do anglicans make the sign of the cross?

[grampben]

We asked him to compare some of his beliefs to some of those Reformers who gave their lives… We still havent gotten a response

Cranmer, Ridley (forget the other chap’s name) were burned at the stake during the re-catholisation of England. Cranmer’s most famous work is the book of Common Prayer, in this is the 39 Articles, a document in which the views of the church were articulated. This, however, is not a confessional writing as such and so the church now has Broad Church/Liberals and High Church/Anglo-catholics.

The people killed for their Protestantism at the time of the reformation weren’t people like John Henry Newman and the Oxford movement, they were people who created and shaped the movements of the Anglican, Lutheran and Reformed traditions.

In the 39 Articles (here by the way) transubstantiation is condemned, however there is some room left for other real presence philosophies. If these reformers were as catholic as you say, why were they burned to death? Infact they show the anglican tradition that seems to have faded away sadly, of being catholic in practice (vestments, hierarchy, strict liturgy) but strongly reformed in theology. It’s sad to see this tradition go.
Anyhow, sorry to derail the thread.

 

[GKC]

Cranmer, Ridley (forget the other chap’s name) were burned at the stake during the re-catholisation of England. Cranmer’s most famous work is the book of Common Prayer, in this is the 39 Articles, a document in which the views of the church were articulated. This, however, is not a confessional writing as such and so the church now has Broad Church/Liberals and High Church/Anglo-catholics.

The people killed for their Protestantism at the time of the reformation weren’t people like John Henry Newman and the Oxford movement, they were people who created and shaped the movements of the Anglican, Lutheran and Reformed traditions.

In the 39 Articles (here by the way) transubstantiation is condemned, however there is some room left for other real presence philosophies. If these reformers were as catholic as you say, why were they burned to death? Infact they show the anglican tradition that seems to have faded away sadly, of being catholic in practice (vestments, hierarchy, strict liturgy) but strongly reformed in theology. It’s sad to see this tradition go.
Anyhow, sorry to derail the thread.

You’re thinking of Latimer.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus

 

[chris_molter]

The point of all this posturing. If you affirm what the RCC says you must affirm, you will not bother me at all. If, in doing so, it seems you don’t understand a point of Anglicanism (and Anglicanism has a whole bunch of points, that need explaining), I may comment. It’s the reason I got started on boards like this, years ago. And if you make an historical assertion that I find dubious, I’ll also comment. It’s what I do.

GKC

*Anglicanus Catholicus *

and of course, some of us affirm AC and also believe that at least SOME Anglican Priests may have valid Catholic orders. (In other words, yes, Anglican orders are null and void, but many Anglicans were validly ordained with CATHOLIC orders) After looking at the lengths to which Anglo-Catholics went through to validate their orders, and the Catholic acceptance of orders within the PNCC, etc. it’s hard not to see it that way.

A lot has happened since Pope Leo.

 

[grampben]

Sorry it wouldn’t let me edit my post, and I forgit to actually place the link to the 39 articles and information on them, here it is, from wikipedia.

And thanks GKC

 

[GKC]

and of course, some of us affirm AC and also believe that at least SOME Anglican Priests may have valid Catholic orders. (In other words, yes, Anglican orders are null and void, but many Anglicans were validly ordained with CATHOLIC orders) After looking at the lengths to which Anglo-Catholics went through to validate their orders, and the Catholic acceptance of orders within the PNCC, etc. it’s hard not to see it that way.

A lot has happened since Pope Leo.

A very lot. And a lot was going on in his day, too.

This is certainly a conciliatory post, and I don’t want to mess it up. But Anglo-Catholics did nothing in particular to “validate” their orders. The infusion of valid/illicit (as Rome would see it) episcopal lines starting in 1932, with Old Catholic/ Utrecht (back when that was a good thing), and the PNCC in 1946 originated not in any attempt to end-run Apostolicae Curae, but in an establishment of complete intercommunion between the OCs and the entire Anglican Communion,. Nobody went to be re-ordained (not a possible thing, as you know); the episcopal lines in the OCs were infused into Anglicanism, over at least the next 30+ years, where, by now, they are ubiquitous. Bringing logically (though there is no definitive RCC statement on this) valid though illicit (as you would say) orders to Anglicanism.

Which overlooks what was going on with Cardinal Vaughan, and Monsignor Merry Del Val. But is interesting enough, in itself.

I do appreciate the post.

