tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post8753313650979011405..comments2024-03-24T15:19:06.377-04:00Comments on The Continuum: Putting the “P” back in “Anglican”Fr. Robert Harthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comBlogger57125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-9197852955478324972019-08-05T12:09:59.727-04:002019-08-05T12:09:59.727-04:00Regarding this topic, I am curious whether any wri...Regarding this topic, I am curious whether any writers here at The Continuum have read and/or have any response to a recent book by Jean-Louis Quantin, "The Church of England and Christian Antiquity: The Construction of a Confessional Identity in the 17th Century," which I believe argues that there was no distinctively Anglican appeal to patristic consensus at least amongst the earlier Anglican divines. I would be very interested to hear such a response!Jasonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-26195526706959312842008-02-06T01:10:00.000-05:002008-02-06T01:10:00.000-05:00Sandra McColl asked, "Where should the 'p' go? Is...Sandra McColl asked, "Where should the 'p' go? Is it to be silent?"<BR/><BR/>Surely it should go up front: "Panglican" has such an evocatively "affirming" sound, don't you think?<BR/><BR/>And if it were given the "silent treatment", as in P.G. Wodehouse's "Leave it to Psmith", then all those lovely overtones would be lost....<BR/><BR/>Speaking of evocative sounds, the blog approval scramble for this comment is "mazuck". Now there's a word that's just begging to be given some appropriate meaning!<BR/><BR/>John A. Hollister+John A. Hollisterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01325615323834517909noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-22117443966540338582008-02-01T08:03:00.000-05:002008-02-01T08:03:00.000-05:00Sorry, can't resist: Where should the 'p' go? Is i...Sorry, can't resist: Where should the 'p' go? Is it to be silent?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-78438099433414514392008-02-01T00:05:00.000-05:002008-02-01T00:05:00.000-05:00Fr. Edward wrote, regarding wome's "ordination": ...Fr. Edward wrote, regarding wome's "ordination": "there is still the chance (albeit a slim one) that the C of E could repent of this error and the measures currently in place allow for us to continue certain (at least) of the validity of our own orders and sacraments...."<BR/><BR/>In all charity, I must disagree. Once the C of E accepted officially the novelty of the purported ordination of women, whether that acceptance was provisional or permanent, from that moment on, its sacramental ministry was in the same state as that into which PECUSA's ministry fell in 1976.<BR/><BR/>That is, after that acceptance, every time a candidate has been "ordained" in the Church of England, whether that candidate be male or female, the "order" to which (s)he has been instituted is not the ancient, Christ-given Apostolic Ministry described in the Preface to the Ordinal but, instead, a new, self-created unisex Protestant preaching ministry that, from all objective appearances, lacks Sacramental capacity.<BR/><BR/>Thus the very last thing of which post-1992 or -1994 (whichever year it was) ordinands in the Church of England can be certain is the validity of their own orders and sacraments. Indeed, it is the INvalidity of those orders and sacraments that is the one thing of which they can be certain, even in the wholly unlikely event that the Church of England were to abandon this so-called "experiment".<BR/><BR/>Once again, it was precisely this across-the-board threat to the institution's fundamental sacramental validity that caused the "Continuing Churches" to withdraw from PECUSA when PECUSA officially adopted women's "ordination". <BR/><BR/>John A. Hollister+John A. Hollisterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01325615323834517909noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-78809085644530999112008-01-31T13:54:00.000-05:002008-01-31T13:54:00.000-05:00What an outstanding discussion all around! It mak...What an outstanding discussion all around! It makes me proud to be a traditional High Church-but-also-Evangelical (in the old sense) Anglican a la Fr. Hart within the Anglican Catholic Church. I could not agree more with those who have said that we Anglicans need to restore, recover, and reclaim our glorious heritage (in the BCP, Ordinal, and yes, the 39 Articles, as well as in the great Anglican theologians and spiritual writers of the 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries). At the same time, I have nothing but the greatest of respect for Dr. Tighe and the other Roman Catholics who have posted here, who indeed have tremendous resources of history, theological argument, scholarship, and numbers of people to substantiate their Papal and Petrine claims. It seems to me that this is the kind of dialogue faithful Anglicans and Roman Catholics ought to be having. I also think we should encourage and lift up our brothers and sisters in the C of E and Canterbury Communion who are attempting to join with us in the Continuum in the work of preserving, maintaining, and reinvigorating traditional and faithful Anglican doctrine, worship, and discipline.Fr_Robhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15869701021679422382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-21945966269328286732008-01-31T09:01:00.000-05:002008-01-31T09:01:00.000-05:00As long as the C of E has priests like Geoffrey Ki...As long as the C of E has priests like Geoffrey Kirk and John Hunwicke, all hope is not lost."