www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Anglicans and the Papacy

Dear Memo,

The title "Major Archbishop" would simply be a foreign one to future "Anglican Catholics."

In Eastern Orthodoxy, the head of a church need not be a Patriarch or Major anything. He could simply be an Archbishop and exercise the same powers that any other head of a local church has, including patriarchs.

However, you are quite right that the issue of a patriarchate would be a salient one to Anglicanism, since it has been brought up more than once during Anglican-Catholic talks. It would seem that an Anglican Catholic Patriarchate would be the way for a future reunited Church to go.

(As an aside, the Archbishop of York once argued with the Archbishop of Canterbury over primacy in England. They agreed that Canterbury should be first, but named themselves thusly: "Archbishop of York and England" and "Archbishop of Canterbury and ALL England." ).

The British Sovereign has no say in Church matters and her role as protector of the Church is a largely ceremonial one - again, no different from the role of Catholic kings in history toward the Church or of Byzantine emperors. So I say the role stays!

In terms of the appointment of bishops, it is actually the British government that continues to have a say in that.

Certainly, that matter would have to be addressed in any future Anglican-Catholic reunion (and it would involve parliamentary actions with respect to church laws that have been enacted by parliament since King Henry VIII's time).

Part of the Anglican heritage is also their local saints, beginning with the Stuart King Charles the Martyr (there are over 20 U.S. Episcopal parishes named for him, including several Spanish Episcopal parishes, there is a statue to him at Walsingham before which candles burn and at other places through the English Commonwealth). Mary, Queen of Scots, his grandmother, and his son, James II, have had (still have?) canonization movements at Rome. Catholic Stuart supporters and also other British Catholics do venerate St Charles, King and Martyr. Also, some Western Orthodox, converts from Anglicanism, also continue to venerate him, in some parishes this veneration is even public.

There is Bl. Bernard Mizeki, the African missionary martyr, Bl. William Laud of Canterbury, Bl. William Law, Bl. Edward King of Lincolnn and Bl. James DeKoven in the U.S. - many of whom suffered from their own church greatly for their "High Church" Catholic ritualist stance and a host of others.


Anglicans venerate them as only Anglicans can - depending on whether you are "Low" or "High" Church.

If you are "Low," then you recite Collects to commemorate their lives.

If you are "High" then direct invocation of them is also the norm.

Who was it who classified Anglicans as: Low and Lazy, Middle and Hazy, High and Crazy!

Alex

Oh I agree! I meant that the Act of Settlement is now an anachronism. But as I always tell Alex, I would accept a constitutioanl monarch as long as there was a social democratic government!!!!! I.E. Labour along with the Stuarts

Dear Brian,

Well, King Charles I canned Parliament and England went along its merry way without it . . .

The Royal Stuarts were somewhat unbending in their Divine Right ways . . .

There have been, as you know, great socialist Prime Ministers in Britain who were also great constitutional monarchists.

But ultimately it is the way a constitutional monarchy operates rather than which Royal family occupies the throne that matters most to a country and its people.

Alex

Alex,

As I remember correctly, a little problem came from this rash action

<emotionally stuck between King and Parliament, I remain Your humble servant,
Brian Seraphim

I propose Windsors and Stuarts with pistols at dawn. May the better monarchs win.

Charles,

Pistols? Was pistols in 17th century? Is outrage!!! Claymores it is!!! Breakfast of either scones and marmalade or sauerkraut and schnitzels to be served afterwards. Is civilized way, nyet?

