Proof we have Apostolic Succession

[benedictine]

All that is neccesary for Ordination and Apostolic Succsession is the laying on of hands, and the intent to ordain, right? Well the argument that the Eduardian ordinal was written wrongly, and incomplete, is nullified by this statement.

[SirTimothy]

If our ordination is invalid, then they should start thinking about just how they ordained in the early church--I VERY much doubt that in the first 10+ years, they had much formalized wording. Laying on of hands and the intent to pass on the gifting is most likely, I think.

Timothy

[benedictine]

That's exactly how it was done, Timothy

[Colabomb]

That's exactly how it was done, Timothy
Tada!

[benedictine]

dun dun dun!

[Albion]

All that is neccesary for Ordination and Apostolic Succsession is the laying on of hands, and the intent to ordain, right? Well the argument that the Eduardian ordinal was written wrongly, and incomplete, is nullified by this statement.

Remember that Apostolic Succession is essentially a matter of one becoming a bishop, not a priest. But in either case -- consecrations or ordinations -- the candidate must also be eligible for ordination, right?

It was this point that split the Episcopal Church (and others) in the 1970s and 80s when women were ordained for the first time in church history and later consecrated to the episcopacy. For example, in the case of V. Gene Robinson's becoming bishop of New Hampshire, the controversy was basically over the faith of the Church to do such a thing, but in the case of women in Orders, it was a matter of validity. The first women ordained in the US were said by ECUSA to have been validly but irregularly ordained, while the opposition, including all the Continuing Anglicans, held that they were not validly ordained. Naturally, that view was echoed by Rome, Constantinople, the Polish National Catholic Church, and others.

Does the church, therefore, have a valid line of clergy? You can decide, but the answer isn't a slam dunk, even if we lay aside the issue of the Edwardian Ordinal (about which you and I agree).

[Father Rick]

Remember that Apostolic Succession is essentially a matter of one becoming a bishop, not a priest. But in either case -- consecrations or ordinations -- the candidate must also be eligible for ordination, right?

It was this point that split the Episcopal Church (and others) in the 1970s and 80s when women were ordained for the first time in church history and later consecrated to the episcopacy. For example, in the case of V. Gene Robinson's becoming bishop of New Hampshire, the controversy was basically over the faith of the Church to do such a thing, but in the case of women in Orders, it was a matter of validity. The first women ordained in the US were said by ECUSA to have been validly but irregularly ordained, while the opposition, including all the Continuing Anglicans, held that they were not validly ordained. Naturally, that view was echoed by Rome, Constantinople, the Philippine National Catholic Church, and others.

Does the church, therefore, have a valid line of clergy? You can decide, but the answer isn't a slam dunk, even if we lay aside the issue of the Edwardian Ordinal (about which you and I agree).I think you meant: Polish National Catholic Church.

[Albion]

I think you meant: Polish National Catholic Church.

Indeed I did, which maybe is hinted at by the fact that the Philippine Church doesn't have "National" as part of its name, but the (Polish) National Catholic Church does. I'll correct the original.

[benedictine]

During the Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe, Czechoslovakia, I believe, Ludmila Javorova was ordained as a female Catholic Priest. She served in the underground church, said Mass, heard confessions, etc. There were also several married male priests.

There was also an ordained female deacon.

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/79/story_7967_1.html

[ps139]

During the Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe, Czechoslovakia, I believe, Ludmila Javorova was ordained as a female Catholic Priest. She served in the underground church, said Mass, heard confessions, etc. There were also several married male priests.

There was also an ordained female deacon.

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/79/story_7967_1.html (http://www.beliefnet.com/story/79/story_7967_1.html)


Whether or not this story is true, my Church would not see it as a valid ordination.

[benedictine]

Why not? The only factor is becosue of her gender? She was ordained by a bishop, in apostolic succession, with the "correct liturgy", and everything.

