Saints and Heroes of the Christian Church in the Anglican Communion

[GKC]

Answering anything, with certainty, re: what Anglicans might profess, is beyond me. A certain phrase comes to mind.

But Fr. Damian is doubtless on the list, somewhere.

GKC

 

[johnpfmcguire]

Feria is Latin. Feria secunda is Latin for Monday.

 

[GKC]

Feria is Latin. Feria secunda is Latin for Monday.

Yep.

GKC

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Come on now, man. Ya gotta give me props. Most 35-year-olds don’t even know who Gary Cooper even is yet alone his famous “yup”

I could do it Down-East:

A-yup.

Two syllables.

GKC

 

[GKC]

Come on now, man. Ya gotta give me props. Most 35-year-olds don’t even know who Gary Cooper even is yet alone his famous “yup”

You got 'em.

GKC

 

[Bluegoat]

As far as I know, the AC doesn’t actually have any way to recognize saints of it’s own.

But in answer to the OP. Saints are people that we think are in Heaven, and lived a good example of a Christian life. Anglicans don’t feel such people are necessarily confined to Anglicanism - our understanding of the church is such that a Catholic can be thought to be a good example and in Heaven. That is, a saint.

Also, I don’t think saints disdain anyone, or if they do, it is a failing. Disdain is an ugly attitude.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I can find nothing I disagree with here, except for the apostrophe you put on its in the first paragraph “it is” own?

I have to give you a rough time. Keep you on your toes!

As far as I know, the AC doesn’t actually have any way to recognize saints of it’s own.

But in answer to the OP. Saints are people that we think are in Heaven, and lived a good example of a Christian life. Anglicans don’t feel such people are necessarily confined to Anglicanism - our understanding of the church is such that a Catholic can be thought to be a good example and in Heaven. That is, a saint.

Also, I don’t think saints disdain anyone, or if they do, it is a failing. Disdain is an ugly attitude.

 

[Bluegoat]

I can find nothing I disagree with here, except for the apostrophe you put on its in the first paragraph “it is” own?

I have to give you a rough time. Keep you on your toes!

How embarrassing! You have no idea how many army privates I gave the red pen for this mistake when I was teaching recruits!

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Oh my goodness, Meghan, I was just razzing you. When we are all typing, we make TONS of mistakes. I definitely do! If you edited me, you’d have your red pen all day. I was just playin’ with ya. Army privates? Were you in the military?

How embarrassing! You have no idea how many army privates I gave the red pen for this mistake when I was teaching recruits!

 

[johnpfmcguire]

I simply can’t help myself.

As far as I know, the AC doesn’t actually have any way to recognize saints of it’s own.

This may be telling since they also no longer have Apostolic Succession and therefore no Sacraments (excepting, thankfully, Baptism [always presupposing there is the disposition “to do what the Church does”]: no Eucharist without sacrifice). Or not.

But in answer to the OP. Saints are people that we think are in Heaven, and lived a good example of a Christian life. Anglicans don’t feel such people are necessarily confined to Anglicanism - our understanding of the church is such that a Catholic can be thought to be a good example and in Heaven. That is, a saint.

As Catholics we believe the Saints are in heaven.

Also, I don’t think saints disdain anyone, or if they do, it is a failing. Disdain is an ugly attitude.

Saints don’t disdain any one person, but they sure disdain heresy, schism and apostasy. In fact I’m not sure which of those three they disdain the most: it may very well depend on the individual saint! Disdain is ugly, I’ll agree. But the ugliest disdain of all is to disdain love. That’s hell, literally. Jealousy is “ugly” yet God is careful to get it in the First Commandment (and all through the Gospel) that He is jealous, demanding and thrifty. It’s like He’s saying, Take me or leave me. All or nothing. I think in this world of sin love will always have an “ugly” side. I’ll go even further: in this life to love is to suffer. In the words of Rev. John Corapi “No guts no glory, no cross no crown.” Most intriguing. This has all been terribly fascinating. God love you all.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

