Monday, November 02, 2009

This just in from Rev. Canon John Hollister

ETHNARCH PAVES WAY FOR ROMANS TO ENTER CHURCH

Anglican Body Invites Organic Reunion

LAS VEGAS, NEVADA, Nov. 1, 2009 (VeriZen) -- The Roman Catholic Church will now be able to reenter full communion with the Anglican Church while preserving post-Reformation elements of the Roman spiritual and liturgical tradition.

This policy has been established in amendments to the Constitution and Canons of the Holy Catholic Church of West Glastonbury adopted at its International Synod which concluded yesterday, its head announced today.

This responds to requests from Romans isolated by the schism of Pope Pius V, who have expressed wishes to return to the fullness of the Catholic Faith, particularly as the Roman Communion continues to propagate guitars, praise music, mistresses of ceremonies, and numbers of persons in street clothes milling aimlessly about its altars.

An unknown number of Roman clergy and laity have made such requests.

These new provisions were announced at a press conference in Las Vegas today, offered by His Beatitude Metropolitan Maximilian Pickelhaube, Ethnarch and Primate of All Nevada.

A statement from the Ethnarch explained that with these amendments, “the Holy Catholic Church of West Glastonbury has introduced a canonical structure that provides for such corporate reunion by permitting Roman Catholics to return to the Anglican Church from which they split 439 years ago, while preserving the organizational structures in which they have been worshipping, which will allow former Romans to reenter full communion with the Catholic Church while preserving elements of the distinctive Roman spiritual and liturgical patrimony.”

Initially, these groups of Romans will be overseen and guided through their existing dioceses and episcopate. Future leaders will be chosen according to the Apostolic model, by those dioceses’ clergy and laity. It is expected that many, if not all, of those future leaders will come from among former Roman clergy.

Unmarried priests

The statement from Ethnarch Pickelhaube explained that the Constitutional amendments “provide for the reception as Catholic priests of unmarried former Roman clergy without reordination. Although their ordinations since 1570 have been irregular, having been conferred in schism from the rest of the Western Church, once they return to communion with that Church their Roman Orders can nevertheless be recognized as valid under what is known as the Apostolic Cure.”

It clarified that “Scriptural reasons normally preclude the ordination of unmarried men as clergy in the Catholic tradition but historical and ecumenical reasons dictate a period of transition as former Romans recover the fullness of Catholic faith and practice Thus, the new provisions stipulate that the leaders of the former Roman dioceses remain in place but, upon their deaths, retirements, or resignations, that they be replaced by married clergy elected by those dioceses.

As to future clergy, the statement explained: “The seminarians and existing clergy in the former Roman dioceses will be free to remarry, thus accelerating the recovery of Apostolic practice. Seminarians may continue to be prepared in previously Roman institutions, which must immediately make provisions for married student housing. In this way, the Constitutional amendments seek to balance on the one hand the concern to preserve the worthy Roman liturgical and spiritual patrimony and, on the other hand, the concern that these groups and their clergy will be reintegrated into the Catholic Church.”

Worldwide

The Ethnarch’s statement said the Constitutional amendments provide a “reasonable and even necessary response” to what he called a “worldwide phenomenon.”

It offers a “single canonical model for the universal Church which is adaptable to various local situations and equitable to former Romans in its universal application.”

Over the past 30 years, many individual Romans have already entered into full communion with the Catholic Church.

Sometimes there have been groups of Romans who have entered while preserving some “corporate” structure, the Ethnarch’s statement noted, offering the example of a Roman parish in Tadzikistan.

“In these cases, the Catholic Church has frequently dispensed from the requirement of marriage to allow those unmarried Roman clergy who desire to continue ministerial service as Catholic priests to be received into the Catholic Church,” the statement explained.

Enriched

According to His Beatitude: “It is the hope of the Holy Catholic Church of West Glastonbury that the Roman clergy and faithful who desire union with the Catholic Church will find in this canonical structure the opportunity to preserve those Roman traditions precious to them and consistent with the Catholic faith.

“Insofar as these traditions express in a distinctive way the faith that is held in common, they are a gift to be shared in the wider Church. The unity of the Church does not require a uniformity that ignores cultural diversity, as the history of Christianity shows….