[Polycarp1]

The issue of clerical celibacy among our Roman brethren is very explicitly defined as a Law of the Church, not a directive from God. For reasons quite clear to anyone who has ever been friends with a priest struggling to give pastoral care to his parish and at the same time do right by his own wife (or her own husband!) and children, the original regulation, put in place largely to prevent nepotistic simony, has been continued until today in the Roman Rite, and the episcopacy among both Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox. It would be quite within the rules of Catholicism for John Paul II to issue an encyclical tomorrow that said that priests were free to marry, much like the enforced Friday fast was turned into a voluntary one forty years ago.

The issue at hand here is a bit different: we have passed on the sacrament of Holy Orders to people that they think may not validly receive it. As I understand it, holy orders in the apostolic succession involves the laying on of hands by a bishop already in the succession, with intent to pass on one of the orders of the historic threefold ministry as the church has understood them. The ordinand is to perceive a call to the ordained ministry and to agree to carry out the duties of the order to which ordained.

I personally see nothing in that that restricts a woman, a gay person, or anyone else from validly receiving such orders. Others do -- IMO by their myopia.

It might be worth noting, however, that we are all in the Apostolic Succession, all being ministers of the church on whom episcopal hands have been laid to equip us with the Holy Spirit to carry out the ministry to which we are called. That we distinguish our commissioning as laypersons from that of the clergy, under the term Confirmation, should not obscure the fact that each is the bestowing of the Spirit in a special way for ministry to God's people. Clergy are set apart for the particular ministry of Word and Sacrament, not above as the ministers to all others.

[Filia Mariae]

During the Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe, Czechoslovakia, I believe, Ludmila Javorova was ordained as a female Catholic Priest. She served in the underground church, said Mass, heard confessions, etc. There were also several married male priests.

There was also an ordained female deacon.

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/79/story_7967_1.html (http://www.beliefnet.com/story/79/story_7967_1.html)

The Ludmila Javorova story is a favorite of dissenting Catholics. The fact is, the Catholic Church does not accept her ordination as valid. The words may have been said, the hands laid on, etc. but she is not and never was a priest, as that is impossible.

Catholics do not believe it is impossible for a woman to be a deacon, but we do not allow it.

[Polycarp1]

The Ludmila Javorova story is a favorite of dissenting Catholics. The fact is, the Catholic Church does not accept her ordination as valid. The words may have been said, the hands laid on, etc. but she is not and never was a priest, as that is impossible.

Catholics do not believe it is impossible for a woman to be a deacon, but we do not allow it.

Minor correction, considering the forum you're posting in and its beliefs: "The words may have been said, the hands laid on, etc. but we Catholics believe that she is not and never was a priest, as we consider that that is impossible."

I would not think of coming over to OBOB and telling you what you must believe; I think we deserve the same respect.

[ps139]

Why not? The only factor is becosue of her gender? She was ordained by a bishop, in apostolic succession, with the "correct liturgy", and everything. Simply because she is a woman. We just do not believe it is possible for a woman to become a priest. There are reasons behind this but I will not get into them here.

[benedictine]

Why then may a woman become a deacon, but are not allowed to?

[gitlance]

I think it just needs to be understood that no one group/branch/denomination has a monopoly on the Truth. While the Church as a whole (and in my opinion that includes the 3 catholic branches as well perhaps as individual Protestants) may be the "pillar and foundation" of the Truth, the Church herself is NOT the truth. Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is the Truth. No one comes to the Father but by HIM. The Church exists to show the world who Jesus is, but people are saved by their faith in Christ, not their faith or allegiance to the Church. I do sincerely believe that there is still a Church catholic today, though historically it must be admitted that she is in three branches. Agree or disagree, but an unbiased reading of history will show that to you. The catholic faith is also a universal faith, not one that is contained within one institution. The Church does indeed possess the "wholeness/fullness" of Christianity, but a person's salvation is not dependant on confirmation into the Anglican/Catholic/Orthodox branch of the Church. To claim to have a monopoly on the Truth is to claim that you alone possess Jesus, when Jesus by the very nature of His Godhood cannot be contained. Neither Heaven nor Earth can contain Him. While He does reside in the Church Catholic, He also resides in the hearts of believing individuals who may not yet be a part of the Church Catholic.