<BR/><BR/>I hope that my credibility (and good will) is such among those who operate this website, that whatever "death bredon" may insinuate, my comments are not "Roman Catholic propaganda."<BR/><BR/>For instance, I am personally acquainted with the two above-mentioned priests of the Church of England, and know them both to be firm Anglo-Papalists, one of whom uses the modern Roman Rite for most, if not all, services in his parish, and the other one of whom might be described, loosely, as "Anglo-Tridentine" in his sympathies.<BR/><BR/>For Fr. Kirk, for instance, I invite you to read this latest article of his in the January 2008 issue of *New Directions* and particularly its last paragraph:<BR/><BR/>http://trushare.com/0152JAN2008/17way_we_live_now_geoffrey_kirk_lo.htm<BR/><BR/>and for Fr. Hunwicke I direct readers simply to his new blog:<BR/><BR/>http://liturgicalnotes.blogspot.com/William Tighehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16634494183165592707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-19615902197472638102008-01-30T21:05:00.000-05:002008-01-30T21:05:00.000-05:00Readers of this blog who are interested in what th...Readers of this blog who are interested in what the Fathers have written may wish to renew acquaintance with St. Basil by reading his homilies on the six days of creation here: http://jandyongenesis.blogspot.comAlice C. Linsleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13069827354696169270noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-20032121458742825872008-01-30T17:43:00.000-05:002008-01-30T17:43:00.000-05:00The truth is, I am happy for anyone to read the bl...The truth is, I am happy for anyone to read the blog who is interested. And, I thank the Roman Catholic apologists for their charitable intentions. It may come as a surprise to some that we can answer without trouble. It comes from years of study.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-65130579776338846702008-01-30T17:15:00.000-05:002008-01-30T17:15:00.000-05:00Ladies and Gentlemen, please!I do not think it lik...Ladies and Gentlemen, please!<BR/><BR/>I do not think it likely that we are going to change anyone's minds regarding the papal claims in the comments to Fr. Hart's excellent post. <BR/><BR/>Moreover, the question has been thoroughly and surely more profitably "briefed" by excellent scholars from the Roman Catholic camp (a minority against the claims), the Anglican camp (virtually uniformly against the extent of the claims), and the Orthodox camp (against the extent of claims AND explaining the historic use of flowery, Byzantine rhetoric of praise toward Rome as THE Petrine See -- its was the charismatic presence of Peter's relics in or about Rome, not any institutional Charisma, that caused the East to expect profound Orthodoxy from Rome until Germanic "occupation" of the Petrine See in the 11th century.)<BR/><BR/>Also, as this blog is for Catholic Anglicans, I especially doubt that anyone will be persuaded to swim the Tiber. So, let us all, then, save some keyboard strokes and use our time to deeply draw wisdom from the writings of the Fathers into our own, on-going, several Christian formations.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-34227765361445273682008-01-30T16:51:00.000-05:002008-01-30T16:51:00.000-05:00Bill Tighe wrote:Leo clearly ascribed a universal ...Bill Tighe wrote:<BR/><I>Leo clearly ascribed a universal ecclesiastical jurisdictional competence to the papacy.</I><BR/><BR/>I should have said that the first time a pope sought to act by his own volition with authority in the jurisdiction of another patriarch was 1054. It was not accepted by the Universal Church. That was the point that I meant to state clearly in answer to JAT. <BR/><BR/>Leo's writings have no more force, on their own, than selected portions from other Church fathers. The problem with JAT's argument is that he put forth Universal Jurisdiction as dogma, as if it were ratified in an Ecumenical Council. We see from the history of the Great Schism that the opposite is the case. The Church, in this case most of it, said no.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-79913204090199065712008-01-30T15:29:00.000-05:002008-01-30T15:29:00.000-05:00Hopeless Percy Dearmer FanIf by swimming the Thame...Hopeless Percy Dearmer Fan<BR/><BR/>If by swimming the Thames you mean going back to the official Anglican Church in Canada, don't do it. There is nothing truly Anglican about that heretical cult anymore, for there is nothing Christian about it or TEC down here south of the border. No jurisdiction is perfect, since they are all made up of sinners. The TAC is not perfect, but stick with it, not the Canterbury "Gay Union" Blessing cult of Fred Hiltz. <BR/><BR/>Too much speculation on what the TAC bishops are trying to do won't help things for you all up there in Canada. We don't know what the signing in Portsmouth was meant to signify- or even if it was actually the CCC that was signed. I want verification of this story. Nonetheless, even if TAC bishops did sign the CCC, nothing is settled, and the people were not called to take notice as if it was supposed to be significant. It is a mystery.