“Our communion is therefore strengthened by such legitimate diversity, and so we are happy that these men and women bring with them their particular contributions to our common life of faith.”

--oo0oo--

47 comments:

Anonymous said...

Unfunny.Im not sure of the spirit that this is supposed to be taken in but, at least the Roman Catholics are trying to charitable within the framework of their beliefs, however wrong those beliefs maybe.
-Mike Otto

poetreader said...

On the contrary, it's brilliant! I split my sides laughing. This piece is not uncharitable, but carries a very definite message in a light-hearted way. Yes, Rome's offer is meant in charity, but it is the sort of charity that is completely clueless about those it is directed to. Canon Hollister's mirror image of their proposal brings out a really good picture of just how far it actually is from dealing with the reality of who and what Anglkicans are

ed

Cherub said...

I agree with Anonmous. It is pathetic! The idea a few continuing Anglicans an dictate to the Catholic Church is pathetic and in the current context unfunny. By the way, why do we insist on calling people names which they never use of themselves. Those of us in the Anglican Tradition like to be called Anglicans even Anglo-Catholics. So why call Catholics "Romans". It is uncharitable to say the very least. I know of one case where someone insisted upon calling a priest friend of mine "Mr" while knowing he preferred the nomenclature "Father". I would never call Father Hart Mr Hart. And I don't see why we have to be so defensive that we call Catholics "Romans". I just found this attempt at humour unfunny, uncharitable, and unnecessaily defensive if not shrill.

Brian said...

A fine and charitable offer from the Ethnarch. Our returning Roman brethren will have to adopt some non-negotiable aspects of faith and practice, however, such as the restoration of Coffee Hour.

Anonymous said...

I wish I could say I thought it was funny but I cant...sarcastic yes.
Ron+

Fr. Robert Hart said...

What? Some of you thought this was supposed to be funny? Why, I find the Ethnarch's invitation to be charitable, and equally reasonable to what Rome came out with the other day.

Those of us in the Anglican Tradition like to be called Anglicans even Anglo-Catholics. So why call Catholics "Romans".

And, why not call Anglicans "Catholic?" Anyway, I am surprised by your lack of respect for their belief that Rome is the Petrine See. They ought to wear the Roman label proudly.

By the way, I assume that only those unmarried priests who were already unmarried when ordained will be eligible for these pastoral type provisions.

Cherub said...

Father Hart says:

"By the way, I assume that only those unmarried priests who were already unmarried when ordained will be eligible for these pastoral type provisions."

Father, you need to attend motre closely to your own arguments as well as those of Rome. If Anglican orders are invalid then the fact that a married Anglican priest, ordained before he was married, makes no difference. He will be ordained ab initio. Once that has happened, he cannot marry. So, if his wife predeceases him, he cannot marry again. All pretty obvious really.

Fr. Steve said...

This was hilarious. I think it makes our point with complete exactitude. Rome is offering these "formers Anglicans" Catholicism with an Anglican flair. That's all. Its the Pastoral Provision on an international scale. Nothing has, or will change as a result of it.

John A. Hollister said...

Cherub thinks everyone should call others by the names they use for themselves.

So, by that reasoning, the Church of Rome should be calling us "Catholics"....

John A. Hollister+

Fr. Robert Hart said...

Father, you need to attend motre closely to your own arguments as well as those of Rome. If Anglican orders are invalid then the fact that a married Anglican priest, ordained before he was married, makes no difference. He will be ordained ab initio. Once that has happened, he cannot marry. So, if his wife predeceases him, he cannot marry again. All pretty obvious really.

And, if my uncle were a woman he would be my aunt.

Cherub said...

John Hollister: "Cherub thinks everyone should call others by the names they use for themselves.

"So, by that reasoning, the Church of Rome should be calling us "Catholics"."

But Anglicans have always called themselves Anglicans, at least over the last couple of hundred years. And if you read the English Reformation debates, Anglicans called themselves "protestants" and Catholics "Catholics". I am just saying, "be polite".