Let us not fool ourselves into thinking that somebody can confine Jesus to their historical practice of Catholicism.

In Christ's Name,

gitlance :crossrc:

[ps139]

Why then may a woman become a deacon, but are not allowed to?
Which church are we talking about?
We are actually discussing this very subject in OBOB, in reference to deaconesses in the early church in the east. http://www.christianforums.com/t1184981-the-presbyterae.html
I would rather not turn this thread into a discussion of Catholic views of ordination.

[Albion]

Why not? The only factor is becosue of her gender? She was ordained by a bishop, in apostolic succession, with the "correct liturgy", and everything.
As said, women are not eligible for ordination.

I'm always amazed, by the way at people who say that they are Catholic, catholic, Catholic, but then want to fiddle with Tradition in the name of social trends. you can'[t have it both ways.

[benedictine]

The Ludmila Javorova story is a favorite of dissenting Catholics. The fact is, the Catholic Church does not accept her ordination as valid. The words may have been said, the hands laid on, etc. but she is not and never was a priest, as that is impossible.

Catholics do not believe it is impossible for a woman to be a deacon, but we do not allow it.

Carly siad that women could become a deacon, but that te church doesn't allow it.

[Albion]

Why then may a woman become a deacon, but are not allowed to?

Women are NOT allowed to be deacons.

But what are we talking about here--what ECUSA says or what Catholicism says? The former is not considered to be part of the latter by most "Catholics" of any affiliation because of this, you know.

[Albion]

Carly siad that women could become a deacon, but that te church doesn't allow it.
She obviously means that some members of the Catholic church wish that the Church had a different policy. That doesn't mean much to the issue since there are dissenters as individuals in every tradition and community of faith.

[Albion]

Minor correction, considering the forum you're posting in and its beliefs: "The words may have been said, the hands laid on, etc. but we Catholics believe that she is not and never was a priest, as we consider that that is impossible."

I would not think of coming over to OBOB and telling you what you must believe; I think we deserve the same respect.

Since the issue is Apostolic Succession, and since Anglicans say that ours is as good as theirs, it seems appropriate to me. But that's just my view in this case. But...are we asking about AS or not?

If anyone wants to throw Apostolic Succession over or redefine it as, say, the Methodists did, it would be easy to make all of you priests right this week. You'd still have to contend with the bigger issue that's on everyone's mind, though...Is it really valid in the way that the historic faith sees it (or just 'allowed' by my own particular corner of Christianity)?

[benedictine]

Closed for staff review.

[pmcleanj]

Thank you all for your patience. This thread is now open again.

Non-Anglican members have already been reminded of their obligations not to debate in this forum, and to accept Anglican norms regarding terminology.

Anglican/Old Catholic members are reminded that, while you are welcome to debate, you may not flame or insult your brothers and sisters in Christ, nor imply that they are not Christian.

That includes the suggestion that your brother or sister is engaging in heresy; nor that -- given the range of different importance Anglicans place on this aspect of their identity -- that your brother or sister is non-Catholic (or non-Reformed, or non-Evangelical). You may make such claims about yourself, but not about one another.

[UberLutheran]

Post removed.

[pmcleanj]

That aside -- am I missing an important piece of this conversation? :confused:

Probably. Most of us are missing bits and pieces of it here and there.

There are portions of the Anglican Church that do not allow women to be clergy. Some of those are provinces of the Anglican Communion in other countries, and some of those are Anglican churches that are out of communion with the national churches in the United States and Canada.

The original post about women's not being allowed to be deacons was made by a Roman Catholic, however. She was making the distinction that, according to their beliefs that the sacrament of holy orders is such that women cannot possibly receive the grace of the priesthood; and that while no such bar of impossibility exists for the diaconate, the discipline of their church is such that it prohibits women's being made deacon despite the fact that (unlike the priesthood) they believe it is physically possible for a woman to be made deacon.