<BR/><BR/>I am a High Churchman, and I am an Anglo-Catholic of the Francis Hall type. As such I am also, in the classic sense, Evangelical. The voice I am crying with in the wilderness of confused Anglicans is meant to restore appreciation of what we have as Anglicans, and to help some of the Rome envying crowd stop and think. <BR/><BR/><I>...you can't just take chunks out of it and latinize them, and start giving people plenary indulgences for reading scripture for half an hour, and have to accept that the sack of Constantinople was just collateral damage, and think that EWTN is a really great TV station, and that the BVM is Co-Redemtrix, and call that Anglican.</I><BR/><BR/>Agreed. But, I would rather debate with those details than find myself "in communion" with Hilt's or Schori's cult.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-35742818837770217372008-01-30T14:38:00.000-05:002008-01-30T14:38:00.000-05:00"Yes it was Cardinal Kasper I was thinking of, and..."Yes it was Cardinal Kasper I was thinking of, and if his attitude is that of the curia then as I said it doesn't look too promising ..."<BR/><BR/>A big "if." My impression is that he speaks for himself, although no doubt a certain body of curialist opinion would agree with him. <BR/><BR/>Cardinal Kasper addressed the House of Bishops of the Church of England in July 2006, warning them in unusually clear terms that if the Church of England were to proceed to allow "women bishops" it would destroy the last chance of "ecumenical progress" between the two churches. A couple of months later, a reply to Cardinal Kasper was jointly produced by Tom Wright, the [Evangelical conservative-ish] Bishop of Durham and David Stancliffe, the [Affirming Catholic] Bishop of Salisbury; both of them strongly pro-WO -- who essentially told Kasper "nothing doing mate; Rome is mistaken on this one." In reading their reply I noticed that they were driving hard (and effectively) against the Cardinal some kind of remark that he was said to have made in his address that that if the "Junian" who, along with Andronicus, was "great among the apostles" was a woman (Junia) rather than a man (Junias), it would undermine the Catholic case against WO. I thought this an absurd thing to say, and, moreover, I could find nothing about "Junia/s" in the published version of the Cardinal's address.<BR/><BR/>So I sent an e-mail to Bishop Wright to ask about it, and in reply he said that the Cardinal had indeed said that very thing in his address as verbally delivered, but that when the Cardinal had produced his "corrected" version for publication, it had disappeared. I leave you, gentle readers, to draw your own conclusions.William Tighehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16634494183165592707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-22243591563742002042008-01-30T14:26:00.000-05:002008-01-30T14:26:00.000-05:00"The very first time that any pope ever sought to ..."The very first time that any pope ever sought to interpret this as a matter of universal jurisdiction was in 1054, and we know what happened."<BR/><BR/>"The very first time"? Not so. Read Leo the Great's various sermons on his office; or read *The Life and Times of Leo the Great* by T. G. Jalland (1941); or read "Leo I and the Theme of Papal Primacy" by Walter Ullmann, *Journal of Theological Studies,* n.s., XI (1960), pp. 25-51. You may not agree with it, may regard it as an error, but Leo clearly ascribed a universal ecclesiastical jurisdictional competence to the papacy.William Tighehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16634494183165592707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-83900171500230220402008-01-30T05:00:00.000-05:002008-01-30T05:00:00.000-05:00>Fr. Robert Hart said... >...the legislation that ...>Fr. Robert Hart said... <BR/>>...the legislation that ‘permitted’ the ‘ordination’ of women in the first place states >clearly that the status /validity of those ‘orders’ to be undecided.<BR/><BR/>>That is less principled than honest heresy. Considering that one of the sacraments >"generally necessary for salvation" depends, as far as we can be certain, on valid >priestly ordination, it is downright cynical. <BR/><BR/>In response to Fr Robert I would agree completely on the one hand but also argue that the ‘provisionality’ of the situation requires a little more thought. The outcome remains undecided! That means that there is still the chance (albeit a slim one) that the CofE could repent of this error and the measures currently in place allow for us to continue certain (at least) of the validity of our own orders and sacraments. Until the matter is resolved we remain in a kind of ‘limbo’. I believe that the responsibility I have for the cure of souls in my parishes demands that I see it through until all hope is lost and no other options are open.