You’re basing this argument on Apostolicae Curae by Pope Leo XIII. As we’ve discussed at length in this very forum for years now the “Dutch Touch” and “Polish Pat” as they are colloquially called, were co-consecrations that took place between the Anglican bishops and PNCC and Old Catholic bishops in the early Twentieth Century. These co-consecrations re-infused apostolic succession into Anglican lines even if, and I don’t agree with Leo XIII anyway, Anglican lines were previously “null and utterly void” as he put it so bluntly. Bottom line is the Catholic Church hasn’t commented on Anglican orders or their validity since Apostolicae Curae because there is a heap of reasonable doubt as to whether that determination still holds up after these developments. I personally believe in the priesthood of the Anglican Communion to be valid. And my own Bishop John David Schofield has told us of a powerful Eucharistic miracle that he encountered himself thirty years ago in an Anglican Church that changed his life. He actually encountered Christ in a very powerful way. I’ve told the story on here before. It changed him and he took a vow of celibacy and has been a phenomenal bishop.

I just can’t help myself.

This may be telling since they also no longer have Apostolic Succession and therefore no Sacraments (excepting, thankfully, Baptism [always presupposing there is the disposition “to do what the Church does”]: no Eucharist without sacrifice). Or not.

As Catholics we believe the Saints are in heaven.

Saints don’t disdain any one person, but they sure disdain heresy, schism and apostasy. In fact I’m not sure which of those three they disdain the most: it may very well depend on the individual saint! Disdain is ugly, I’ll agree. Jealousy is “ugly,” yet God is careful to get it in the First Commandment (and all through the Gospel) that He is jealous, demanding and thrifty. It’s like He’s saying, Take me or leave me. All or nothing. I think in this world of sin love will always have an “ugly” side. I’ll go even further: to love is to suffer. In the words of Rev. John Corapi “No guts no glory, no cross no crown.” Most intriguing. God love you all.

 

[johnpfmcguire]

Let me make one thing clear in no uncertain terms: I’m very glad to hear that. However Pope Leo XIII’s bluntness doesn’t make him wrong. Sorry not everyone can be English, refined, indirect. There are a great many valid communions I wouldn’t touch with a nine-foot pole. Take Pius X. So it’s nothing personally against the English or against monarchy or anything like that…I just want more than they can offer me.

 

[GKC]

You’re basing this argument on Apostolicae Curae by Pope Leo XIII. As we’ve discussed at length in this very forum for years now the “Dutch Touch” and “Polish Pat” as they are colloquially called, were co-consecrations that took place between the Anglican bishops and PNCC and Old Catholic bishops in the early Twentieth Century. These co-consecrations re-infused apostolic succession into Anglican lines even if, and I don’t agree with Leo XIII anyway, Anglican lines were previously “null and utterly void” as he put it so bluntly. Bottom line is the Catholic Church hasn’t commented on Anglican orders or their validity since Apostolicae Curae because there is a heap of reasonable doubt as to whether that determination still holds up after these developments. I personally believe in the priesthood of the Anglican Communion to be valid. And my own Bishop John David Schofield has told us of a powerful Eucharistic miracle that he encountered himself thirty years ago in an Anglican Church that changed his life. He actually encountered Christ in a very powerful way. I’ve told the story on here before. It changed him and he took a vow of celibacy and has been a phenomenal bishop.

Yep. Years.

