We Should Have a Primate of All England

Status
Not open for further replies.
C

catholic03

Well-known member
Pax Christi

I wonder, as a Catholic of English ancestry and with close connections to the country, if the Holy Father should formalise the Catholic Archbishop of Westmister’s role as leader of the Church in England.

The Anglican Archbishop of York bears the title ‘Primate of England’, whilst the Archbishop of Canterbury bears the title ‘Primate of All England’.

The Catholic Archbishop of Westminster is the successor of St Augustine of Canterbury. He is always created Cardinal, is regarded as the successor to the pre-reformation Archbishops of Canterbury, and is always elected President of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales.

The Archbishop of Westminster officially ranks above all the other Catholic Archbishops and Bishops in England and this was confirmed by a Papal Bull in 1911. He is the First of all the Catholic Bishops in England and Wales.

He is the de facto Primate of the Church in England. I wonder if it would be a good idea for him to be bestowed the title ‘Primate of England’, or ‘Primate of All England’ in recognition of his role as the most senior Bishop in England.

What are you thoughts on this?
 
Last edited:
I’m an American of mostly English ancestry and I am an unrepentant monarchist. I would be entirely OK with it, if we accepted HM The Queen as our monarch tomorrow. (Would there then be much of a reason for that border with Canada?) I’d really like to keep that Bill of Rights (which are retained in Charles Coulombe’s novel about America becoming a monarchy).

I say whatever enhances the role of the Catholic Church in England, go for it!
 
I believe it was Cardinal Wiseman who negotiated the reestablishment of the Catholic hierarchy in England, in the 1840s. He gave an undertaking that the Catholic Church would not duplicate any Anglican title – for instance, there would never be another Catholic Archbishop of Canterbury or Archbishop of York. That would presumably preclude reintroducing either of the titles Primate of England and Primate of All England, which were both Catholic titles originally. Similarly, as far as I know, to this day the Archbishop of Dublin is still the Primate of Ireland while the Archbishop of Armagh is the Primate of All Ireland.
 
BartholomewB said:
I believe it was Cardinal Wiseman who negotiated the reestablishment of the Catholic hierarchy in England, in the 1840s. He gave an undertaking that the Catholic Church would not duplicate any Anglican title – for instance, there would never be another Catholic Archbishop of Canterbury or Archbishop of York. That would presumably preclude reintroducing either of the titles Primate of England and Primate of All England, which were both Catholic titles originally. Similarly, as far as I know, to this day the Archbishop of Dublin is still the Primate of Ireland while the Archbishop of Armagh is the Primate of All Ireland.
Click to expand...
OK, an agreement is an agreement. The RCs and the Anglicans get along well now, probably best to keep it that way.
 
Last edited:
HomeschoolDad said:
OK, an agreement is an agreement. The RCs and the Anglicans get along well now, probably best to keep it that way.
Click to expand...
However, it’s a one-sided agreement. When the Catholic Church created its new dioceses in 1850, one of them, covering a large part of southeast England, was the Diocese of Southwark. Then in 1905 the Church of England created its own, much smaller, Diocese of Southwark, covering basically London south of the Thames. I don’t know whether the Catholic bishop was given advance notice of the duplication of titles, or whether he was taken by surprise … It might be interesting to find out.
 
Last edited:
It’s not necessary and with modering communications, the Primate doesn’t have the same responsibilities as they once did.

Also, the the Catholic Conference of England & Wales (while they typically elect the Archbishop of Westminster as president out of custom) can elect another bishop to be their president. They are not required to elect the Archbishop of Westminster.

Therefore, I don’t think it would be proper to appoint him as an official Primate.
 
He does have official ‘Number 1’ status above all the other bishops and archbishops in England. This was confirmed in a 1911 Papal Bull.
 
Last edited:
BartholomewB said:
That would presumably preclude reintroducing either of the titles Primate of England and Primate of All England, which were both Catholic titles originally.
Click to expand...
Correct… There was a law signed, which the Church agreed to that forbids the use of titles that Church of England uses.

I think the law is officially not enforce anymore, but the Church still follows it & would be wise to do so.
 
catholic03 said:
He does have official ‘Number 1’ status above all the other bishops and archbishops in England. This was confirmed in a 1911 Papal Bull.
Click to expand...
Yes, but he was granted the same “#1” status in a similar way the Archbishop of Baltimore was granted #1 status in the US.

As FYI - in the US, back in the 1800s, the Pope wanted to officially make the Archbishop of Baltimore the Primate of the United States. Baltimore was the first American Archdiocese and at the time included Washington, DC.

However, many bishops (lead by the Archbishop of New York) objected to the Archbishop of Baltimore being granted the official status of Primate. This was mainly because by that time, New York, Boston, Philadelphia and Chicago were already larger Catholic cities.

So Baltimore was granted the status of “premier see” but not “Primatial see.”

If I’m not mistaken, the 1911 Bull granted the Archbishop of Westminster more rights than the typical primate, but not the official title.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top