i’m sorry but what you are referring to is not Anglicanism but Catholicism at work–the Light of Catholicism dispelling the Darkness of Anglicanism. They came home to Rome because finally they were fully enlightened by Catholicism…Anyone who studied (and who lived through) the Tractarian movement and the post-Tractarian recovery of Catholic roots in Anglicanism would have a great deal of respect for Anglicanism.
Let it be noted that the roster of converts coming to Rome today from Anglicanism includes some of the finest, best educated, most pastorally astute and grace-filled souls in the Christian world.
It would be an offense to the grace of God to disrespect the tradition in which they matured as sons and daughters of Our Lord.
Amongst orthodox Anglo-Catholics it’s not uncommon. And often other Primates get mentioned, too.GKC,
Is this normally done the part about praying for Roman Catholic Popes by name? This is not something that I have experienced in the Episcopal Church. We do pray for church leaders but not the Pope by name each week.
Thanks for the insight!
God Bless!
No, it was translated from the Greek and Hebrew with a lot of reference to previous translations.When the King James Version of the Bible was translated in was translated from the latin vulgate and not from calivin or john knox.
No, that is not what it means. “Anglicanus” means “English.”The wors Angilcan comes from the LATIN ANGLIZE or to make catholic
But with the fullest respect to the Holy Spirit and for the Catholic Church, many Anglicans start out in a place where the Catholic Church is simply UNTHINKABLE. There is no need to be ungenerous. That Anglicans can come through the “catholicizing” process in stages that allows them to grow into their catholicism rather than being broken on it speaks to the grace of God working in this tradition through these people.i’m sorry but what you are referring to is not Anglicanism but Catholicism at work–the Light of Catholicism dispelling the Darkness of Anglicanism. They came home to Rome because finally they were fully enlightened by Catholicism…
In my Episcopal parish we prayed explicitly for “the Bishop of Rome” – but not by name.Amongst orthodox Anglo-Catholics it’s not uncommon. And often other Primates get mentioned, too.
I don’t mean that it happens at each Mass, just that it is a very common thing.
GKC
Always by name, for us. Sometimes Bartholomew, too.In my Episcopal parish we prayed explicitly for “the Bishop of Rome” – but not by name.
So we were consistent. We prayed for “The Bishop of Rome and the Ecumenical Patriarch”.Always by name, for us. Sometimes Bartholomew, too.
GKC
Yep.So we were consistent. We prayed for “The Bishop of Rome and the Ecumenical Patriarch”.
You’re absolutely right. I didn’t mean to make a demand for a command performance, or enlist you in this particular side-discussion. You have a remarkable and enviable ability to remain above the fray and retain a good measure of equanimity in the process–I didn’t mean to suggest you compromise it. (Some of us who have hotter heads–and therefore less wisdom!–would gain by emulating your reserve.)“Re: the reasons for Henry’s split, others who are more knowledgeable than I can disabuse you of your mistaken assertion far more thoroughly than I can.”
I could explicate the history, sure, it’s a hobby of mine. But I’m not sure of the utility of doing so.
GKC
In good conscience? how good is that? is your rejection of papal supremacy and universal jurisdiction Biblical enough? where can you find in the Gospels that Christ gave the command “Feed my Sheep” three times other than to Peter? Where can you find in the Gospels that He prayed for other apostles (aside from Peter) that their faith may not fail? Who decided the issue tackled in the Council of Jerusalem despite the fact that James was the presider? Clearly, Peter was the head of the apostles appointed by Christ not by the council of apostles. Patristic writings–Eastern and Western–are abundantly supportive of Petrine ministry of supremacy and universal jurisdiction not just held by Peter himself but that it was and is meant to be perpetuated to be exercised by his successors.…I could not, in good conscience, submit to the Bishop of Rome, believing as I do that he is primus inter pares rather than Supreme Pontiff and that the latter represents an unfortunate error born of political exigency.
Swimming the Bosphorous, however, may be an option.
Under the Mercy,
Mark
Deo Gratias!
Hi Chris,I’ve noticed you consistently refer to “Rome” and “Roman” when referring to the Catholic Church. What do you make of the numerous Eastern Catholic Churches in full communion with Rome?
Aw, shucks. I wasn’t really trying to weasel out of it. I got a small library of my Horny Hank and his annulment stuff on file. I’ll C&P, if there is a request.Grace & Peace!
You’re absolutely right. I didn’t mean to make a demand for a command performance, or enlist you in this particular side-discussion. You have a remarkable and enviable ability to remain above the fray and retain a good measure of equanimity in the process–I didn’t meant to suggest you compromise it. (Some of us who have hotter heads–and therefore less wisdom!–would gain by emulating your reserve.)
Under the Mercy,
Mark
Deo Gratias!