I know that probably doesn't make anything any clearer.

You know, when we first started attending a Lutheran Church, I thought "Lutheran" was a single consistent denomination, too! Imagine my surprise when I talked to an LCC pastor after interviewing several ELCIC pastors! So I did some research and found out at that time there were 24 distinct Lutheran synods in North America, with countless independent Lutheran churches as well. Something similar happens with Anglicans: not every Anglican can be assumed to be part of ECUSA.

[Colabomb]

Probably. Most of us are missing bits and pieces of it here and there.

There are portions of the Anglican Church that do not allow women to be clergy. Some of those are provinces of the Anglican Communion in other countries, and some of those are Anglican churches that are out of communion with the national churches in the United States and Canada.

The original post about women's not being allowed to be deacons was made by a Roman Catholic, however. She was making the distinction that, according to their beliefs that the sacrament of holy orders is such that women cannot possibly receive the grace of the priesthood; and that while no such bar of impossibility exists for the diaconate, the discipline of their church is such that it prohibits women's being made deacon despite the fact that (unlike the priesthood) they believe it is physically possible for a woman to be made deacon.

I know that probably doesn't make anything any clearer.

You know, when we first started attending a Lutheran Church, I thought "Lutheran" was a single consistent denomination, too! Imagine my surprise when I talked to an LCC pastor after interviewing several ELCIC pastors! So I did some research and found out at that time there were 24 distinct Lutheran synods in North America, with countless independent Lutheran churches as well. Something similar happens with Anglicans: not every Anglican can be assumed to be part of ECUSA.
Yes, many of us hold to the teaching that women are not to be priests. We do not believe that women are inferior in the sights of God, but that God, for whatever Reasons He has in His Divine Will, chose to limit the Priesthood to men.

Yes, PMJ is correct, not every American Anglican is in ECUSA. I personally am a member of the Reformed Episcopal Church. Other groups include the Anglican Mission in America, the Anglican Province of America etc.

[Albion]

The Episcopal Church has women deacons, women seminarians, women theological professors, women priests, and women bishops.

Or, at least the bishop I met (from Indianapolis) LOOKED like she was a woman. It's possible I could have made a mistake: I mistook one woman who was wearing a large, cross-shaped brace and a white collar with a black shirt for a bishop, bowed before her -- and then found out she was a Unitarian-Universalist (but that was here in Austin!).

That aside -- am I missing an important piece of this conversation? :confused:

Bowed before her, huh? Now, that IS High Church. :)

Anyway, the answer is just that we are dealing with a whole bunch of different Anglican bodies that have different views, and some ordain women and some don't. None of the Continuing Churches, strictly speaking, do, but the churches of the Anglican Communion in North America do.

There's no easy way of addressing the issue categorically, and you wind up tending to guess at what the other guy has in mind. Then too, the OP in this thread spoke very generally about the idea, so we got into thinking of the wider range of churches, not just Anglicans.

[ps139]

The original post about women's not being allowed to be deacons was made by a Roman Catholic, however. She was making the distinction that, according to their beliefs that the sacrament of holy orders is such that women cannot possibly receive the grace of the priesthood; and that while no such bar of impossibility exists for the diaconate, the discipline of their church is such that it prohibits women's being made deacon despite the fact that (unlike the priesthood) they believe it is physically possible for a woman to be made deacon.

Pamela, my Church teaches women cannot be ordained, period. Whether to the priesthood or diaconate, or whatever. But I believe there is such a place for "consecrated deaconesses." (diaconai), who assisted male deacons and priests. The difference is that they are not conferred the sacrament of ordination.

[Colabomb]

Pamela, my Church teaches women cannot be ordained, period. Whether to the priesthood or diaconate, or whatever. But I believe there is such a place for "consecrated deaconesses." (diaconai), who assisted male deacons and priests. The difference is that they are not conferred the sacrament of ordination.
The REC is the same way, as far as I understand it.