GKC

 

[GKC]

Sorry it wouldn’t let me edit my post, and I forgit to actually place the link to the 39 articles and information on them, here it is, from wikipedia.

And thanks GKC

You are very welcome.

GKC

 

[Realcatholicgk]

A very lot. And a lot was going on in his day, too.

This is certainly a conciliatory post, and I don’t want to mess it up. But Anglo-Catholics did nothing in particular to “validate” their orders. The infusion of valid/illicit (as Rome would see it) episcopal lines starting in 1932, with Old Catholic/ Utrecht (back when that was a good thing), and the PNCC in 1946 originated not in any attempt to end-run Apostolicae Curae, but in an establishment of complete intercommunion between the OCs and the entire Anglican Communion,. Nobody went to be re-ordained (not a possible thing, as you know); the episcopal lines in the OCs were infused into Anglicanism, over at least the next 30+ years, where, by now, they are ubiquitous. Bringing logically (though there is no definitive RCC statement on this) valid though illicit (as you would say) orders to Anglicanism.

Which overlooks what was going on with Cardinal Vaughan, and Monsignor Merry Del Val. But is interesting enough, in itself.

I do appreciate the post.

**
Hi GKC,

Sometimes you make my head hurt. And I mean that in a nice way!

So here is a Joke:

A young boy had just gotten his driver’s permit and asked his father if they could discuss his use of the car. His father said he’d make a deal with his son. “You bring your grades up from a C to a B average, study your Bible a little, get your hair cut and we’ll talk about the car.”

The boy thought about that for a moment, decided he’d settle for the offer and they agreed on it. After about six weeks his father said, “Son, I’ve been real proud. You brought your grades up and I’ve observed that you have been studying your Bible, but I’m real disappointed you didn’t get your hair cut.”

The young man paused a moment then said, "You know, Dad, I’ve been thinking about that, and I’ve noticed in my studies of the Bible that Samson had long hair, John the Baptist had long hair, Moses had long hair and there’s even a strong argument that Jesus had long hair.

"To this his father replied, “Did you also notice they all walked everywhere they went?” **

 

[GKC]

Realcatholicgk:
Sometimes I make my head hurt, too.

I heard it slightly differently. In that version, it was only Christ the boy mentioned as having long hair, and the father said “Yes, and he wore a seamless garment, not blue jeans”

I think yours is better…

GKC

 

[Realcatholicgk]

Sometimes I make my head hurt, too.

I heard it slightly differently. In that version, it was only Christ the boy mentioned as having long hair, and the father said “Yes, and he wore a seamless garment, not blue jeans”

I think yours is better…

GKC

**
Hi GKC,

Of course! Mine was the Catholic version.

BTW, My first name is Rob.

I read something today that really made my “Catholic” Head hurt…Are you ready for this?

In the “The New American Bible.” called “The Saint Joseph Edition,” a Catholic version of the Bible authorized by “The Board Of trustees, of The Confraternity of Christian Doctrine.” Not unexpectly, there are many helps and footnotes to aid in Bible reading. The head hurter is one of these “helps” that is found in Genesis. It states: **

"I would like to say a parenthetical comment here though that I am surprised to see what I have been reading in this obviously Catholic version of the Bible. Catholics on this board have been very critical of Adventists and others for “writing their own Bible;” yet they feel so very free to turn around and do it themselves with The New American Bible. It has definitely been conjured up to fit Catholic specific doctrines. "

I am sure you will see the irony of that statement!, however many others might not get it. From a RC point of view! It gave me a headache ~ :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

God Bless

 

[GKC]

Realcatholicgk:
Greetings, Rob. I’m Jim.

Yeah, that’s a puzzler. Let me get this straight. In your Roman Catholic version of the NAB, there’s note (printed in there, in the St. Joseph Confraternity edition), that says those words?

No wonder I use the Confraternity-Douay edition. With footnotes. And Leo XIII’s indulgence.

What part of Genesis does that “note” refer to?

And I’m retired military, too.

GKC

*Anglicanus-Catholicus *

 

[Realcatholicgk]

Greetings, Rob. I’m Jim.

Yeah, that’s a puzzler. Let me get this straight. In your Roman Catholic version of the NAB, there’s note (printed in there, in the St. Joseph Confraternity edition), that says those words?

No wonder I use the Confraternity-Douay edition. With footnotes. And Leo XIII’s indulgence.

What part of Genesis does that “note” refer to?

