Pope gets radical and woos the Anglicans

  • Thread starter Thread starter universalindult
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
GKC said:
You’re right. It would. But all you asked was to be corrected, if wrong.

The Archbishop of Canterbury is the Primate of the Church of England, and in that post gets listened to about as much as any Anglican Primate; that is, occasionally. Anglicanism is much more built around the diocese level than the national church level, but Canterbury’s status as symbolic head of the official Anglican Communion does give him a little extra clout.

The British monarch, by the Act of Supremacy of 1559 is offically the Supreme Governor of both the Church of England and the British state. So she is* ipso facto *an Anglican. I have no reason to believe she does not adhere to the CoE, personally, not being privy to her private convictions. But she certainly acts like an Anglican. Why would you think otherwise?

GKC
Click to expand...
I’m confused. I lived in London, surrounded all over by Anglicans. Now you’re telling me it’s really the Church of England? Where’s Malcolm to straighten this out for us? 🙂

But the more important question is whether the queen along with the Arch of Canterbury and Tony Blair will now be members of the Catholic Church? If not, is there the smoke of Anglican schism in the air? I certainly smell trouble.
 
zagjames said:
There is also the Anglican Use of the Roman Rite. It is based around the Book of Divine Worship (a, orthodox Catholic version of the Book of Commen Prayers). Their priests can be married if they were when the converted, no new priests can marry.

The Anglican Use is a form of the Roman Rite so it will never be a sui juris(spelling) church. The Anglican Use is basically the Roman Mass as it was celebrated in England before the Reformation. It is the Mass that St. Thomas More knew (only translated into Elizabethian English). It is celebrated ad orientem, and is very solemn from what I have heard. I think they can stand on their own against modernests. (Actually for people who want the Mass in English I think they should use the Anglican Use instead of the NO, the Mass is more orthodox but in the vernacular!)
Click to expand...
If you read the Consecration I don’t see that much difference between the NO and the Anglican Use.
“Take this, all of you, and eat it: This is my Body which will be given up for you.”
Click to expand...
The priest shows the consecrated Host to the people, places it on the paten, and genuflects in adoration.
Click to expand...
Likewise, after supper, taking also this goodly chalice into his holy and venerable hands, again giving thanks to thee, he blessed, and gave it to his disciples saying:
Click to expand...
“Take this, all of you, and drink from it: This is the cup of my Blood, the Blood of the new and everlasting covenant. It will be shed for you and for all so that sins may be forgiven. Do this in memory of me.”
Click to expand...
liturgies.net/Liturgies/Catholic/RCCAnglicanUse.htm
 
SemperFidelis said:
No one. Hardly anyone pays attention to the Archbishop of Canterbury, and I doubt the Queen is even really Anglican. Someone feel free to correct me if I’m wrong on the last part though.
Click to expand...
Actually I’ve heard that Her Majesty is quite Anglican and quite “low” at that. I remember reading something to the tune of an Anglican minister who asked whether he could wear a chasuble and she said something to him to the tune of “you may indeed wear a chasuble but not in my presence”
 
BobP123 said:
I’m confused. I lived in London, surrounded all over by Anglicans. Now you’re telling me it’s really the Church of England? Where’s Malcolm to straighten this out for us? 🙂

But the more important question is whether the queen along with the Arch of Canterbury and Tony Blair will now be members of the Catholic Church? If not, is there the smoke of Anglican schism in the air? I certainly smell trouble.
Click to expand...
The Anglican Church referred to in the article is nto the Church fo England, the Epsicopal church (formerly the Protestant Episcopal Chruch of the USA) , the Episcopal Church of Scotland or any parts of that communion.

Rather, it is the TAC, one of the “Continuing” churches which split with the mainstream Anglican Communion in the 1970’s over the ordination of women among other things. A lot of these churches are Anglo-Catholic in practice which makes the idea of union easier.

The Archbishop of Canterbury is Primate in the Church of England in the mainstream Anglican communion. He is not involved with the Traditional Anglican Communion. He himself though is quite Anglo-Catholic is practice though aligned with the liberal Aff-Cath wing.
 
Then it doesn’t sound like a big deal to allow TAC members to enter the Church, just like for any one else. But let’s be honest, what is this topic really about, using some backdoor tactic to attend the “TLM in the vernacular”? Is this why we’re so hot and heavy to welcome them into the Church?
 
AJV said:
The Anglican Church referred to in the article is nto the Church fo England, the Epsicopal church (formerly the Protestant Episcopal Chruch of the USA) , the Episcopal Church of Scotland or any parts of that communion.

Rather, it is the TAC, one of the “Continuing” churches which split with the mainstream Anglican Communion in the 1970’s over the ordination of women among other things. A lot of these churches are Anglo-Catholic in practice which makes the idea of union easier.

The Archbishop of Canterbury is Primate in the Church of England in the mainstream Anglican communion. He is not involved with the Traditional Anglican Communion. He himself though is quite Anglo-Catholic is practice though aligned with the liberal Aff-Cath wing.
Click to expand...
True, this. Details I didn’t know it was necessary to include.

GKC
 
BobP123 said:
Then it doesn’t sound like a big deal to allow TAC members to enter the Church, just like for any one else. But let’s be honest, what is this topic really about, using some backdoor tactic to attend the “TLM in the vernacular”? Is this why we’re so hot and heavy to welcome them into the Church?
Click to expand...
Not at all, if the heirarchy was interested in this they would do it with or without the TAC rejoining. The TLM was said in the vernacular at some Parishes from 1964 - 1970ish in the US. The Anglican Use is seems to be a pretty nice form of the Mass though.