[ps139]

Whats the REC? (pardon my ignorance! :))

[Colabomb]

Whats the REC? (pardon my ignorance! :))
The Reformed Episcopal Church. My Denomination.

Btw, if you decide to read up on them, understand that there are many Anglo-Catholics within this historically reformed Denom. The Church is becoming more Catholic.

[Albion]

The Reformed Episcopal Church. My Denomination.

Btw, if you decide to read up on them, understand that there are many Anglo-Catholics within this historically reformed Denom. The Church is becoming more Catholic.

"Becoming more Catholic?" I wonder. All its official doctrinal positions are the same as ever, aren't they?

[Colabomb]

"Becoming more Catholic?" I wonder. All its official doctrinal positions are the same as ever, aren't they?

http://rechurch.org/foundationbeliefs.htm

I don't really know how to answer you other than to say, that there is a movement of Anglo-Catholicism in the REC as to officiality, I honestly don't know.

[Wigglesworth]

The fundamentalist church I was a member of years ago had deacons, who had to be men, and stewards, who had to be women. The stewards were their interpretation of "deaconess" where it is found in the Bible. Their deacons were the equivalent of an Episcopal vestry.

Of course, the fundamentalist church was not liturgical, and this post really has very little to do with anything anybody else has said in this thread - except for the assignments available to the sexes.

The above statement is not to be construed as an invitation to debate, is offered for general information only, and the author takes no position as to its validity or propriety. Moreover, the author disavows any knowledge of his own actions. :)

[Albion]

Let me research.

Thanks. That's a good reference website. I particularly had in mind the specifically REC Declaration of Principles which, I believe, also is included in every REC Book of Common Prayer. Now, to me, that's historic Anglicanism! (as is also pointed out there)

'preciate it, Cola. :)

[julian the apostate]

colabomb<<The Reformed Episcopal Church. My Denomination.

Btw, if you decide to read up on them, understand that there are many Anglo-Catholics within this historically reformed Denom. The Church is becoming more Catholic.

that is the darndest thing, i remember reading once upon a time on their web site that the rec was formed as a reaction to the romanization of the episcopal church

[ps139]

That is pretty ironic!

[Iron Sun 254]

And for the record, not every diocese of the ECUSA is so hot on women's ordination. They accept women priests as valid but they don't make it easy for them.

[Colabomb]

That is pretty ironic!
Very... I am an Anglo-Catholic and I can admit it! :)

Btw, my priest is Catholic, so, it isn't just in the laity.

[ps139]

Btw, my priest is Catholic, so, it isn't just in the laity.
A little off topic, I know, but I am glad that in this forum, Catholic isn't considered a "curse." It is in most other ones and I just want to give you all a big thanks! :thumbsup:

[Colabomb]

A little off topic, I know, but I am glad that in this forum, Catholic isn't considered a "curse." It is in most other ones and I just want to give you all a big thanks! :thumbsup:
Well, I am Catholic, so.... no, its not a curse lol.

[Polycarp1]

Even the most low-church evangelical of us are proud of being Catholic, Ps139, even if not what PV refers to as "Vatican Catholic" and most people (and I know the usage is touchy) as "Roman Catholic." The historical truths that (Roman) Catholicism has stood for are ones we try to preserve. (Some of the comments that Orthodox folks have made about "the/one Holy Catholic [and Apostolic] Church" in the Creeds will help to illustrate where we are coming from in that sense.)

[ps139]

I am really glad you guys have a good sense of history! :)

Also I'm no one of those types who gets mad if you call me "Roman Catholic."
I grew up attending St. Paul's R.C. School.
And I am Italian and even though my ancestors hailed from Napoli and Abbruzzi, there must be some Roman blood in me somewhere ;).

[Colabomb]

I am really glad you guys have a good sense of history! :)

Also I'm no one of those types who gets mad if you call me "Roman Catholic."
I grew up attending St. Paul's R.C. School.
And I am Italian and even though my ancestors hailed from Napoli and Abbruzzi, there must be some Roman blood in me somewhere ;).
I've even seen the Roman Catholic Church call itself the Roman Catholic Church, so I don't get why so many Roman Catholics get mad.