<BR/><BR/>In the meantime, any encouragement to discover and uphold ‘classic’ Anglican faith, doctrine and worship can only be of benefit. The idea of an eventual new ‘continuing’ Church of England that uses the modern Roman Rite isn’t one that I find appealing.<BR/><BR/>>As long as the C of E has priests like Geoffrey Kirk and John Hunwicke, all hope is >not lost.<BR/><BR/>I heartily agree! But don’t forget there are also plenty of us at work at the ‘coal face’ who share similar views (and who use the BCP!).<BR/><BR/>Fr EdwardAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-23469673361948427462008-01-30T01:58:00.000-05:002008-01-30T01:58:00.000-05:00I can certainly relate to what Sandra said because...I can certainly relate to what Sandra said because in Canada, the TAC is also the only continuing church. I've been an Anglican for over 50 years, and only just went over to the TAC this past autumn. I always had been an Anglo-Catholic, and as you all know, in that tradition there is always this Latin Church fetish and nobody pays any attention to things like the 39 Articles, of course. But the closer this thing gets to Rome, the more I start to wonder exactly what it is of Anglicanism the TAC actually wants to preserve. I also wonder what on earth the Vatican thinks it is that the TAC actually want to preserve, since the bishops already have signed the catechism of the Roman church, on the altar in Portsmouth. <BR/><BR/>I also have started to fear that, in leaving behind the new age liberalism of the Lambeth communion for the Rome-obsessed TAC, I have also left behind my true Anglican heritage, which I have really ignored for so long (Fr Hart you've really got me thinking). Whatever deal the TAC gets with Rome, the only thing "Anglican" that can possibly survive will be some latinized version of the BCP (of course even that would be too Protestant for the Novus Ordo boys at Forward In Faith UK). Because it may be my last chance as an Anglican, I have actually started to study the Articles of Religion, which along with the Ordinal and the BCP are the formularies of the Anglican Church and I'm starting to realize that you can't just take chunks out of it and latinize them, and start giving people plenary indulgences for reading scripture for half an hour, and have to accept that the sack of Constantinople was just collateral damage, and think that EWTN is a really great TV station, and that the BVM is Co-Redemtrix, and call that Anglican. <BR/><BR/>I realize now that The Book Of Common Prayer (I mean ALL of it) is something really precious to me. The first time I ever went to church in my life was the very first service at my childhood parish church celebrated using the brand new 1962 Canadian edition, right out of the box. It's been with me all my life but I'm only starting to get what it was about, and also what Hooker gave us, finally, at the 11th hour, so to speak. More and more, I'm haunted by the image of Archbishop Cranmer holding his hand in the fire, and I'm thinking I might just swim back across the Thames, no matter how fetid the water is.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-85313103581064719002008-01-30T00:39:00.000-05:002008-01-30T00:39:00.000-05:00Amen to the thoughtful comments of Fathers Hart an...Amen to the thoughtful comments of Fathers Hart and Hollister.Rev. Dr. Hasserthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14350737386756722887noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-67160493689164637882008-01-29T23:31:00.000-05:002008-01-29T23:31:00.000-05:00Fr. Hart said almost everything I wish I had said,...Fr. Hart said almost everything I wish I had said, and more -- and everything wish I were able to say, too -- in response to Just A Thought.<BR/><BR/>I would append to his comment only two further points. One, not only were many of the Byzantine Emperors personally, morally, and otherwise corrupt but none of them had any legitimate claim to ecclesiastical jurisdiction. Thus what one such Emperor did with or said about his personal chaplain, which is about all that Photius amounted to, is utterly irrelevant to evaluating the Roman claims.<BR/><BR/>Two, Sardica has never been accepted as an Ecumenical Council; it was at most a regional council and so its decisions were not and are not binding on the Universal Church.<BR/><BR/>John A. Hollister+John A. Hollisterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01325615323834517909noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-75582025018676427162008-01-29T23:12:00.000-05:002008-01-29T23:12:00.000-05:00Steve Cavanaugh accused me of faulty logic when I ...Steve Cavanaugh accused me of faulty logic when I wrote that just because very large portions of the Church have always rejected the extreme Roman claims, that is by itself evidence that those claims have not in fact been believed "always, everywhere, and by all."