Jesuits ...

[Picky_Picky]

Thanks Picky but sorry. From a Catholic brought up on tomes of canons, injunctions, rubrics, rite books and 1000’s of Catechism questions: Is that all?

Doesn’t seem to answer the question though. It is just so general that anyone can be in the list. Maybe that comes from being in a broad church. Everyone is happy and has a reason for being in.

But leaving out my point of respect for the person, someone like Ignatius and Newman could not have been canonised in the Catholic Church. I mean if they are on the other side. This is because the assessor would have looked for not just the positive bits of the person but also the negative bits.

Catholics would also look at what the person could have written against the Church and anything the Church disagree with. Which is why Origen is not a saint and Newman’s process is taking so long. The risk is that we venerate a person wholly and it is going to be difficult to differentiate a person’s negative bits from the positive. People could end up as taking following the unintended part of the role model, which is what I presume an Anglican Communion saint is meant to be.

So, does this mean the Anglican Communion only look at good stuff and ignore the negative stuff? So, what happens if someone then say in following the example of Ignatius and More, declare Welby invalid as Archbishop of Canterbury?

Perhaps we should recognise that this is an area where the practices of one church seem bizarre to the other, and leave it at that. I think Anglicans would think it odd to require evidence of miracles attributed to, say, Mrs General Booth before her remarkable work and life could be commemorated.

The key point, perhaps, is that including someone in the calendar implies different things in the two churches. Including someone in the CofE calendar does not imply knowledge that the commemorated person is in glory. To be able to be satisfied that such is true one would, no doubt, require something of the long legalistic process the RCC employs. To be able to be satisfied that a person was a hero of the Church, and worth commemorating, doesn’t need quite the same bureaucratic overhead.

 

[Picky_Picky]

Thanks Picky but sorry. From a Catholic brought up on tomes of canons, injunctions, rubrics, rite books and 1000’s of Catechism questions: Is that all?

Doesn’t seem to answer the question though. It is just so general that anyone can be in the list. Maybe that comes from being in a broad church. Everyone is happy and has a reason for being in.

But leaving out my point of respect for the person, someone like Ignatius and Newman could not have been canonised in the Catholic Church. I mean if they are on the other side. This is because the assessor would have looked for not just the positive bits of the person but also the negative bits.

Catholics would also look at what the person could have written against the Church and anything the Church disagree with. Which is why Origen is not a saint and Newman’s process is taking so long. The risk is that we venerate a person wholly and it is going to be difficult to differentiate a person’s negative bits from the positive. People could end up as taking following the unintended part of the role model, which is what I presume an Anglican Communion saint is meant to be.

So, does this mean the Anglican Communion only look at good stuff and ignore the negative stuff? So, what happens if someone then say in following the example of Ignatius and More, declare Welby invalid as Archbishop of Canterbury?

I should perhaps have added that Lambeth Conference resolutions cannot bind individual churches of the Communion: the churches are autocephalous, and make their own choices. That means each church could employ the most complicated procedures possible if it wished in adding to its calendar – even so complicated as to satisfy your requirements!

Secondly, the word “venerate” doesn’t quite fit the bill here. Commemorate is better. Which brings me to the point that these people are not being named as “Anglican Communion saints”, as you call them – Anglicans don’t claim the right to name saints. They are Christians who have days appointed for their commemoration.

Lastly the idea that naming someone for commemoration carries the risk that they will be"venerated wholly" is one that might occur more naturally to a Catholic than to an Anglican, used as Anglicans are to the concept that people, as well as history, are always complicated.

As to Mr Welby, declare him an invalid archbishop by all means. But since he was chosen by the Commission, recommended by the Prime Minister, nominated by the Queen, elected by the Canons, mandated and installed and enthroned at his cathedral, 'twould make little difference.

 

[GKC]

I should perhaps have added that Lambeth Conference resolutions cannot bind individual churches of the Communion: the churches are autocephalous, and make their own choices. That means each church could employ the most complicated procedures possible if it wished in adding to its calendar – even so complicated as to satisfy your requirements!

Secondly, the word “venerate” doesn’t quite fit the bill here. Commemorate is better. Which brings me to the point that these people are not being named as “Anglican Communion saints”, as you call them – Anglicans don’t claim the right to name saints. They are Christians who have days appointed for their commemoration.

Lastly the idea that naming someone for commemoration carries the risk that they will be"venerated wholly" is one that might occur more naturally to a Catholic than to an Anglican, used as Anglicans are to the concept that people, as well as history, are always complicated.

As to Mr Welby, declare him an invalid archbishop by all means. But since he was chosen by the Commission, recommended by the Prime Minister, nominated by the Queen, elected by the Canons, mandated and installed and enthroned at his cathedral, 'twould make little difference.

I do like this man.

Autocephalous. A word heard before here. And also, in close environs, recently.

 

[Picky_Picky]

Well, why should the Orthodox have all the good words?

 

[Padres1969]

Well, why should the Orthodox have all the good words?

