, more than 80% of Synod voted in favour. It has been alleged that in the pews the figure is nearer 90%.
That’s true in the American 1928 BCP, too.I attended a CoE prep school in England in the early 1980s and our headmaster, who was an Anglican minister, called himself catholic and sometimes even Catholic.
In the version of the creed that was printed in the school prayer books (… I believe in the… One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church"), the word Catholic was quite definitely upper cased.
But not that the Monarch, qua Monarch, can confect the sacraments.My impression is that it looks like the Anglo-Catholics have been able to carve our a niche for themselves. They know that they can’t run the Church of England, but they feel that they’re not being pushed out either. They have a few bishops, they’ll continue to have a few bishops, and they are therefore able to keep their own line of Apostolic Succession. They’re a Church within a Church; in communion with the whole body, but capable of some kind of independent life.
The Evangelicals are less concerned with sacraments, and more with leadership. They foresee the day when they might have pastoral provision but under license from a woman. This objection seems nonsensical to me, given that evangelical Christians have accepted that a woman can be Supreme Governor of the the English Church since 1559.
Interestingly,That’s true in the American 1928 BCP, too.
GKC
That’s my point. The Catholic position, re: sacramental theology, is at least coherent. But that’s not what the evangelical wing are objecting to. If it’s about headship, then they should take issue with the Supremacy.But not that the Monarch, qua Monarch, can confect the sacraments.
And for the ACs, perhaps the water is not too hot. Perhaps it will get hotter.
GKC
Well done. And still we have to write “Holy” in, in the 28.Interestingly,
1549: And I beleve one Catholicke and Apostolike Churche.
1559: And I beleve one catholicke and Apostolicke Churche.
1560*: Et unam Sanctam Catholicam, et Apostolicam Ecclesiam.
1662: And I believe one Catholick and Apostolick Church.
- 1560 Liber Precarum Publicum, Latin translation of the 1559 Book of Common Prayer.
But it’s not the confecting of the sacraments that worries the evangelicals so much as that they believe the Bible commands that headship is male. So one would have thought the Queen would be a problem for them.But not that the Monarch, qua Monarch, can confect the sacraments.
And for the ACs, perhaps the water is not too hot. Perhaps it will get hotter.
GKC
I’m not sure it is headship. But I don’t live amongst them.That’s my point. The Catholic position, re: sacramental theology, is at least coherent. But that’s not what the evangelical wing are objecting to. If it’s about headship, then they should take issue with the Supremacy.
Yep. Though my view is that it’s implicitly there given the 1560 use.Well done. And still we have to write “Holy” in, in the 28.
GKC
In no way do I take your questions as rude. You ask good questions that all Christians would want to know, not just Catholics. This is the way to understanding our faiths, and like yourself, I do believe in sound reasoning to arrive at the truths.I don’t mean to be rude, but I think you’re consistently ignoring my questions.
.
You would be married to the Church if you were a Catholic priest yes. And that’s the point. As a lay person, that wouldn’t be so, certainly you’re part of it but as the Body of the Bride who is One in flesh with our Lord. That’s our sacramental belief of marriage as well. Man and womans flesh and soul made One by God and by God alone.I accept that the Church is the bride of Christ. But I, a male, am married to Christ as part of the Church, yes? Why can’t it be that a woman, female, might be married to the Church as part of Christ? .
Although when looking at the very old stuff, we have to be sure that the rules of capitalization have not changed since then, and that we aren’t projecting an intention that wasn’t there.Interestingly,
1549: And I beleve one Catholicke and Apostolike Churche.
1559: And I beleve one catholicke and Apostolicke Churche.
1560*: Et unam Sanctam Catholicam, et Apostolicam Ecclesiam.
1662: And I believe one Catholick and Apostolick Church.
Edit: I don’t have access to a 1552 at the moment.
- 1560 Liber Precarum Publicum, Latin translation of the 1559 Book of Common Prayer.
I agree, and I’m not entirely convinced that capitalization is a useful theological tool even now. I’m inclined to think that the essence of a claim to be part of the catholic church is identical to the claim that one is part of the Catholic Church, or even the catholic Church.Although when looking at the very old stuff, we have to be sure that the rules of capitalization have not changed since then, and that we aren’t projecting an intention that wasn’t there.
I agree. But it is a commonplace in venues like this, for some folk to make the distinction.I agree, and I’m not entirely convinced that capitalization is a useful theological tool even now. I’m inclined to think that the essence of a claim to be part of the catholic church is identical to the claim that one is part of the Catholic Church, or even the catholic Church.
I account it one of the quirks of Anglicanism.Yep. Though my view is that it’s implicitly there given the 1560 use.
Well, here speaks Reform, the prominent conservative evangelical CofE group:I’m not sure it is headship. But I don’t live amongst them.
GKC
Well, there you have it. Though I think one could subsume the concept of confecting the sacraments, as a sacerdotal function, under the concept of headship. How they would look at the Supreme Governor, I dunno. They must have noticed the wording in the 1559 Act, by now.Well, here speaks Reform, the prominent conservative evangelical CofE group:
reform.org.uk/resources/media-downloads/src/publication/10/title/why-are-there-objections-to-women-being-bishops-in-the-church-of-england
I was speaking of Anglicans as a whole, not just individuals, whether a Bishop, priest or layperson. Actually as a life long Anglican before converting, I never heard any Anglican/TEC individual claim to be catholic, except for Anglo Catholics. As a youth we were considered protestant.Sadly, they are that.
But for Anglicans to refer to themselves as Catholic is not all that new. Vernon Staley wrote that old Anglican classic THE CATHOLIC RELIGION, back 3 years before Apostolicae curae, the Catholic League was formed before WWI. Off the top of my head.
But, motley. Yep.
GKC