<BR/><BR/>Mr. Cavanaugh's response, in his own words, was "Large portions of the Church refused to accept the definitions of Nicea I, and of Chalcedon (to mention only 2 councils)...would we claim that is sufficient to refute the claims made on behalf of Christ that those councils defined?" <BR/><BR/>In saying this, he implicitly suggests that St. Vincent's dictum should be read as though it had said "has been believed ... by all who agree with the current official Roman position" which, of course, is not what St. Vincent said at all.<BR/><BR/>To thus equate the Roman pretensions to Universal Ordinary Jurisdiction, etc., with the Christological formulations of the universally-accepted Ecumenical Councils is, figuratively, to compare tomatoes and kumquats. We know that the Seven Ecumenical Councils were, indeed Ecumenical precisely because, over time, the entire Church Catholic has come to accept them as such. That consensus certifies their catholicity.<BR/><BR/>It is that consensus that is so conspicuously lacking in the case of the peculiarly Roman notions. Where no portion of the Church outside the Roman Communion has ever accepted them, they can, in no meaningful way, be deemed to be universal, i.e., catholic.<BR/><BR/>John A. Hollister+John A. Hollisterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01325615323834517909noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-83165474561714387252008-01-29T20:29:00.000-05:002008-01-29T20:29:00.000-05:00I, for one, have never disputed that the Sees of R...I, for one, have never disputed that the Sees of Rome and of Antioch are Petrine, nor that some of the ancients recognized this as more significant in the case of Rome than in the case of Antioch.<BR/><BR/>After the Edict of Milan the first place of honor was given to Rome, and after that to Constantinople "because it is the new Rome" (Constantinople I). Therefore, the Emperor had a need for the Roman Patriarch as part of the whole image that Rome was the center of the Empire by tradition, even after the building of Constantinople, an image that goes back to Pagan times. In the Ante-Nicene period Rome had an appellate jurisdiction, but only in matters of doctrine. And, it was only appellate, Rome having no authority to step in to the affairs of other churches uninvited (see <I>Jurisdiction in the Early Church</I> by Dom Gregory Dix). The evidence reveals only that this was due to the reputation of that one church for always holding to purity of doctrine. It was not a matter of authority in the sense of jurisdiction, but of reputation for fidelity and sound teaching. Furthermore, the concept of Rome as the See of Peter cannot be shown to have had anything to do with this reputation in anything from that early period.<BR/><BR/>Beginning with the second Ecumenical Council a pattern was established recognizing Rome as first in honor (though in that second Council only as a brief remark in the third canon, and then by implication) until the Fifth Ecumenical Council. Why? Because Rome failed to maintain its winning streak as the measure of orthodoxy at that very Council. Though the implications of the condemnation of Pope Honrorius as a heretic are often overstated, the fact is that never again was this custom, of mentioning Rome as having that first place of honor, observed, and so it never appears again in the records of the Ecumenical Councils after that. Only in the second, third and fourth, and not in the fifth, sixth and seventh.<BR/><BR/>Nonetheless, citing the use of papal authority by Emperors is a weak argument for anything that lays claim to revelation or dogma. The better argument is that Roman Primacy needs to be considered for what it was in the ancient Church, not by its current bloated and controverted definition. For example, I have been criticized for my statement that the See of Rome does have a gift for the whole Church in teaching things that lack clarity almost everywhere else, including much of modern Orthodoxy. Often, this is due to the willingness they have to study every new scientific development in light of Christian morality as revealed in scripture. However, it needs to be balanced against Evangelical doctrine (in the old sense of that phrase) that cuts through medieval excess that Rome clings to, or rather, that clings to it.<BR/><BR/>But, to accept the notion of Universal Jurisdiction because Rome had such a good reputation for orthodoxy in ancient times, or because of how certain emperors used the Pope, does not follow. Especially, in light of the overwhelming rejection of Rome going far beyond anything understood as "first in honor" by all of the other patriarchs in 1054 until this very day, it does not follow.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-2112875531419224912008-01-29T17:46:00.000-05:002008-01-29T17:46:00.000-05:00Ed Re Flying BishopsThis really is a completely ne...Ed Re Flying Bishops<BR/><BR/>This really is a completely new idea of what a bishop is. From the beginning a bishop was the chief elder of a particular city or geographical area. What seems to be emerging is the idea that a bishop can be the pastor of a group of people who hold the same views that he does. This began in the 1990s when the Church of England created a special temporary provision for parishes that could not agree with women's ordination to have their own non-geographical 'flying bishops'. The 'flying bishop' was brought in for sacramental ministry to the parishes who could not, in good conscience, accept the sacramental ministry of their own bishop. The other administrative and financial aspects of the local church continued within the diocese as before.