And I’m retired military, too.

GKC

*Anglicanus-Catholicus *

**
Hi Jim,

I have just been told it is in several other versions of the Bible also. It isn’t "about Genesis it is written below where they write non scriptural hints, notes, etc. I will get back to you on it!

As smart as you are, , I knew you were ex Military. We understand “people” better than others who never left home. It is estamated that 95% of people on eath stay most of their lives within 50 miles of their birth place.

I have to fly to work!

Later,:takeoff:

Rob

OK I admit it I drive, but I like that smiley!

God Bless**

 

[GKC]

**
Hi Jim,

I have just been told it is in several other versions of the Bible also. It isn’t "about Genesis it is written below where they write non scriptural hints, notes, etc. I will get back to you on it!

As smart as you are, , I knew you were ex Military. We understand “people” better than others who never left home. It is estamated that 95% of people on eath stay most of their lives within 50 miles of their birth place.

I have to fly to work!

Later,:takeoff:

Rob

OK I admit it I drive, but I like that smiley!

God Bless**

Ok. I got a RC friend who is my epxert on various Bible editions and what they contain/why. Let me know. I’m gonna ask him.

 

[Ever_Seeking]

I do make the sign of the Cross before receiving the sacraments at the Eucharist, I feel it is a sign of respect as well as prayer.

To be absolutley correct our Church tradition is described as “Broad Church” (liberal) but more Anglo-Catholic in service style.

The more Catholic Anglican like myself make the sign of the Cross and the more protestant among us stand with hands cupped ready to receive.

There is no right or wrong way they just differ. I feel that as the Priest is presiding over the mass they are in the Sanctuary next to the Altar… That thin place between now and eternity. standing in the shadow of the Cross of Christ at Calvary.

Yes I know about the continual debate about “Transubstantiation” will burn forever like the Holy flame. But we are then invited to join as a Disciple at the Last Supper, both solemn and at the same time joyous!

Somehow for me as that is at the front of my mind each time I receive, simply standing waiting to take the Body and Blood of our Lord hands cupped without making the Sign of the Cross doesn’t feel right,

 

[Eutychus123]

I do make the sign of the Cross before receiving the sacraments at the Eucharist, I feel it is a sign of respect as well as prayer.

To be absolutley correct our Church tradition is described as “Broad Church” (liberal) but more Anglo-Catholic in service style.

The more Catholic Anglican like myself make the sign of the Cross and the more protestant among us stand with hands cupped ready to receive.

There is no right or wrong way they just differ. I feel that as the Priest is presiding over the mass they are in the Sanctuary next to the Altar… That thin place between now and eternity. standing in the shadow of the Cross of Christ at Calvary.

Yes I know about the continual debate about “Transubstantiation” will burn forever like the Holy flame. But we are then invited to join as a Disciple at the Last Supper, both solemn and at the same time joyous!

Somehow for me as that is at the front of my mind each time I receive, simply standing waiting to take the Body and Blood of our Lord hands cupped without making the Sign of the Cross doesn’t feel right,

Niether my wife, nor I cross ourselves.

 

[ImReallyNice]

At my church, the priest leads the congregation in the sign of the cross, by saying the mass in the name of God, the Father, Son, Holy Spirit and doing that little crossy thing that priests do.

 

[BernadetteM]

Funny you should say that! I was received into the Church by a traditional Priest in the ‘old form’ and was also married using the old liturgy.

If it wasn’t for the traditional Mass, I’d probably have gone back to a splinter Anglican group or stopped going to church altogether.

Dear Chris,

I believe that there is a cathedral called Incarnation in Orlando or very near who is going to enter the Ordinariate. When this happens it will be an Anglican Use parish with all the traditions you miss. Check it out. It is part of ACA, an Anglican group returning to Rome.

Yours in the Hearts of Jesus and Mary

Bernadette

 

[Alexander_Roman]

One Anglican Canon told me that there are three types of Anglicans/Episcopalians:

Low and Lazy

Middle and Hazy

High and Crazy

This same Canon, before his High Mass, processed around the Church, blessing everyone with Holy Water. He said that he “just likes to do that.”

He also commemorated the Pope ahead of the Archbishop of Canterbury . . . I later told him he must be really “High” but he retorted, “or really crazy - or so my bishop says about me . . .”

Would someone please bring that man into the Anglican Use before he upsets Catholic-Anglican relations further!

Alex