It’s a good word no doubt, but is it really applicable in the case you’re referring to? Autocephaly is when a bishop reports to no higher bishop. I mean you can argue that the various Anglican Churches themselves are autocephalous. But as to the parishes?

 

[Picky_Picky]

It’s a good word no doubt, but is it really applicable in the case you’re referring to? Autocephaly is when a bishop reports to no higher bishop. I mean you can argue that the various Anglican Churches themselves are autocephalous. But as to the parishes?

Oh goodness, not individual parishes. I was referring to the different churches of the Communion.

 

[Padres1969]

Oh goodness, not individual parishes. I was referring to the different churches of the Communion.

Oh, well yes in that case autocephalous is a perfect word to be using. Surprised we hadn’t co-opted it sooner.

 

[GKC]

Oh, well yes in that case autocephalous is a perfect word to be using. Surprised we hadn’t co-opted it sooner.

Which is why I use it, to explain both the Communion and the Continuum. As noted.

 

[jimkhong]

Perhaps we should recognise that this is an area where the practices of one church seem bizarre to the other, and leave it at that. I think Anglicans would think it odd to require evidence of miracles attributed to, say, Mrs General Booth before her remarkable work and life could be commemorated.

I very much agree with you. We seem to have very different starting points and probably different objectives in mind.

Sorry to all Anglicans if I have been a little aggressive in my questioning. Just wanted to understand the basis that is different from mine. Not trying to starting an argument. By no means am I saying that Welby is invalid - just raising the hypothetical situation where an Anglican taking on the example of Ignatius would do so. I do agree that the cost of reducing such a risk would be a high level of bureaucratic process. So, I guess it is question which is more important - reducing the risk of misunderstanding or reducing the bureaucracy.

 

[commenter]

In terms of why Protestants tended to be somewhat suspicious of the Jesuits, it probably is because of the size of the order, and its high profile. They and we all tend to forget the origins, in a man who loved Jesus and attracted other men who did likewise. Ignatius’ Spiritual Exercises changed the history of Christianity, Catholic and Protestant. Far ahead of its time, it balanced the spiritual and psychological, the scriptural and social, prayer and intellect, in a practical format anyone can benefit from.

If you’ve gone through a Catholic or Protestant renewal program, you have been influenced by Ignatius. The idea was that every person is one way or another in his daily life promoting the standard of Christ, or of Satan. The role of the Exercises is to make explicit to the person just how important his daily choices are in the long scheme of things.

There were religious founded colleges prior to Ignatius, but I think the Jesuit colleges were among the first to combine commitment to Christian doctrine with simultaneous commitment to encounter the best of contemporary secular learning. The principle of engaging the secular culture, guided by a changed heart and informed mind, is something Catholics and non Catholics can value today.

To adequately appreciate this, and other things Catholic, it is necessary to see past the mud of imperfect human beings. Like me.

 

[Padres1969]

In terms of why Protestants tended to be somewhat suspicious of the Jesuits, it probably is because of the size of the order, and its high profile. They and we all tend to forget the origins, in a man who loved Jesus and attracted other men who did likewise. Ignatius’ Spiritual Exercises changed the history of Christianity, Catholic and Protestant. Far ahead of its time, it balanced the spiritual and psychological, the scriptural and social, prayer and intellect, in a practical format anyone can benefit from.

If you’ve gone through a Catholic or Protestant renewal program, you have been influenced by Ignatius. The idea was that every person is one way or another in his daily life promoting the standard of Christ, or of Satan. The role of the Exercises is to make explicit to the person just how important his daily choices are in the long scheme of things.

**There were religious founded colleges prior to Ignatius, but I think the Jesuit colleges were among the first to combine commitment to Christian doctrine with simultaneous commitment to encounter the best of contemporary secular learning. The principle of engaging the secular culture, guided by a changed heart and informed mind, is something Catholics and non Catholics can value today. **

To adequately appreciate this, and other things Catholic, it is necessary to see past the mud of imperfect human beings. Like me.

If only that were what Jesuit colleges still taught…

Having attended Jesuit high school and college (as well as my siblings attending Jesuit colleges) I can attest that Christian doctrine, particularly at the college level, takes a back seat to encountering secular learning. In fact the Christian doctrine aspect of the universities is largely non-existent anymore unless a student elects to take a Christian focused religion class (which is not a requirement, rather simply taking a religion class or two is required with no emphasis on which religion).

 

[commenter]

If only that were what Jesuit colleges still taught…

Having attended Jesuit high school and college (as well as my siblings attending Jesuit colleges) I can attest that Christian doctrine, particularly at the college level, takes a back seat to encountering secular learning. In fact the Christian doctrine aspect of the universities is largely non-existent anymore unless a student elects to take a Christian focused religion class (which is not a requirement, rather simply taking a religion class or two is required with no emphasis on which religion).

You are 90% correct on that, with notable exceptions. I am simply pointing out that there was a good thing there originally. Protestants are likely unaware of how much of their own good structured programs of spiritual renewal are indirectly derived from the Spiritual Exercises, and how much their own solid educational programs (secular learning combined with spiritual and intellectual grasp of the gospel) derive from the early Jesuit educators.