<BR/><BR/>So the Anglo-Catholics who did not want bishops who ordained women were allowed to have their own bishops. If that is allowed, then it only makes sense that the Evangelicals who do not want homosexuality may have their own bishops too.<BR/><BR/>What is novel about all this is that the new bishops and their new denominations are not actually breaking away from the Anglican Church. Instead new ecclesial bodies are being created within an existing ecclesial body in order to maintain 'unity'.<BR/><BR/>It will be interesting to see how all this plays out. If the Anglican bishops who disagree on women's ordination and homosexuality already don't have sacramental unity, how does this new arrangement actually guarantee sacramental unity, or for that matter, any unity at all?<BR/><BR/>What happened with the 'flying bishops' is that, for all intents and purposes, a sub-denomination with the Church of England was created. The parishes who had flying bishops have their own network of priests and people. They have their own publications, and their own clergy meetings. The ones I knew withdrew themselves from most diocesan committees, did not attend clergy fraternal meetings, and absented themselves from the diocesan structures of power. Some of them also with held their diocesan 'quota' payments- kind of clerical tax to support the bureaucracy. They even advertised their parishes displaying their special status. So a church in my area would call itself, "St Paul's Church of England, We are a Forward in Faith parish. (Forward in Faith being code for 'we don't have women priests and we have our own bishop)<BR/><BR/>If the more ecclesially minded Anglo Catholics were so independently minded, the Evangelical parishes will be even more so. Not only are they likely to advertise something like "We are united with the Anglican Bishop of Nigeria" but they are very likely to withhold at least some of their donations to the Anglican hierarchy, and disengage from diocesan structures. The fact that the Evangelicals are the ones with youth, numbers and money should be even more worrying to the Anglican establishment.<BR/><BR/>The result will be this: the Liberals will control the Anglican Church (as they have always done) but it will be a Pyrrhic victory. They will find themselves having to manage an increasing burden of aging and de-motivated clergy and people. They will also find that the great burden of maintenance for the medieval buildings will fall on them. As the Evangelicals withdraw their support, their enthusiasm and their money the Liberal hierarchy will look around and discover that their church has become politically correct sect for people who for whom the only virtue left is tolerance.<BR/><BR/>They'll have discovered that in a church where anything goes. Everyone goes.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-72850237377389787062008-01-29T17:30:00.000-05:002008-01-29T17:30:00.000-05:00William Tighe, Yes it was Cardinal Kasper I was th...William Tighe, Yes it was Cardinal Kasper I was thinking of, and if his attitude is that of the curia then as I said it doesn't look too promising, however time will tell, as we know The church in Rome thinks in centuries, so don’t hold your breath.<BR/><BR/><BR/>John A. Hollister, Your Point 2 is the position by EOC and of course the post reformation churches but it is not by Rome (unsurprisingly) however it was not always the case. For example during the time of Pope Nicholas I (858-67) the Patriarch of Constantinople Ignatius (846-57) refused Holy Communion to Cæsar Bardas who was living in incest with his daughter-in-law Eudocia. The upshot of this was Ignatius was deposed and banished by the emperor and in his place a layman Photius quickly ordained, made Bishop and enthroned. Now quite a bit of skulduggery went on here and the Pope was asked to judge the case and so he sent his legates to gather the facts. Now the important part is that they returned to Rome with letters, and the emperor sent his Secretary of State, Leo, after them with more explanations and letters (Hergenröther, op. cit., I, 439-460). In all these letters both the Emperor and Photius emphatically acknowledge the Roman primacy and categorically invoked the pope's jurisdiction to confirm what has happened.