Church of England

  • Thread starter Thread starter Blood_Angel
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Contarini said:
Have you ever read S. M. Stirling’s “Change” novels (Dies the Fire and its sequels)? It postulates a future (well, future when he first wrote) in which technology stops working and most people die. In England nearly everyone dies, but Prince Charles survives because he gets all his organic-gardening friends together and they head for the Isle of Wight.
Click to expand...
Yes, he should. And his Nantucket series.

Met him at a Con last year. Got another 6 books signed, 3 of which were in the Change series.ons.

GKC

This was supposed to be a reply to Picky. And now I’ve botched up all the pronouns.

Everyone go read Stirling. After which, I’ll have other suggestions,
 
Picky_Picky said:
I suspect A Boleyn and C Howard would agree about the pain in the neck.

Yes, Elizabeth II bears the title “Defender of the Faith”, although there are rumours the Prince of Wales would like to drop the definite article, although that would perhaps expand his role as Defender beyond what any Pope could grant: only the British Imperial Parliament, I suppose, would have the scope, power and presumption to award such a grandiose title
Click to expand...
Ouch.

Yes, I’ve heard that of Charlie. But one must recall that the title, as currently carried by the Monarch, is a Parliamentary one.

GKC
 
GKC said:
Ouch.

Yes, I’ve heard that of Charlie. But one must recall that the title, as currently carried by the Monarch, is a Parliamentary one.

GKC
Click to expand...
There are those of us who think that it’s really just a bauble, and that the key issue is that he’s anointed in the Abbey, which quasi-sacrament marks God’s blessing upon his reigning as a Christian King. 🙂
 
MattofTexas said:
The worldwide Anglican Communion (of which the CoE is a part and over which the Archbishop of Canterbury presides) identifies itself as being part of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church (along with Catholics, the Orthodox, ect.) by virtue of their historical establishment by valid bishops and traditional communion with Rome up to Henry VIII. In the Anglican Church King Charles is actually the last canonized saint because of his refusal to abolish the episcopate, even to save his own life, as the Puritans wanted because in their theology to do so would have destroyed their tie to and membership in the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. The Catholic Church does not reciprocate the Anglican Communion’s view of themselves.
Click to expand...
I was taught that this is due to the fact that the ordination rite was changed in the early
18th century in such a way that Rome no longer considers their orders to be valid. Prior to that they were.

Once again, my apologies for my hot-headedness before. It’s a very raw nerve.
 
getysbg said:
I was taught that this is due to the fact that the ordination rite was changed in the early
18th century in such a way that Rome no longer considers their orders to be valid. Prior to that they were.

Once again, my apologies for my hot-headedness before. It’s a very raw nerve.
Click to expand...
You are correct. The RCC does not recognize Anglican orders as valid. But the issue (as described in Apostolicae Curae, over Leo XIII’s signature/1896), related to an intertwined issue of the form of the ordination rite, in the Edwardine Ordinal, and a judgement of the supposed sacramental intent in the use of that form. It is not clear exactly when the loss of orders occurred, due to this supposed problem, but 1559, and the consecration of ++Parker as the Archbishop of Canterbury, is the usual guess. That is, it wasn’t in the 18th century. It’s a complicated subject.

Anglicans have a different view of the matter (and form and intent).

GKC
 
Novocastrian said:
There are those of us who think that it’s really just a bauble, and that the key issue is that he’s anointed in the Abbey, which quasi-sacrament marks God’s blessing upon his reigning as a Christian King. 🙂
Click to expand...
Oh, of course it’s a bauble. But it’s a Parliamentarian bauble. Geegaw, that is.

GKC
 
This is why I always write “catholics” and “protestants” – I mean, always except when I mean “members of the Roman Communion” in which case I’d write “Catholics”.
 
Peter_J said:
This is why I always write “catholics” and “protestants” – I mean, always except when I mean “members of the Roman Communion” in which case I’d write “Catholics”.
Click to expand...
And I always write Catholics.

GKC
 
Contarini said:
The ordination of women is almost the only substantive reason to be Anglican rather than Catholic, in my opinion. Catholics have so far failed miserably in giving a theological rationale for the male-only priesthood. I don’t want this to take over the thread, and I’ve participated in threads on this over and over again. If you want me to explain, I can find an old thread or start a new one. But conservative Catholics assume so casually that this must be a point in their favor.

Edwin
Click to expand...
Agree. The argument against women’s ordination is shallow even among Lutherans who claim the Augsburg Confession forbids female priests when it does not explicitly.
 
GKC said:
And I always write Catholics.

GKC
Click to expand...
Using “Catholics” to mean “catholics” would work in-and-of-itself. But the problem is that then, to distinguish, one would have to start calling us “Members of the Roman Communion” (which is unwieldy) or “MOTRC” (which sounds evil, what with all the Middle Earth movies).
 
Peter_J said:
Using “Catholics” to mean “catholics” would work in-and-of-itself. But the problem is that then, to distinguish, one would have to start calling us “Member of the Roman Communion” (which is unwieldy) or “MOTRC” (which sounds evil, what with all the Middle Earth movies).
Click to expand...
I usually make the distinction of Catholic in Communion with Rome. Works for me. CICRome. Reminds of my military career.

GKC
 
GKC said:
You are correct. The RCC does not recognize Anglican orders as valid. But the issue (as described in Apostolicae Curae, over Leo XIII’s signature/1896), related to an intertwined issue of the form of the ordination rite, in the Edwardine Ordinal, and a judgement of the supposed sacramental intent in the use of that form. It is not clear exactly when the loss of orders occurred, due to this supposed problem, but 1559, and the consecration of ++Parker as the Archbishop of Canterbury, is the usual guess. That is, it wasn’t in the 18th century. It’s a complicated subject.

Anglicans have a different view of the matter (and form and intent).

GKC
Click to expand...
I guess, then, there is no GKC’s Ecclesiastical Bedtime Stories version in the works? (Just in case you are writing one, could you add a unicorn, gryphon and talking horse along with the geegaws and sparklies?)
 
AbideWithMe said:
I guess, then, there is no GKC’s Ecclesiastical Bedtime Stories version in the works? (Just in case you are writing one, could you add a unicorn, gryphon and talking horse along with the geegaws and sparklies?)
Click to expand...
No, no works in the works. Though you are not the first to ask.

I might, possibly, be able to add a lion and a unicorn, if I did one, I guess. It’s been done before.

GKC
 
Regarding the issue of the word “catholic” even the Roman Catholic church acknowledges that Lutherans confess the “one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church” [see below] so I would think that Anglicans would also fall in the same category.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top