Cherub said...

ather Hart: "By the way, I assume that only those unmarried priests who were already unmarried when ordained will be eligible for these pastoral type provisions."
I then point out that you have misread the logic even of your own argument in your erroneous presumption. You then reply: "And, if my uncle were a woman he would be my aunt." Why not just say you got it wrong? And why not post all my contributions. I am never rude to anyone.

curate said...

It is completely correct to call a clergyman Mister, indeed, it is the proper mode of address. A CoE clergyman is properly Mister The Reverend Smith, not just Rev. Smith.

This is most likely old fashioned, but the point remains.

Albion Land said...

Hilarious.

'hyste'

Brian said...

Congratulations, my dear Cheub, your lack of a sense of humor entitles you to join the "fast track" RCIA course at Most Holy Co-Redemtrix Catholic Parish. Please report promptly between Knights of Columbus Bingo and Aging Boomer Praise Band practice.

Anonymous said...

Brian: You ask too much. The Romans will no more accept the Protestant tradition of coffee hour (an invention of the Calvinists, you surely know) than Anglicans will accept Monday night bingo and Friday night boxing matches for the CYO in the KoC hall.

Its easy to sign the CCC (especially if you have never read it). But some things are just too sacred to change, like the blaring of horns in the parking lot after Mass.
LKW

highchurchman said...

Good, very good indeed, it says what has to be said and puts it in an unoffensive manner.
As for Cherub, what is wrong with calling Romanists, Roman? After all in the Creed of the Council of Trent, Bishops and Clergy confirm ,
"I acknowledge the Holy Roman Catholic Church," so if it was good then why not now? I like the bit about the schism of Pope Pius the Vth. I was taught that a schism did occur at Trent, which makes me wonder if we shouldn't instead call them ,Trentists?
For heavens sake we should get a stronger confidence in ourselves and through our Church.

Anthony said...

It is exactly because of the lack of parallelism that this piece is unfunny. The Vatican's offer is a response to specific requests (from e.g. the TAC), and is not surprisingly couched in terms of what Rome believes. This "offer," whether or not meant in jest, is not a response to anything, and for that reason it exhibits just the kind of arrogance that many mistakenly see in Rome's offer. It is not "hilarious" at all, just obtuse.

If Rome had made this offer without previous overtures from large numbers of Anglicans, perhaps there might be some justification for this joke, or whatever it purports to be.

Anonymous said...

Fr Steve makes the comment " Our point ".
Who is our ? Do you speak for them ? Or just yourself.
Ron+

poetreader said...

If someone wants to call himself Edward Pacht, I'm not going to give him my name. That is identity theft. If a church wants to call itself THE Catholic Church and I am convinced that the name belongs as fully to me, am I required to participate in the theft of my identity? When it is necessary to distinguish between churches, both of whom claim to be Catholic, another label is needed. In calling Roman Catholics Roman, we are labeling them by a central feature, one of which they are very proud, using an honorable title, while not giving away a claim that is precious to us. Talk about bad manners! Refusing that is extremely rude indeed.

By the same token, a Roman Catholic that cannot manage to call my priest Father and prefers Mister is not necessarily being rude, but is revealing a theological gulf and a real lack of commonality between us, leaving the issues in bold relief.

As to Fr. Hollister's little spoof. Yes, the Roman offer is well meant, and is (or is at least intended to be) a response to the approach of certain Anglicans, but, though at least in part unconsciously, it is a rather complete denial of all that Anglicans have been historically and shows a lack of appreciation of what makes Anglicans tick. Turning each statement systematically inside out is an excellent device for showing just how inapplicable the proposed provisions really are.

Satire is sometimes both more effective and more charitable than straight-on polemics.

ed

poetreader said...

Picky, Fr. Ron.
Steve is expressing a commonality with those like Fr. Hollister and myself and many others. He doesn't speak "for" a group, but he certainly does speak "with" a whole bunch of us.

ed

Fr. Steve said...

highchurchman said: "I was taught that a schism did occur at Trent, which makes me wonder if we shouldn't instead call them ,Trentists?"

Good idea Your Grace. I like it.

Anonymous said...