<BR/><BR/>An earlier example. Council Of Sardica (Pope St. Julius I called Bishops of the Eastern and Western Church), AD 343 Special importance attaches to this council through the fact that Canons 3-5 invest the Roman bishop with a prerogative which became the first legal recognition of his jurisdiction over other (as in Antioch Alexandria ect) sees and the basis for the further development of his primacy. "In order to honour the memory of St Peter," it was enacted that any bishop, if deposed by his provincial synod, should be entitled to appeal to the bishop of Rome, who was then at liberty either to confirm the first decision or to order a new investigation. In the latter case, the tribunal was to consist of bishops from the neighbouring provinces, assisted - if he so chose - by legates of the Roman bishop. The clauses thus made the bishop of Rome president of a reversionary court. In the middle ages they were cited to justify the claim of the papacy to be the supreme court of appeal. Attacks on their authenticity have been conclusively repelled.<BR/><BR/>For most of the pre great schism period the dialogues between the Pope and the Emperor of Constantine, cantered round the Emperor trying to exercise authority and control the Pope. The Patriarch was useful to the Emperor who would play him off against Rome and often did – See claims of Ravenna, Sicily, Moravia etc. In conflicts the Pope usually lost, in some cases killed See Pope St. Martin I but not one (even the weak ones) ever renounced the primacy of the See of Peter<BR/><BR/> Succeeding Emperors (After Pope St. Stephen I) did not feel their right to the throne was legitimised without the Pope (or his representative) anointing them at their coronation, somehow the Patriarchs blessing just wasn’t enough. This was seen as necessary as the Pope was the only Bishop to claim the succession of St Peter and it was recognised as such by Constantine Emperors as such as early as 254, no other Patriarch challenged this claim<BR/> <BR/>Your point that “…pretend and still pretend, that St. Peter founded the local church in Rome” I’m sorry that’s just not true, at least not from those Catholics with a passing acquaintance with the known facts. Peter was in Rome (as was Paul), and he did lead the Church in Rome, we do not have scripture for this only tradition and the later writings of the early Fathers – See Irenaeus of Lyons Doctor Of The Church AD 180 Excerpts from - Against the Heresies<BR/><BR/>“Now it is within the power of anyone who cares to find out the truth, to know the tradition of the Apostles, professed throughout the world in every church. We can name those too who were appointed bishops by the Apostles in the churches and their successors down to our own time.... But inasmuch as it would be very tedious in a book like this to rehearse the lines of succession in every church, we will put to confusion all those who, either from waywardness or conceit or blindness or obstinacy combine together against the truth, by pointing to the tradition, derived from the Apostles, of that great and illustrious Church founded and organized at Rome by the two glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul, and to the faith declared to mankind and handed down to our own time through its bishops in their succession. For with this Church, because of its more powerful leadership, every church, that is to say, the faithful from everywhere, must needs agree, and in it the tradition that springs from the Apostles has been continuously preserved by men from everywhere....”<BR/><BR/>I think this also answer your point “left the administration of the whole Church” in the affirmative. <BR/><BR/>And finally I hope I have demonstrated contrary to your point that large portions of the Church did accept Roman claims to universal jurisdiction.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-60145545980192978712008-01-29T16:58:00.000-05:002008-01-29T16:58:00.000-05:00To Fr. Edward,I have such good feeling toward one ...To Fr. Edward,<BR/>I have such good feeling toward one who shares my patron. Welcome.<BR/><BR/>Tes, there is still much good to be found in the mirky mire of the Thames, and those honest Catholics that still flounder in that unhealthy environment do have my honest respect. But I can no longer look on that other shore as a possible destination. Those beloved stalwarts over there don't need company. They need rescue. I am convinced that the battle is long lost and that the war will best be prosecuted by a strategic withdrawal and regrouping. We Traditional Catholic Anglicans need to find unity with one another and separation from those who have denied our heritage -- both the liberal revisionist that we spend so much time complaining about, and also the Calvinists who dominate the still-remaining Credally "orthodox" presence in the C of E and such places as Sydney. If we don't regroup in that fashion, our heritage will have been abandoned.<BR/><BR/>to Warwickensis,<BR/><BR/>Your latest comment is a wonderful statement of a position I respect highly, even though I can't accept it entirely. I've agreed with Fr. Hart in ueging a cetain type of Anglo-Papalist to pack their bags and go. I just wrote very sharply to one such on another board. If there is no disagreement with RC distinctives, there is no excuse, not even the dreadful liturgical abuse often seen, for not being there. That advice, however, was never intended to apply to honest and truly Anglican Papalists such as yourself. No one is telling you to move on. In fact those who know you, including myself, are hoping that you find a way to remain with and enrich the true survivals of Anglicanism.