GKC

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I never implied or stated that bluntness is tantamount to being incorrect. I merely stated he was blunt. That’s all. And you’re right in that Catholics could view Anglicans as “illicit” in their Mass even if they were valid. So your ten foot pole statement makes sense from the Catholic stand point if you don’t believe in Anglican doctrine or the English Reformation or the Oxford Movement and you reject the Book of Common Prayer, etc. Makes plenty of sense. As GKC would say, you’re “affirming the particulars” of your communion, the Catholic Church. As for your English comment about refinement and indirectness, I personally am American and find Leo’s choice of words a bit overly blunt and I think the commission was hastily thrown-together. I also think the Anglican rebuttal to Apostolicae Curae, called Saepius Officio, was OUTSTANDING and really poked a lot of holes in the consistency and rationale behind A.C. and Leo’s decision. The then Archbishop of Canterbury, Frederick Temple, and the Archbishop of York, William Maclagan, wrote this incredibly charitable, warm, yet firm and intelligent, lucid rebuttal to the pope that is seriously worth reading for anyone who is intellectually honest. It pointed out the flawed logic the pope used in that the required language that the Catholic Church supposedly required in a “valid” ordination hadn’t actually been used in ancient Roman Catholic ordinations either! To add to that point, the Orthodox hadn’t used the language that the CC required for “validity” and yet they considered the Orthodox ordinations valid without them using the required lingo? There is much to the document and it is well worth reading.

anglicanhistory.org/orders/saepius.pdf

Let me make one thing clear in no uncertain terms: I’m very glad to hear that. However Pope Leo XIII’s bluntness doesn’t make him wrong. Sorry not everyone can be English, refined, indirect. There are a great many valid communions I wouldn’t touch with a nine-foot pole. Take Pius X. So it’s nothing personally against the English or against monarchy or anything like that…I just want more than they can offer me.

 

[GKC]

I never implied or stated that bluntness is tantamount to being incorrect. I merely stated he was blunt. That’s all. And you’re right in that Catholics could view Anglicans as “illicit” in their Mass even if they were valid. So your ten foot pole statement makes sense from the Catholic stand point if you don’t believe in Anglican doctrine or the English Reformation or the Oxford Movement and you reject the Book of Common Prayer, etc. Makes plenty of sense. As GKC would say, you’re “affirming the particulars” of your communion, the Catholic Church. As for your English comment about refinement and indirectness, I personally am American and find Leo’s choice of words a bit overly blunt and I think the commission was hastily thrown-together. I also think the Anglican rebuttal to Apostolicae Curae, called Saepius Officio, was OUTSTANDING and really poked a lot of holes in the consistency and rationale behind A.C. and Leo’s decision. The then Archbishop of Canterbury, Frederick Temple, and the Archbishop of York, William Maclagan, wrote this incredibly charitable, warm, yet firm and intelligent, lucid rebuttal to the pope that is seriously worth reading for anyone who is intellectually honest. It pointed out the flawed logic the pope used in that the required language that the Catholic Church supposedly required in a “valid” ordination hadn’t actually been used in ancient Roman Catholic ordinations either! To add to that point, the Orthodox hadn’t used the language that the CC required for “validity” and yet they considered the Orthodox ordinations valid without them using the required lingo? There is much to the document and it is well worth reading.

anglicanhistory.org/orders/saepius.pdf

Let us not lay the choice of words at Leo’s door, be they blunt or irenic. Apostolicae Curae was written by Monsignor Raphael Merry del Val, with some assist from Dom Francis Aidan Gasquet. Similarly, IIRC, the bulk of Saepius Officio was written, not by the two Archbishops, but by a third CoE bishop, whose name eludes me.

GKC

 

[Bluegoat]

Oh my goodness, Meghan, I was just razzing you. When we are all typing, we make TONS of mistakes. I definitely do! If you edited me, you’d have your red pen all day. I was just playin’ with ya. Army privates? Were you in the military?

I know you’re just teasing. But that is a mistake I feel particularly “convicted” about, as an Evangelical might say!

I was an army reservist for 10 years, and I spent a portion of that teaching recruits how to do research and write reports. That is, I was supposed to teach them to do research, but since I couldn’t understand what they were trying to say, I ended up having to try to teach them how to write as well.

 

[Bluegoat]

I simply can’t help myself.

This may be telling since they also no longer have Apostolic Succession and therefore no Sacraments (excepting, thankfully, Baptism [always presupposing there is the disposition “to do what the Church does”]: no Eucharist without sacrifice). Or not.

As Catholics we believe the Saints are in heaven.