Picky ?
I respectfully must disagree.
There has been so much discussion in regards to the goings on so to speak and I find the tone to be a little more disrespectful and mean spirited than I would have expected from such learned men.
I find it interesting that none of the Apb's of the ACC,APCK or UEC have addressed this yet so I guess I will have to follow their lead and wait for the final analysis so to speak.
If my remarks were taken as offensive I apologize but please understand I have a problem with those speaking for themselves and using the collective we.
Ron+

poetreader said...

Fair enough, Fr. Ron, if you will remember that I have a serious problem with not being allowed to present my views as being in agreement with those of many others. If I say, "we", as I sometimes do, I mean simply, "I, and those who actually think like me". And, in this case, for this issue, there is indeed such a set of people, myself included. He does not speak "for" me, but indeed speaks "with" me, so that "we" does include at least two of us. As Luther wrote in his Small Catechism, commenting on the 8th (our 9th) Commandment, we should "...put the best construction on everything."

ed

John A. Hollister said...

Father Ron wrote, "I have a problem with those speaking for themselves and using the collective we."

Ah, but perhaps it's simply the inverse of the common indefinite "you" (plural), or the widely-accepted editorial "we", or maybe a (delusional) Royal "we" (I know of at least one "'Continuing' clergyman" who claims many lines of descent from obscure putative royal houses), or it could even simply be our multiple personalities speaking with one voice....

Then again, there's always the possibility that Ed suggested, namely that a number of us feel the same way on this issue.

John A. Hollister+

Anonymous said...

Ed,

You said:

"both of whom claim to be Catholic,"

You refer here to the Roman and Anglican Church both being called Catholic. However, according to antiquity the Catholic church recognized the Bishop of Rome as having a primacy. Now, I know how this works for the Roman Catholic. Just how does this Primacy of the Bishop of Rome work for the Anglican Catholic? After all being in harmony with antiquity etc. is very important to those here at the Continuum. I would imagine that this is still true in spite of your belief that the Papacy has exaggerated its claims.

Patrick

poetreader said...

Very brief, as this is probably a bit off-topic for this thread, and has been discussed here often. Probably Rome should be the first among equals of the bishops, if Rome holds steadfast to the whole truth. We do not see this position as being a defining factor in what is Catholic. Moreover, since Rome demands that we believe the pope even if he continues to teach what we see as definite errors, and since we do perceive such errors. a problem arises. These errors do not remove him from being fundamentally Catholic, but certainly make it impossible to take him as absolute leader. Let it rest there. I've gotten tired of saying the same things over and over again, often to the same people, but thanks for asking. It is a good question.

ed

Fr. Robert Hart said...

I think some folks here might sit with a scowl all through Duck Soup, complaining that "war is no joking matter." So, don't laugh if you don't want to.

Cherub wrote:

But Anglicans have always called themselves Anglicans, at least over the last couple of hundred years.

Only for about 150 years.

And if you read the English Reformation debates, Anglicans called themselves "protestants" and Catholics "Catholics". I am just saying, "be polite".

No they did not. The terms of the era were "Papist" and "Protestant." One was either a Papist Catholic or a Protestant Catholic. I am a Protestant because I believe the teaching of the Church as it set forth in Scripture and embraced by the Ancient Church. I am a Catholic because of my Protestantism. If you do not understand this, then you do not understand what Anglicanism is, and always has been. We are Protestant Catholics, or, if you prefer, Catholic Protestants.

I then point out that you have misread the logic even of your own argument in your erroneous presumption. You then reply: "And, if my uncle were a woman he would be my aunt." Why not just say you got it wrong?

My reply shows how seriously I took your point, which is not a whole lot. I am sorry, but you stated the obvious as if 1) we did not know, and 2) as if it were some kind of argument. To be blunt, I could have said something else; for the hypothetical question, "so what?" struck me as an equally appropriate response to what you wrote. If you want to explain why you thought it was any kind of argument at all, or even a disagreement with anything I said, you may explain.

Cherub said...