**It is truely exciting to see 400,000 seeking to join the Catholic Church all at once! That is why we are excited. **
 
zagjames said:
The concecration is pretty similar. But supposedly it is a traslation of the Mass that was used in England just before the reformation.
Click to expand...
Which makes it illicit/invalid/whatever per Trent/Quo Primum, I would think.
 
zagjames said:
It is truely exciting to see 400,000 seeking to join the Catholic Church all at once! That is why we are excited.
Click to expand...
Depends on who they are. If they were a group headed by Attilla the Hun with an agenda, I wouldn’t want to welcome them. 😃
 
BobP123 said:
Then it doesn’t sound like a big deal to allow TAC members to enter the Church, just like for any one else. But let’s be honest, what is this topic really about, using some backdoor tactic to attend the “TLM in the vernacular”? Is this why we’re so hot and heavy to welcome them into the Church?
Click to expand...
They are seeking union with the Church, and negotiating behind closed doors. It is the duty of the church to welcome back the lost sheep, and to get them to conform to the true and proper form, Balamand agreement not withstanding.

Theologically, the TAC is anglican.

Administratively, they are not.

In praxis, they are 1930’s Anglicans, rather than modern ones.

We’re not talking mainstream here. The TAC left over disciplines that they disagreed with. Especially female ordinations, from what I’ve read. They still use the Knott missal, which is very close to the Trent, but in English.

But, if they come to union, they add to the diversity of the Church, and might even restore the one apostolic tradition that has been surpressed in both East and West: Married Bishops.
 
BobP123 said:
Which makes it illicit/invalid/whatever per Trent/Quo Primum, I would think.
Click to expand...
Unless of course a Pope declared it valid?

John Paul II issued the missal as a valid form of the Mass.

Moreover even Trents removal of Old Masses and codification of the Mass into a unified Mass for all of Europe had some exceptions. Such as the Mozarbic, Ambrosian, Dominican Uses of the Roman Rite of Mass etc.
 
zagjames said:
Moreover even Trents removal of Old Masses and codification of the Mass into a unified Mass for all of Europe had some exceptions. Such as the Mozarbic, Ambrosian, Dominican Uses of the Roman Rite of Mass etc.
Click to expand...
Well, there was this little bit about “vernacular only” that was anathemized. (Except if this existed 200 years prior per Quo Primum). But who’s picky when you insist on vernacular above matter?
 
BobP123 vernacular only was condemned because Christianity was loosing its unity. So requiring Latin was a way to bring about union. Now it is seen best to have Masses such as the Anglican Use to help transition Anglicans who want to be Catholic find a home within the Church that they feel comfertable in. This now is a way to help increase Christian Unity.

Don’t get me wrong though Bob, I love the TLM and think that the NO should have diminished use, or be celebrated completly correct. With the Priest ad orientem. The alter still removed from the Wall but it is like the the E. Catholic Alter. Incense, Latin, Chant, Polyphony, etc. I just feel that the Anglican Use is a great gift to help ease Anglicans into the Catholic Church when they convert.

I would rather have 400000 Anglicans become Catholic and celebrate a goofy TLM in english (know as the Anglican Use) then those converts celebrating horribly hetrodox NO Masses (not saying that all NO is hetrodox, just the ones rament w/ liturgical abuse). And I perfer them using the Anglican Use over staying Anglican.

Pax
 
Personally, I would much rather go to a Rite 1 (Elizabethan English) Anglican Use Liturgy than a NO. There are Catholics who don’t have a TLM close-by who go to an Anglican Use Parish rather than go to a NO, and I don’t blame them.
 
SemperFidelis said:
Personally, I would much rather go to a Rite 1 (Elizabethan English) Anglican Use Liturgy than a NO. There are Catholics who don’t have a TLM close-by who go to an Anglican Use Parish rather than go to a NO, and I don’t blame them.
Click to expand...
That’s your preference, of course. But mine is to attend something more catholic/universal, even if it’s the NO in Latin.
 
I imagine a possible stumbling block could be that the TAC will have to recognise that their Sacraments have been totally invalid these past thirty years!
40.png
Aramis:
But, if they come to union, they add to the diversity of the Church, and might even restore the one apostolic tradition that has been surpressed in both East and West: Married Bishops
Click to expand...
I highly doubt that. I think that the Married Bishops would probably need to resign or be ordained as Priests (their current Orders being invalid anyhow). The married priests would continue on, but the next generation of Anglican Use priests would need to conform to the Roman celibacy.
 
BobP123 said:
That’s your preference, of course. But mine is to attend something more catholic/universal, even if it’s the NO in Latin.
Click to expand...
Well yes, I would rather attend a NO in Latin over the Anglican Use too (provided it is ad orientum; communion on tongue, kneeling; Chant is plentiful, altar BOYS, etc.), but how many parishes in the US offer the NO in Latin, and in this way? Not many! If it came down to your run-of-the-mill NO, or an Anglican Use Mass, which is always very reverant and solemn (and is always offered in the manner above), I would pick the Anglican Use seven days a week and twice on Sunday.
 
SemperFidelis said:
Well yes, I would rather attend a NO in Latin over the Anglican Use too (provided it is ad orientum; communion on tongue, kneeling; Chant is plentiful, altar BOYS, etc.), but how many parishes in the US offer the NO in Latin, and in this way? Not many! If it came down to your run-of-the-mill NO, or an Anglican Use Mass, which is always very reverant and solemn (and is always offered in the manner above), I would pick the Anglican Use seven days a week and twice on Sunday.
Click to expand...
Would it fulfill your Sunday obligation though? Excuse my ignorance but isn’t the Anglican Church protestant and there for valid orders and thus a licit consecration absent?

Peace.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top