Hilarious Anglican satire on "Yes Prime Minister" is a bit telling!

[gurneyhalleck1]

This link to a clip from the British show “Yes Prime Minister” may be satire but boy does it show what the Church of England’s troubles are!! LOL

youtube.com/watch?v=PwkI6PZhm4A

I just cracked up at this!!

This one was great, too!

youtube.com/watch?v=nBtDIVfhh8k&feature=related

They’re both really short but tell a lot about the Anglican situation in England! lol

 

[jenkiedad]

Yes, I agree. The video clips are very funny.

I am not that connected to what is going on in the UK, but where Church and State are “joined at the hip”, social politics can easily come into play.

Although the US Episcopal Church has veered a bit off track, it is interesting to note the counter movement coming from the World Anglican Movement attempting to steer the Episcopals back on track.

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

I remember that episode. Later in it, his Principal Secretary tells PM Hacker, who compared the process to shuffling cards, that, where the church (of England) is concerned, the cards tend to be “either a knave or a queen.”

Now that the Empire is a thing of the past, and the Monarch has no real power and waning influence, it is becoming clear how important Royal patronage was to the Church of England, and initially, the global Anglican Communion. It’s one thing to boast of “diversity,” but something else to lack something that holds a structure together.

I’m personally very glad the Holy Father approves episcopal appointments in the Church. Can you imagine a politician having the final say?

Blessings,

Gerry

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I remember that episode. Later in it, his Principal Secretary tells PM Hacker, who compared the process to shuffling cards, that, where the church (of England) is concerned, the cards tend to be “either a knave or a queen.”

Now that the Empire is a thing of the past, and the Monarch has no real power and waning influence, it is becoming clear how important Royal patronage was to the Church of England, and initially, the global Anglican Communion. It’s one thing to boast of “diversity,” but something else to lack something that holds a structure together.

I’m personally very glad the Holy Father approves episcopal appointments in the Church. Can you imagine a politician having the final say?

Blessings,

Gerry

Oh heaven forbid, no! Can you imagine Obama or Biden choosing bishops? That would be a carnival! Politics and religion are a scary mix!

 

[Ghoti]

I think Anglicanism is going to become very odd if a Catholic is ever elected PM.

The Supreme Governor of the C of E (i.e. the Monarch) cannot be a Catholic – in fact, no matter how far down the list you are, if you convert to or marry a Catholic, you are excluded from the succession. You can be anything else you want, even atheist I imagine, but just not Catholic.

OTOH, a Catholic PM can choose the next Abp of Canterbury.

Side note: There was some talk here in Canada a while back of removing the Queen as head of state, since the exclusion of Catholics from the succession was deemed to be at odds with the spirit behind the Cdn Charter of Rights. I think (oddly enough) that the NDP brought that one up. Politics does make for strange bedfellows.

 

[4Squarebaby]

I remember that episode. Later in it, his Principal Secretary tells PM Hacker, who compared the process to shuffling cards, that, where the church (of England) is concerned, the cards tend to be “either a knave or a queen.”

Now that the Empire is a thing of the past, and the Monarch has no real power and waning influence, it is becoming clear how important Royal patronage was to the Church of England, and initially, the global Anglican Communion. It’s one thing to boast of “diversity,” but something else to lack something that holds a structure together.

I’m personally very glad the Holy Father approves episcopal appointments in the Church. Can you imagine a politician having the final say?

Blessings,

Gerry

What is the status of the Church in China now?

 

[Hesychios]

What is the status of the Church in China now?

No change.

The Chinese Catholic Patriotic Association still names the bishops after over fifty years.

The British model is really the same situation the Latin church was in over most of Europe before the various concordats were signed between the Papacy and the governments.

Both models are wrong. In the early church the local synods elected their bishops, which is actually closer to what is now done in China, ironically.

 

[GKC]

No change.

The Chinese Catholic Patriotic Association still names the bishops after over fifty years.

The British model is really the same situation the Latin church was in over most of Europe before the various concordats were signed between the Papacy and the governments.

Both models are wrong. In the early church the local synods elected their bishops, which is actually closer to what is now done in China, ironically.

And, ironically, what is done in most of the Anglican world.

GKC

 

[Hesychios]

And, ironically, what is done in most of the Anglican world.

GKC

And Holy Orthodoxy.

There is a difference though, in that Orthodoxy (and presumably the Chinese Catholic church) conformity with what has preceded is paramount. It is like a conservativeness built in. For instance in the CCPA the Mass was still served Ad Orientam, and in Latin, for decades after the Mass changed everywhere else. It may still be that way, I will find out later this year. That is the nature of church synod when left to itself and it values conformity to the past in practices and belief… it conforms to the pattern it inherited (unless a powerful outside force intervenes as in Britain, in which case the church is not really left to itself).

It has to want to conform to it’s predecessor, much as the Chinese bishops who will not depart from the faith and practices left with them. These are the ties that bind for a church like that.

Anglicanism seems to have emphasized individual interpretation very early, perhaps in the Elizabethan compromise. Once the “I’m OK, You’re OK” has been accepted the camel’s nose is under the tent, it can lead to further breakdowns.

This has permitted the various Anglican Provinces to adopt individual standards which can affect the entire communion later. I believe it was the Hong Kong church that first ordained women? Once the precedent was set the concept spread. The first Province to ordain women did not really care that this was not a traditional practice, and was not done anywhere else, they lost that sense of priority.