<BR/><BR/>I hope you keep both of your hats, my good friend. Maybe you can find spme way to wear them both at once. (bet you could draw that!)<BR/><BR/>edpoetreaderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11613032927883843078noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-50534522143922325822008-01-29T16:08:00.000-05:002008-01-29T16:08:00.000-05:00...the legislation that ‘permitted’ the ‘ordinatio...<I>...the legislation that ‘permitted’ the ‘ordination’ of women in the first place states clearly that the status /validity of those ‘orders’ to be undecided.</I><BR/><BR/>That is less principled than honest heresy. Considering that one of the sacraments "generally necessary for salvation" depends, as far as we can be certain, on valid priestly ordination, it is downright cynical. <BR/><BR/>As long as the C of E has priests like Geoffrey Kirk and John Hunwicke, all hope is not lost.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-41909578245651102952008-01-29T15:32:00.000-05:002008-01-29T15:32:00.000-05:00ed wrote:"Anyone for swimming the Thames?"Not when...ed wrote:<BR/>"Anyone for swimming the Thames?"<BR/><BR/>Not when the other shore is a haven for lady clergy, for defenders of immorality, and, worse yet, for deniers of basic Christian doctrines.<BR/><BR/>Although I would accept each of those criticisms of the CofE in general don’t forget that there are provisions in place that allow for those opposed to the ‘ordination’ of women to receive the ministry of Provincial Episcopal Visitors (PEVs or ‘flying Bishops’) and that the legislation that ‘permitted’ the ‘ordination’ of women in the first place states clearly that the status /validity of those ‘orders’ to be undecided. The matter is far from closed and the next five years or so will be crucial for those who continue to hope, pray and fight for orthodoxy within the CofE. <BR/><BR/>Some are optimistic, some pessimistic. Bishop Edwin Barnes (the President of the Church Union) wrote in the latest edition of the society’s magazine that if an orthodox ‘third province’ was not granted to those who cannot accept the innovation of women’s ‘ordination’ then:<BR/><BR/>“we will indeed be in the recycling business – trying to gather up the fragments that remain and take them with us into whatever new alliance is open to us – perhaps a temporary home as continuing Anglicans, while looking for a more permanent place allied in some way to Rome or Orthodoxy.”<BR/><BR/>I would appeal to the Continuum to support those in the CofE still holding fast to ‘classic’ Anglicanism and, if the inevitable does happen, then to encourage us to look not to Rome or Orthodoxy for permanence and stability but instead to our own Anglican faith and heritage. <BR/><BR/>Right now I’d still choose the murky and uncertain Thames than the Tiber.<BR/><BR/>Fr EdwardAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-41979608639897045142008-01-29T14:52:00.000-05:002008-01-29T14:52:00.000-05:00Warwickensis:You have personalized my general crit...Warwickensis:<BR/><BR/>You have personalized my general criticism of Anglo-Papalists. I think you would have to admit that there is a good number of Anglicans in this movement who have never studied Anglicanism for what it is, who have accepted Roman Catholic attacks on it without resistance (especially the resistance of bothering to read and learn), and who have developed an inferiority complex towards Rome. Nonetheless, this Romanism of theirs is superficial, because if it were a matter of conviction they would do as their conscience dictates. I have read enough by you not to include you in this category. <BR/><BR/>I am aware as well of the problem with modern usage of the word "Protestant." Today it means everything, and so means nothing. I have used the word in this post with the intention of so describing my position that meaning is restored to the word, if only for historic appreciation. As such, it was a perfectly good Catholic word describing a Catholic position among the C of E apologists in the 16th and 17th centuries.<BR/><BR/>If a certain body of bishops can enter into a restored ARCIC with a genuine goal, then all of my efforts to defend Anglicanism will prove to have been necessary for the work they must do. For, unless they discuss matters of Evangelical doctrine and proclamation (not "Evangelical" in the modern American sense), they will have little to say. If they seek to bring their churches into submission to Rome without all of the doctrinal work having been done, and to the satisfaction of their people, they will create something that will turn into only a few AU parishes here and there in different countries, and scatter the rest of their jurisdiction to the four winds. <BR/><BR/>Now, a restoration of real discussion is a good thing. However, nothing is going to happen very quickly; of that I am certain.<BR/><BR/>Also you wrote:<BR/><I>On the other Sundays when I officiate at Prime, I wear my biretta.</I><BR/><BR/>Just be careful not to break any "conceal and carry" laws. Have you considered a Glock?Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.com