God Bless you Brother! :)

[ps139]

I've even seen the Roman Catholic Church call itself the Roman Catholic Church, so I don't get why so many Roman Catholics get mad.
Exactly. Well the reasoning is that back a few hundred years ago, actually I think it was the Anglicans who started calling us "Roman Catholic" instead of just "Catholic." Officially, my Church calls itself the "Catholic Church," you will never see "Roman Catholic" on any official publications or anything. But like I said before my own parish and school called itself "R.C." so, really ,whats the problem? I mean, its obvious we have different ecclesiologies, and us being called Roman is just reflective of that. I guess, like many groups, we've adopted the name once intended to diminish us in some way. Just like the Quakers and countless other groups.

God Bless you Brother! :)You too!!!

[Wigglesworth]

I have a friend who is a member of a Greek Catholic church, which was formerly a Ukranian Catholic church. His church is in submission to the Pope, but uses the Byzantine rite. He refers to churches using the Latin rite as Roman Catholic to distinguish his liturgy. On a Catholic forum where I spent time in the past, people like him were distinguished as Eastern Catholics. In my area, you can see church signs and cornerstones with the letters "RC" inscribed on them.

There were a lot of eastern European immigrants around here, so there were several Catholic churches in every town that were comprised of folks from distinct national origins. Because of linguistic and cultural differences, the Irish Catholics didn't go to church with the Polish Catholics or the Ukranian Catholics or the Slovaks, etc.

[pmcleanj]

Exactly. Well the reasoning is that back a few hundred years ago, actually I think it was the Anglicans who started calling us "Roman Catholic" instead of just "Catholic." Officially, my Church calls itself the "Catholic Church," you will never see "Roman Catholic" on any official publications or anything. But like I said before my own parish and school called itself "R.C." so, really ,whats the problem? I mean, its obvious we have different ecclesiologies, and us being called Roman is just reflective of that. I guess, like many groups, we've adopted the name once intended to diminish us in some way. Just like the Quakers and countless other groups.

I do not know that the term "Roman Catholic" was intended as a slur. The Anglican Church, too, in its formative documents, refers to itself solely as "The Church" and "The Holy Catholic Church", right down to the capital "C" in Catholic. The "Roman" distinguishes Catholics who see themselves as under the authority of the Bishop of Rome, from Catholics who see themselves as not under Rome's authority and see the reason for that to be that Rome's authority doesn't apply in England. So "Roman" and "Anglican" are natural counterpoints in the two ways of understanding English Catholicism.

As a term it does diminish the Roman Catholic Church's right to claim the term "Catholic" for their sole use, and it diminishes their ability to deny that term to us. But we honestly do believe we are Catholic (and Reformed). So it would be silly to claim that our finding a way to continue to describe our selves as what we see ourselves to be, in some way diminishes your church.

[Colabomb]

The way we see it, we are the Catholic Church, you are the Catholic Church, the Orthodox are the Catholic Church. We have to have some way of distinguising between us. So we call you Roman Catholic, we are Anglican or English Catholic, or AngloCatholic etc.

[ps139]

I do not know that the term "Roman Catholic" was intended as a slur.
I think slur is a pretty strong word, I hope I did not come across as meaning that. Maybe the comparison with Quakers was not a good one. I do know that "Quaker" was originally a slur.