It is not the lack of a Pope which caused this (as shown by how well Orthodoxy has remained constant) but the adoption of a new ideal of self-determination which supplanted the older one of theological/practical conformity with the Fathers/predecessors and Communion.

It seems that the GAFCON coalition (I don’t know what to call it) is trying to strengthen the concept of a covenant of conformity between churches now, but this is after several centuries of development. I don’t know if it will work, and I have concerns that the evangelical faction, now very strong, has departed too much from the historic church theologically, perhaps too Augustine-Geneva.

Anyway, that’s the impression I get from outside.

 

[GKC]

And Holy Orthodoxy.

There is a difference though, in that Orthodoxy (and presumably the Chinese Catholic church) conformity with what has preceded is paramount. It is like a conservativeness built in. For instance in the CCPA the Mass was still served Ad Orientam, and in Latin, for decades after the Mass changed everywhere else. It may still be that way, I will find out later this year. That is the nature of church synod when left to itself and it values conformity to the past in practices and belief… it conforms to the pattern it inherited (unless a powerful outside force intervenes as in Britain, in which case the church is not really left to itself).

It has to want to conform to it’s predecessor, much as the Chinese bishops who will not depart from the faith and practices left with them. These are the ties that bind for a church like that.

Anglicanism seems to have emphasized individual interpretation very early, perhaps in the Elizabethan compromise. Once the “I’m OK, You’re OK” has been accepted the camel’s nose is under the tent, it can lead to further breakdowns.

This has permitted the various Anglican Provinces to adopt individual standards which can affect the entire communion later. I believe it was the Hong Kong church that first ordained women? Once the precedent was set the concept spread. The first Province to ordain women did not really care that this was not a traditional practice, and was not done anywhere else, they lost that sense of priority.

It is not the lack of a Pope which caused this (as shown by how well Orthodoxy has remained constant) but the adoption of a new ideal of self-determination which supplanted the older one of theological/practical conformity with the Fathers/predecessors and Communion.

It seems that the GAFCON coalition (I don’t know what to call it) is trying to strengthen the concept of a covenant of conformity between churches now, but this is after several centuries of development. I don’t know if it will work, and I have concerns that the evangelical faction, now very strong, has departed too much from the historic church theologically, perhaps too Augustine-Geneva.

Anyway, that’s the impression I get from outside.

It wasn’t so much that Anglicanism emphasized individual interpretation, it couldn’t keep it out, after Henry’s heavy hand was off the wheel. The compromise was a form of moderating the differences and keeping the fractious Elizabethan Church under control.

The ordination of a female in the Hong Kong Church was an artifact of WWII. She didn’t function as a priest for long, IIRC. It was the US that broke the barrier in a serious way, 40 years later.

Otherwise, I share your concerns.

GKC

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

No Bishop is consecrated in the Catholic Church without the consent of the Holy Father, full stop. Even where selections are made by some ecclesial body, as frequently happens in the Eastern Catholic communities, the Holy Father must approve the selection. To proceed with consecration without that approval is an overt act of schism, bringing about excommunication to all involved.

No consent or vote or approval process or selection process can either replace or override this needed approval.

Blessings,

Gerry

 

[Hesychios]

No Bishop is consecrated in the Catholic Church without the consent of the Holy Father, full stop.

Yet it has not always been so, the practice has only been widespread for possibly 300 years (not sure about that, maybe less or more).

Even where selections are made by some ecclesial body, as frequently happens in the Eastern Catholic communities, the Holy Father must approve the selection.

I am inclined to disagree, but I can’t say I know that you are definitely wrong. Perhaps the bishop of Rome reserves this power to himself but does not currently insist upon it in the Patriarchal churches. However I feel pretty sure some EC’s will consider it is not an inherent right of the Pope.

The one church I know for sure that what you state is correct is the Byzantine-Ruthenian church, because they have no “home territory” and no Patriarch, so the Pope controls it as if it were the Latin church: separately but equally so.

It might be a good question for the Eastern Catholic section of CAF.

To proceed with consecration without that approval is an overt act of schism, bringing about excommunication to all involved.

Perhaps now, in the Latin church this is an act of schism, but it was the normal method of operation of the Catholic church for many centuries, most of Christian history.

No consent or vote or approval process or selection process can either replace or override this needed approval.

Blessings,

Gerry

Yet it happens all the time. There are “valid but illicit” bishops all over the world because your church recognizes their consecrations are real (not my church, your church says these bishops are real).

In other words (according to the theory your own church subscribes to), the Holy Spirit comes down upon these men and they are bishops. Even the Pope cannot stop the Holy Spirit, so if it is an act of schism it is with the consent of God.

And within your church: Cardinal Lubomyr Husar (now Major-Metropolitan of the UGCC) was made a bishop by Cardinal Slipyj in secret without the permission or knowledge of the Pope (but apparently OK with the Holy Ghost ). This was not in some Gulag, but in Italy after the Soviet Union let Cardinal Slipyj out.

Neither man was punished for this apparent “act of schism” as you call it. On the contrary they functioned freely. It is popularly held that when Metropolitan Husar was given the Cardinal’s ring, he slipped it into his pocket, and still does not wear it.

The most important point I should iterate is that this claim that only the Metropolitan of Rome can designate new bishops is a recent invention. It does not stand the test of Christian history.