Father Hart says: "No they did not. The terms of the era were "Papist" and "Protestant." One was either a Papist Catholic or a Protestant Catholic. I am a Protestant because I believe the teaching of the Church as it set forth in Scripture and embraced by the Ancient Church. I am a Catholic because of my Protestantism. If you do not understand this, then you do not understand what Anglicanism is, and always has been. We are Protestant Catholics, or, if you prefer, Catholic Protestants."
I am sorry Father but this is not right. If, for example, yu look at the official State record of the first disputation between St Edmund Campion and the Anglican Divines appointed by the Queen you will that the Anglican Divines are referred to simply as "Protestants" and Campion and his colleagues as "Catholics". You may see for yourself the official account in James V Holleran, "A Jesuit Challenge", New York. Fordham University Press, 1999, pages 82-93. Your view is typically that of the 19th century Anglo-Catholics as they sought to establish their place in the Church of England in particular, and based upon the cointentious "branch theory".
Father, you often see aggressive to a non-American like me, one who has never lived in the US. This may be a cultural difference. When you said that you presumed something re the [re]ordination of Anglican priests by the RC Church I pointed out that your presumption was wrong. Your reply of "so what?" is unnecessarily rude to my ears. Why not just say you got it wrong. I will always honour and respect you as a priest. But as one who has spent a life time in academic pursuits at the tertiary level, and at the highest levels of the tertiary level, I just try to get to the truth of the matter. And debating points don't cut it for me.

Anonymous said...

"I am a Catholic because of my Protestantism."

Would that mean that if you are not a Protestant, then maybe you are not really a Catholic?

LKW

John A. Hollister said...

Cherub wrote: "If Anglican orders are invalid then the fact that a married Anglican priest, ordained before he was married, makes no difference."

To this, Fr. Hart responded, "And, if my uncle were a woman he would be my aunt."

Cherub apparently failed to recogize this proverb, which occurs in virtually identical (and quite pithy) terms in both Yiddish and Cockney.* It means, essentially, that if things were not as they in fact are, then they would be different.

Applying that to Cherub's statement, what Fr. Hart was suggesting was that one cannot found an argument upon the premise "if Anglican Orders were invalid" because that is simply untrue. (Read "Apostolicae Curae" carefully and you will see that Leo successfully tossed his own Orders into the dumpster, which is something Rome will never admit.)

So, having missed Fr. Hart's point entirely, Cherub continued, "Why not just say you got it wrong?"

Answer: Because he didn't.

John A. Hollister+
__________
*Major premise: "If me aunt had [certain characteristic male appendages], she'd be me uncle."

Minor premise: But she don't.

Conclusion: So she ain't.

Veriword: "imwaligh"

Fr. Robert Hart said...

Cherub:

The terminology employed by one Jesuit, loyal to Bloody Mary, is hardly significant. There were, at that time, absolutely no "Anglicans" by name either. What Elizabeth insisted on as Queen, and what the Church practiced, was to maintain the word "Catholic," which is simply a word for Christians who do not waver from the Faith or leave the Church. And, ifyou think my positive use of the word "Protestant" is a typical "Anglo-Catholic" argument, I must wonder what planet you have recently arrived from.

Your other point still merits a "so what?" You were trying to refute this line by me: "By the way, I assume that only those unmarried priests who were already unmarried when ordained will be eligible for these pastoral type provisions." This was a joke about the presumption by Rome in "ordaining" men according to the Pastoral Provisions. We do not believe that an indelible sacrament, in this case Holy Orders, can be repeated. In the context of this thread, why are you trying to present a serious argument about a joke?

Are you quite alright?

Fr. Robert Hart said...

Would that mean that if you are not a Protestant, then maybe you are not really a Catholic?

We may say that to the degree one's theology is not in accord with our brand of Protestantism, it strays from truly Catholic doctrine.

Cherub said...