I don’t think that the lack of method to recognize saints is at all related to Anglican’s validity or orders, or lack thereof. There are historical reasons for it, but I don’t see them as speaking to this subject.

I rather think though that as Catholics you affirm that saints are in Heaven, and you even affirm particular people as being saints in Heaven. You might want to check that out.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

This is a fascinating thread!

The bishops of the Anglican churches vote on who to include in their national church or eve local church calendars. St Thomas More is in the calendar of more than one Anglican church (I believe he is in the Anglican calendar in Britain).

The Anglicans will also commemorate “All Martyrs of the Reformation Era” both Catholic and Protestant on October 31. They believe in the sincerity of martyrs on both sides.

Anglicans will include both Roman Catholic and Orthodox saints in their calendars. They also have lists of Anglican worthies where the High Church Anglicans will refer to them as “Blessed” e.g. Blessed George Herbert, Bl. Edward Pusey, Bl. William Laud and so on.

The only “Saint” the Anglicans have officially canonized since the Reformation appears to be King Charles I. High Anglicans will have statues of him in churches before which they will burn candles as to any other saint. Ronald Knox, the famous Catholic convert from Anglicanism, actually attempted to get Rome to canonize King Charles I (and King Henry the Sixth). Bl. John Newman had a picture of King Charles in his private chapel.

John Henry Newman was esteemed by the High Anglicans for his work as a Tractarian. His going over to Rome in the end is not something they hold against him!

I belong to the Society of King Charles the Martyr and have worked on a calendar of saints for that Society. The Anglicans in that group insist on having Bl. John Henry Newman in the commemorations and I am only too happy to oblige!

I believe, although cannot positively confirm, that the Anglicans seeking union with Rome are asking to have their veneration of King Charles regularized by Rome.

There are Roman Catholics I know who privately venerate King Charles I since he died for a Catholic principle - the episcopacy in the Church. Alex

 

[mortonsam]

You’re basing this argument on Apostolicae Curae by Pope Leo XIII. As we’ve discussed at length in this very forum for years now the “Dutch Touch” and “Polish Pat” as they are colloquially called, were co-consecrations that took place between the Anglican bishops and PNCC and Old Catholic bishops in the early Twentieth Century. These co-consecrations re-infused apostolic succession into Anglican lines even if, and I don’t agree with Leo XIII anyway, Anglican lines were previously “null and utterly void” as he put it so bluntly. Bottom line is the Catholic Church hasn’t commented on Anglican orders or their validity since Apostolicae Curae because there is a heap of reasonable doubt as to whether that determination still holds up after these developments. I personally believe in the priesthood of the Anglican Communion to be valid. And my own Bishop John David Schofield has told us of a powerful Eucharistic miracle that he encountered himself thirty years ago in an Anglican Church that changed his life. He actually encountered Christ in a very powerful way. I’ve told the story on here before. It changed him and he took a vow of celibacy and has been a phenomenal bishop.

You are spot on Gurney. Apostolicae Curae was an absolute sham. It was not carefully examined and studied as it has so many times been touted. It was declared in haste and in my opinion in hate as well. I feel the same way about the Council of Trent. It was nothing more than feel good fluff for Rome to redeclare the foundation of the faithful while condemning Luther to hell

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I’m reading Diarmaid MacCulloch’s “The Reformation” again for the second time through. He has a pretty dim assessment of Trent as well.

Apostolicae Curae was ill-informed and ill-conceived IMO as well. The way the Church dealt with Elizabeth I in the 16th Century was another humdinger. Excommunicating her, openly encouraging her assassination with promises of immediate absolution for it in papal nuncios, encouraging the Spanish against England. It’s no wonder the English weren’t papal fans

What, may I ask, is your church, mortonsam?

Thanks for your post!

You are spot on Gurney. Apostolicae Curae was an absolute sham. It was not carefully examined and studied as it has so many times been touted. It was declared in haste and in my opinion in hate as well. I feel the same way about the Council of Trent. It was nothing more than feel good fluff for Rome to redeclare the foundation of the faithful while condemning Luther to hell