Many years,

Neil

interesting idea, the Anglican communion reuniting with Rome with the Archbishop of Canterbury as Metropolitan, Patriarch, or whatever. but, uh, are we forgetting the mishmosh that goes for the Episcopal communion in the US of A? what would they do with their women priests, and wonder of wonders, bishops? there are so many splinter groups of Episcopalians in Chattanooga alone, that it is hard to keep track; Anglican Catholics, Missionary Episcopalians, Anglicans, etc., etc. I have a good friend of many years standing that is active in the Anglican Catholics, another in the Anglican group, and friends who while in the larger Episcopal body have sympathies with the splinter groups. what to do with these groups? nothing is as simple as it seems. I like the Episcopal Mass, because as an Eastern (Russian) Catholic, they employ the Epiclesis in their Eucharistic prayers, I have known some of their (male) priests to wear Icons on their vestments, I have seen Icons in their churches (I attend a Latin Rite Catholic Mass, as Byzantine Liturgies are rare as chicken teeth here, mention displaying Icons in the Latin Rite church to the Latin priest,and watch him have a conuption, and he conveniently overlooks the fact that there is an Eucharistic Prayer lV in the Missalette that has the Epiclesis), and one Episcopal church has a bookstore where one can buy Icons, but not in the Latin church's bookstore. Those of us who know something about Church History (I have a Master of Arts in Biblical Studies with an emphasis on History) know that the Celtic church has a beautiful tie to the East, and so it all goes. what to do?

Dear JohnNightWatcher,

Excellent!

I have found, however, that there are also variations of Latin Catholics who, like Episcopalians, pick and choose which Catholic doctrines to believe and which not to.

However, truth be told, they are not as divided as the Episcopalians.

They are all under the Pope of Rome.

Personally, I like the situation where if you see an "Anglican Catholic church" then you know what you will get in it - Anglican Catholics.

To go into an RC church and find modernists et al. - that is a bit off-putting and even scary.

Alexander the Great once came across a soldier in his army that was trembling with fright.

He asked him his name, to which the man replied, "Alexander!"

"Oh," said Alexander the Great, "Like my name - well then, either change your behaviour, or change your name!"

That goes for Catholics too!

Alex

Dear Charles,

There is no problem with the Windsors acknowledging the Stuarts.

The Stuarts were good monarchs, but quite inflexible in their ways.

They shot themselves in their own feet.

But many monarchists honour as saints Mary Queen of Scots, King Charles I and King James II.

Dear Neil,

My nephew actually bought me a claymore sword during my fascination with "Braveheart."

I wouldn't want to face someone with a dagger with it though . . .

Alex

HEHEHE

XP!

Dear Nightwatcher:

This is indeed an excellent point. At best, Rome tolerates a married male priesthood in the Eastern Catholic Churches and among Anglican converts. How would Rome respond to having validly ordained women in communion with it?

Talk about a whole new can of worms!

Yours,

hal

I think that Rome has not been willing to accept any ordination of women as being valid. One of the cardinals said it would be like consecrating cocoa cola. I can't remember his name, though.

Dear Hal,

Yes, because priestly ordination has always in the Apostolic Churches involved men, to ordain women is to ordain invalidly.

Before the Anglicans could ordain women, they had to vote on whether women COULD be validly ordained.

Had they not done that in advance, the ordinations would not have been valid within Anglicanism.

The position of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches is that they themselves don't have the authority to change the gender rule for priestly ordination.

As for Anglicanism reuniting with Rome, this will almost certainly involve an internal schism within worldwide Anglicanism.

I can see the Asian and African Anglican provinces "hooking up" with Rome as these are the most traditionally "Catholic" of the Anglicans.

In addition, there is the issue of the Lutherans who are now in full communion with Anglicanism, in Europe and in NA - I don't know if there are Lutheran synods who are not in communion with Anglicanism/Episcopalianism, but there could be.

Alex

I don't know about that. The African and Asian Anglican Churches often came out of the "low" Church Evangelical Anglican tradition and would probably be quite uncomfortable with the idea of uniting to Rome. MOre likely, they would become independent Anglican bodies.

Dear Brian,

Yes, you are right - but they feel a strong kinship to the morals of the RC Church and their liturgical heritage alienates them from the Protestant bodies.

We have an Evangelical Anglican seminary (right down the street from where I am now).

They are "Evangelical" but also "Catholic" in that they have a liturgical tradition.

They would probably find Orthodoxy too "high ritual" - but we're talking about the Novus Ordo Latin Church

I know a Pentecostal minister who is now a Catholic priest and is at home there!

Alex