Father Hart, you are not listening. The words "Protestants" of the Anglican Divines and "Catholics" of Campion et al were not employed by Campion. They were employed by the official writers of the transcript of the debate. Check for yourself. I have given you the reference.
Again, I ask you not to be so rude. If you were having a joke re ordaining Anglican priests it was lost on me and my colleagues. So I will let that rest.
You said: "And, if you think my positive use of the word "Protestant" is a typical "Anglo-Catholic" argument, I must wonder what planet you have recently arrived from." Again a rude but insufficient answer. The 'branch theory' is a 19th century invention. William Palmer (1803–1885), an Oxford theologian, came up with the idea which was later popularised by the Oxford Movement. I have never said "protestant" is a negative word, it meaning essentially "I stand for" certain things. The protestants saw themselves as 'protestant christians' and the Catholics as their enemy with the Pope as the anti-Christ (see Cranmer's writings). As an Anglo-Catholic I always repudiated the use of the term Protestant, seeing myself as a Catholic in a Protestant Church, and, following Lord Halifax's example, working with others to achieve unity with Rome. I have never however, been a member of any Continuing Church.

Finally, as far as I can judge the word "Anglican" used of Anglicans is a fairly new usage but one which has been embraced around the world. I was always told I was 'Church of England' before my country changed the name to Anglican somer time in the 1970s.

I trust Father, we can see ourselves on the same planet and respectfully disagree where we cannot agree. I would loike to think that there is a place for me on this Blog which I find generally to be an interesting and stimulating blog, if often tainted by unnecessary 'playing the man'.

Fr. Robert Hart said...

They were employed by the official writers of the transcript of the debate.

To be expected from many who were loyal to Mary Tudor.

The 'branch theory' is a 19th century invention.

Actually, a 19th century expression for an obvious fact.

The protestants saw themselves as 'protestant christians' and the Catholics as their enemy with the Pope as the anti-Christ (see Cranmer's writings).

Wrong on two counts. First, they didnot use the word "Catholic" to mean Papist, and in England, beginning with the reign of Elizabeth, the English Church did not see the pope as the antichrist (see the essay at this URL http://anglicancontinuum.blogspot.com/2008/03/hooker-on-unity-with-rome.html).

As an Anglo-Catholic I always repudiated the use of the term Protestant, seeing myself as a Catholic in a Protestant Church

I attribute that view to ignorance on many levels, and I have been arguing against Anglo-Papalism for years. I strongly suggest that you click on to the link to the right, and look up relevant titles among my essays on Classic Anglicanism. You are entering a forum in which many educational resources are at your disposal, or at least challeneges to your way of thinking.

Cherub said...

Father Hart: "They were employed by the official writers of the transcript of the debate. To be expected from many who were loyal to Mary Tudor." Dear me Fr Hart. The debates took place in gthe reign of Queen Elizabeth!
Fr Hart: "Actually, a 19th century expression for an obvious fact." It may be obvious to you, but that does not constitute an argument.

Fr Hart: "I attribute that view to ignorance on many levels, and I have been arguing against Anglo-Papalism for years. I strongly suggest that you click on to the link to the right, and look up relevant titles among my essays on Classic Anglicanism. You are entering a forum in which many educational resources are at your disposal, or at least challeneges to your way of thinking." Well actually I am very well aware of your opinions, but you are not infallible! Your opinion is, in my view, quite mistaken. You write with magisterial certainty on matters which are, to say the very least, contested by many scholars of whom you seem to be unaware. I sometimes ge the impression on this blog that you consider yourself to be a 'magisterium', the orac le who determines what the truth is and what it is not. Pity really. I had hoped to get an educated discussion important issues rather than mere assertion as if your views are beyond criticism. Oh, and by the way. I am not an Anglo-Papalist. I know you like to pigeon hole with labels but ...

highchurchman said...

I was taught that the word Protestant as used by Anglicans was used to 'protest' against the papal Intrusion in English politics. !570 c.f.
In the intro, to the Clarendon's History of the Great Rebellion, we find various Anglicans, presumably using the term in the manner above, these were officials of the State. They are roundly condemned by the last real Archbishop of Canterbury we had, the Non Juror, Sancroft, ArchBishop Canterbury. They are told firmly, they have to use the correct term , Catholic!


Again, in earlier years some unfortunate priest who was held prisoner by parliament in his talk to the guards used the term protestants to describe the religion of his Anglican guards. They were astonished and said so and pointed out they were Catholics and he was a papist.Something quite different. have the book, but can't find it. I will however if you so wish! It is a Roman one from last Cent..