Being an Anglican does not necessarily mean being devoted to Anglicanism. Of course, being English you are an Anglican. What led you to full Catholicism are the kernels of Catholicism still intact in Anglicanism. Every group professing faith in Jesus and his message of universal salvation shares in Catholicism with the organic Catholic Church. Those Catholic elements present in any Christian group make it a member (though imperfect) of Christ’s Mystical Body subsisting in the organic Catholic Church.But with the fullest respect to the Holy Spirit and for the Catholic Church, many Anglicans start out in a place where the Catholic Church is simply UNTHINKABLE. There is no need to be ungenerous. That Anglicans can come through the “catholicizing” process in stages that allows them to grow into their catholicism rather than being broken on it speaks to the grace of God working in this tradition through these people.
As a former Anglican, I am painfully aware of the shortcomings of Anglicanism. But I will never deny that it was as an Anglican that I came to know Jesus Christ AND His Catholic Church.
God knows and will judge how good it is. Lord have mercy!In good conscience? how good is that?
I think the Orthodox churches would disagree with that last statement. Your Biblical examples as well as the patristic writings confirm one thing–papal primacy. Supremacy and Infallibility are subsequent and sad developments of the primacy (which primacy I accept and in which I believe).is your rejection of papal supremacy and universal jurisdiction Biblical enough? …Patristic writings–Eastern and Western–are abundantly supportive of Petrine ministry of supremacy and universal jurisdiction not just held by Peter himself but that it was and is meant to be perpetuated to be exercised by his successors.
The question of Newman is a difficult one in this context. If I recall correctly, he disagreed with the pronouncements of Vatican I on infallibility, discerning it would prove problematic. But being faithful to Rome, he submitted himself to the outcome of Vatican I. Given his position and his beliefs, I do not think he made a wrong choice. Given my position and beliefs, I would be making a wrong choice by going against conscience. Was the position Newman eventually held in error? I believe it was. Was he in error to hold it? No. Just as I do not believe that you are in error to hold what you believe regarding it.Are you trying to say that Newman was in error in submitting himself to Rome? Are you trying to say you are better than Newman because you can see the error of papal supremacy being of merely a political exigency?
I believe that Christ instituted the primacy of Peter and his See. I think it requires a characteristic Roman confusion between spotless Ecclesia and fallible humanity to see the supremacy, infallibility, and universal ordinary jurisdiction as divinely instituted.Why don’t you see it in this way…that Christ in his divine wisdom instituted the Petrine ministry of supremacy and universal jurisdiction because of foreseen religious and political exigencies?
Please stop. I was trained as a Priest in the Episcopal Church and came to Catholicism on the Newman Road. I have read the Catechism, thank you.Being an Anglican does not necessarily mean being devoted to Anglicanism. Of course, being English you are an Anglican. What led you to full Catholicism are the kernels of Catholicism still intact in Anglicanism. Every group professing faith in Jesus and his message of universal salvation shares in Catholicism with the organic Catholic Church. Those Catholic elements present in any Christian group make it a member (though imperfect) of Christ’s Mystical Body subsisting in the organic Catholic Church.
So you believe in Petrine primacy being instituted by Christ…although, you have different view of what does primacy means…a lip-service primacy? honorific? I don’t see any wisdom in that kind of primacy…Grace & Peace!
…I believe that Christ instituted the primacy of Peter and his See. I think it requires a characteristic Roman confusion between spotless Ecclesia and fallible humanity to see the supremacy, infallibility, and universal ordinary jurisdiction as divinely instituted.
Under the Mercy,
Mark
Deo Gratias
Well, we are just exercising our brains, our memory. In doing so, we grow academically and in our appreciation of Christian truths and, hopefully, in understanding each other as brothers and sisters. As long as we open the communication line among ourselves, there is no stumbling block to perfect unity. Many times disagreeing is the key to aggreeing…Please stop. I was trained as a Priest in the Episcopal Church and came to Catholicism on the Newman Road. I have read the Catechism, thank you.
My thoughts are NOT challenged. The point is that you are swaggering among people (not myself because I’m already on your side of the Tiber) who know perfectly well where they are on the spectrum and badgering will not help them in any way.Well, we are just exercising our brains, our memory. I was also trained as a Franciscan religious. I am more a fan of Duns Scotus, the Subtle Doctor, than of Thomas, the Angelic Doctor; although I studied in a University named after him. Also, I am a fan of Thomases Beckett and Moore and Newman.
I never thought in this forum that some are so sensitive to show off their formal scholarship when they feel their thoughts are challenged.
Why then do you have to say, “I am trained as a priest…I read the Catechism…”?My thoughts are NOT challenged. The point is that you are swaggering among people (not myself because I’m already on your side of the Tiber) who know perfectly well where they are on the spectrum and badgering will not help them in any way.