So it would be silly to claim that our finding a way to continue to describe our selves as what we see ourselves to be, in some way diminishes your church.Like I said, ecclesiological differences. We have different ecclesiologies and we can't both be right :)

[ps139]

I have a friend who is a member of a Greek Catholic church, which was formerly a Ukranian Catholic church. His church is in submission to the Pope, but uses the Byzantine rite. He refers to churches using the Latin rite as Roman Catholic to distinguish his liturgy. On a Catholic forum where I spent time in the past, people like him were distinguished as Eastern Catholics. In my area, you can see church signs and cornerstones with the letters "RC" inscribed on them.
Yes this is correct. Although your friend's Byzantine Catholic church falls under what Anglicans would probably call the "Roman Catholic Church," since it means submission to the Roman pontiff. Latin Rite Catholics make up most "RCs" in America, but you do have your fair share of Eastern Rite Catholics.
The archbishop who was abducted (and thankfully returned shortly after!) in Iraq last week is Syrian Catholic, another Eastern Rite under Rome.

There were a lot of eastern European immigrants around here, so there were several Catholic churches in every town that were comprised of folks from distinct national origins. Because of linguistic and cultural differences, the Irish Catholics didn't go to church with the Polish Catholics or the Ukranian Catholics or the Slovaks, etc.This is very true. One parish I sometimes attend is almost entirely Polish, they have Polish missals, Polish masses, Polish confessions. etc. But they are also Latin Rite. And there is an Eastern Rite (Byzantine) church across the street. :)

[Albion]

Exactly. Well the reasoning is that back a few hundred years ago, actually I think it was the Anglicans who started calling us "Roman Catholic" instead of just "Catholic." Officially, my Church calls itself the "Catholic Church," you will never see "Roman Catholic" on any official publications or anything. But like I said before my own parish and school called itself "R.C." so, really ,whats the problem? I mean, its obvious we have different ecclesiologies, and us being called Roman is just reflective of that. I guess, like many groups, we've adopted the name once intended to diminish us in some way. Just like the Quakers and countless other groups.

You too!!!

I've heard that before, but in fact I have seen many documents from your church that do indeed refer to the church as "Roman Catholic." The Missalette that is used by the laity for Sunday Mass does.

Also, according to a book I have here that includes the imprimatur of the Archbishop of New York, "The Church's official title is 'The Holy Catholic Apostolic Roman Church.'" I don't suppose most church members know that.

Anyway, using the word Roman along with Catholic doesn't seem to be unwarranted, and since all of us here consider it to be without any intended insult, it sure makes keeping the churches straight a lot easier.

[Albion]

I do not know that the term "Roman Catholic" was intended as a slur. The Anglican Church, too, in its formative documents, refers to itself solely as "The Church" and "The Holy Catholic Church", right down to the capital "C" in Catholic. The "Roman" distinguishes Catholics who see themselves as under the authority of the Bishop of Rome, from Catholics who see themselves as not under Rome's authority and see the reason for that to be that Rome's authority doesn't apply in England. So "Roman" and "Anglican" are natural counterpoints in the two ways of understanding English Catholicism.

As a term it does diminish the Roman Catholic Church's right to claim the term "Catholic" for their sole use, and it diminishes their ability to deny that term to us. But we honestly do believe we are Catholic (and Reformed). So it would be silly to claim that our finding a way to continue to describe our selves as what we see ourselves to be, in some way diminishes your church.

That's a good point about what we call ourselves. You probably know--but I wonder how many Anglicans do--that in most of the Anglican Churches of the world, the name is just "The Holy Catholic Church of _______ " or something like that.

In fact, I have read that the Canadian church (ACC) was the first in the world to officially include the word "Anglican" in its name, and that was only in the last half-century, having previously been (I think) the C of E in Canada.

[ps139]

I've heard that before, but in fact I have seen many documents from your church that do indeed refer to the church as "Roman Catholic." The Missalette that is used by the laity for Sunday Mass does.

Also, according to a book I have here that includes the imprimatur of the Archbishop of New York, "The Church's official title is 'The Holy Catholic Apostolic Roman Church.'" I don't suppose most church members know that.

Anyway, using the word Roman along with Catholic doesn't seem to be unwarranted, and since all of us here consider it to be without any intended insult, it sure makes keeping the churches straight a lot easier.
Hmmm, I should have clarified. I meant things from the Vatican. Like the Catechism for instance. Or encyclicals, etc.