Anonymous said...

This morning I came to a personal conclusion in regards to the direction this thread was going.
I found that in this discussion I had made some rude and uncharitable comments and for that Iam ashamed and sorry.
My brothers I also see that same lack of charity in many of the responses given.
I pray that all who come to this valuable site will do so in the spirit of charity to inform and discuss issues in a way that will edifying to all and that differences in opinion will be shown respect.
Ron+

Fr. Robert Hart said...

Dear me Fr Hart. The debates took place in the reign of Queen Elizabeth!

OK, fine. Nonetheless,the terminology employed by a Jesuit loyal to the former queen, and written into transcripts, is still a very small and weak bit of evidence against the full weight of the writings of the English Reformers, Anglican Divines and Formularies. It is a clear case of grasping for straws.

You write with magisterial certainty on matters which are, to say the very least, contested by many scholars of whom you seem to be unaware.

That is also true about any faith in the Creeds and Scripture. Not agreeing with scholars, or with "scholars" (as the case may be) is not a sign of being unaware; merely unimpressed.

Well actually I am very well aware of your opinions, but you are not infallible!

Being aware of my opinions and reading my essays are not the same thing. But, about my obvious infallibility, have you not read?

http://anglicancontinuum.blogspot.com/2006/12/true-one-true-church.html

Canon Tallis said...

The Reverend Canon Hollister's little satire reminds me very much of a very small book written in the early sixties by the wife of a friend. It was titled "Are Roman Minister's Catholic Priests? No one would publish it because the pontificate of John XXIII gave far too many of us a false hope that Rome might finally repent itself of the evil. But it was throughly passed around in manuscript because of the way in which it with great wit and gentle satire demolished Roman arguments about the priesthood by holding its own past actions up to its own arguments. And, yes, there were many who thought if quite uncharitable. But then, as too frequently now, none is supposed to criticize Rome.

And for those who want to defend the Roman Church, it just might help to remember that Queen Mary's last message to her sister was a request that she keep the Roman faith. On the other hand Elizabeth in a letter in her own hand called herself as good a Catholic prince as any in Europe. And we, as Anglicans, have required nothing except belief in the Catholic Church whether we have done so in the Apostles', Nicene or Athanasian Creeds. Worse, we have done so in languages which the laity (and even some of the clergy) could understand.

Patrick asks how we handle the the primacy given Rome by the councils and the answer to that is simple, we have accepted same in the same sense the councils intended it. The laws passed during Elizabeth's reign did not break communion with Rome and even allowed an appeal from the archbishop's courts to Rome in marriage cases. We simply deny everything denied him by those same councils.

And as for the proper use of titles, the formal address for an Anglican priest is either The Reverend First Name Last Name or The Reverend Mister Last Name. See Titles and Other Forms of Address, once used as authority by the State Department and the military.

In a way, I feel rather sorry for the Roman readers of this blog because they have now experienced the emotions felt by the majority of us average Roman usage.

Fr. Robert Hart said...

Patrick asks how we handle the the primacy given Rome by the councils and the answer to that is simple, we have accepted same in the same sense the councils intended it.

The title was "first in honor." Whatever that meant, the disappearance of such language after the first four Councils (and the condemnation of Pope Honorius' heresy) is telling; as is the eastern reaction in 1054 to the pope's claim of universal jurisdiction.

Combining "first in honor" as applied to Rome because it was the capital city, with "Peter has spoken through Leo" regarding his Tome, is a neat trick done by modern apologists for the Papal claims. But, no evidence exists to support the meaning that modern Roman Catholics draw from these two isolated statements. "Peter has spoken through Leo" appears to mean nothing more than an affirmation that he had written his tome in accord with Apostolic doctrine.

Cherub said...

Fr Hart: "OK, fine. Nonetheless,the terminology employed by a Jesuit loyal to the former queen, and written into transcripts, is still a very small and weak bit of evidence against the full weight of the writings of the English Reformers, Anglican Divines and Formularies. It is a clear case of grasping for straws."

It was not a case of Jesuit terminology being written into transcripts. It is the authors of the transcript who use thm as in: Protestants and then what they said. catholics and then what Campion et al said. Read the evidence. And it is not grasping at straws. This terminology was everywhere used in Elizabethan England.

Fr Hart: "That is also true about any faith in the Creeds and Scripture. Not agreeing with scholars, or with "scholars" (as the case may be) is not a sign of being unaware; merely unimpressed." You are making false comparisons. The Creeds and Scripture are part of the defined faith, ie defined by ecumenical Councils. Scholars may explore them but may not deny them if they still wish to be a part of the Church. But opinion based on historical evidence which is not part of the deposit of the faith is open to scholarly evaluation. And those are the issues which are under discussion here. For example, the protestant account of the Reformation was received wisdom and part of what we were all taught at school. However, as the Anglican historian David Edwards has pointed out, books like that of Eamon Duffy ("The Stripping of the Altars")and Jack Scarisbrick (eg Henry VIII)have caused a major rethink on both sides of the debate concerning the way we should understand the Reformation.

palaeologos said...

Is it just me, or is this whole combox discussion starting to resemble an episode of [i]Make Joan Baez Laugh[/i]?

For the record, I thought it was pretty funny. But then, lots of people tell me I have an inappropriate sense of humor.

Fr. Robert Hart said...

It is the authors of the transcript who use thm as in: Protestants and then what they said. catholics and then what Campion et al said. Read the evidence.

The "authors" of the transcript were nothing more than court recorders. There were no "authors." So, their use of his terminology still puts it in his mouth.

And it is not grasping at straws. This terminology was everywhere used in Elizabethan England.

Funny how that is not what historical records show.

...the protestant account of the Reformation was received wisdom and part of what we were all taught at school.

Not here in America. Here public education was religion neutral, even back in the 1960s. If it leaned in any direction, in Maryland it leaned in a Roman Catholic direction, studying Lord Baltimore and the Carrolls.

However, as the Anglican historian David Edwards has pointed out, books like that of Eamon Duffy ("The Stripping of the Altars")and Jack Scarisbrick (eg Henry VIII)have caused a major rethink on both sides of the debate concerning the way we should understand the Reformation.

In keeping with the nature of historical writing, as it has become, instead of objective evaluation we have writing that states a point of view, like a legal brief. These writers have merely presented the part of the story that makes their case, and have omitted the rest. Duffy gives the impression that the people all over England were forced to be Protestant against their will; but, that is just as misleading as any other gross exaggeration. Furthermore, the heavy handed methods of Thomas Cromwell and company were not reflected in the theology of the Anglican Divines. The period of Henry and period of Elizabeth were very different.

Canon Tallis said...

Cherub's statements about the work of Duffy and Scarisbrick to the contrary, their work is simply the old and very well refuted arguments being recycled because Roman scholars know only too well that the old Anglican books are now only rarely read. Elizabeth I called herself as good a Catholic prince as any in Europe and Lancelot Andrewes prayed for the Holy Catholic Church. Unlike The Rt Reverend Walter Howard Frere, C.R., or The Reverend Canon Malcolm MacColl, I can not claim to have read all of the state papers from that period, but I know of no one who even attempts to make that claim who accepts the Roman arguments.

One thing is certain; the claims of the current Roman Church or that church from the time of Alexander VI can not be squared with the New Testament, the earliest fathers or the first four General Councils. And that fact alone should put finish to all of them. Should, but apparently doesn't with those who find themselves overimpressed with the current basilica of St. Peter and the yards of scarlet silk necessary for the cardinal's egos. But where do we see Jesus.

Fr. Robert Hart said...

Add the weight of what we do have from the 16th and 17th centuries. We have the writings of the various Church of England Reformers, and later Anglican Divines, as well as the Formularies. In addition we have many essays, speeches and canon laws. None of them employ the words "Catholic" and "Protestant" in the popular modern way-not one.

David said...

Great use of satire to make very valid point. I won't assume that there were any hateful intentions or desire to harm Roman Catholics but rather to point our how little Rome understands Anglicans. If this were aimed at Orthodox patriarchs I would still think it was great because it stands out from all the other explanations I have read and heard Anglicans try to communicate without ever being heard.