An Anglican Rite?

[Don5925]

It an attempt to get a good dialog going:

What would it take to have another particular church in the Catholic community, the Anglican Rite?

Could it happen? Would Lucifer likely have frostbite on his tail before it did?

Again, I'm hoping for positive dialog, not mutual bashing.

[Albion]

It an attempt to get a good dialog going:

What would it take to have another particular church in the Catholic community, the Anglican Rite?

Could it happen? Would Lucifer likely have frostbite on his tail before it did?

Again, I'm hoping for positive dialog, not mutual bashing.

It exists. Look up "Anglican Use."

However, there are only about 7 parishes in the USA and none elsewhere, to the best of my knowledge. Rome is more interested in having converts go directly to the Latin Rite which is closer by far to Anglican litugies than the other Rites she has authorized.

[a_ntv]

It an attempt to get a good dialog going:

What would it take to have another particular church in the Catholic community, the Anglican Rite?

Could it happen? Would Lucifer likely have frostbite on his tail before it did?

Again, I'm hoping for positive dialog, not mutual bashing.

There will be an official Anglican rite in the CC when there will be a quite large comunity to use it.

Up to now the former Anglican parishes that joined the CC, a part from keeping their married priest (newly-ordained for safety), have got the permission to use their Book of Common Law (with very minor changes)

[Albion]

There will be an official Anglican rite in the CC when there will be a quite large comunity to use it.

Very true.

Up to now the former Anglican parishes that joined the CC, a part from keeping their married priest (newly-ordained for safety), have got the permission to use their Book of Common Law (with very minor changes)

Yes, except that it's the Book of Common Prayer and the changes are very significant although modest in number.

[WarriorAngel]

I know JPll was dialoging and some very positive discussions came from that.

I would hope it happens.

[Don5925]

:doh:Thanks for the info, I certainly was not aware:doh:

How do we get more? I always support the home team!

[Mary of Bethany]

Very true.



Yes, except that it's the Book of Common Prayer and the changes are very significant although modest in number.

It would be interesting to compare the modifications made for the Latin Rite to the Western Orthodox Rite. I wonder how similar/different they would be.

I wouldn't have thought the BCP (or at least the 1928 BCP which is the only one I'm familiar with) would have to change much to be acceptable to the Latin Church.

Mary

[Mysterium_Fidei]

I disagree. There will never be an Anglican rite in the Catholic Church. The See of Canterbury was never an Apostolic See, and English Catholics largely adopted the normative form of the Roman Rite before the Anglican schism. To create an entire rite for Anglican converts would be to promote the English Church to a level of patriarchal authority that it never had in the first place.

There wouldn't be any justification for it. As it stands, the Anglican use is just one form of the current Latin Rite, along with the Ambrosian and Tridentine liturgies. That is how it will likely remain.

As a former Anglican, I agree that the liturgies in the Prayer Book are quite beautiful, and I would love to see wider application of the Anglican Use. Nevertheless, there is no historical precedence for creating an Anglican Rite.

[Fish and Bread]

Some Anglican-Use Roman Catholics and potential converts take issue with the fact that a Use (At least historically) can be abrogated by the local ordinary with no warning or discussion. In fact, I believe I heard about one parish that was brought into communion with the Vatican under the Anglican-Use provision and then converted to a standard Novus Ordo Latin-Rite mass fairly quickly by the local bishop. There is also the issue of where to find replacement priests who are well-versed in Anglican traditions and customs once the priest who comes over with the parish dies or retires. Thus, many would feel more comfortable with a Rite, which would give them their own bishops and seminaries, and a guarantee of being able to use their own liturgies. I'm not saying whether that's the right (No pun intended. :)) thing to do or not, but I do feel it is a legitimate concern on the part of people currently worshiping in Anglican-Use parishes or who might potentially "swim the Tiber" as a group under the provision.

[a_ntv]

Yes, except that it's the Book of Common PrayerSorry I posted at 1 in the night...and I was quite sleeping and the changes are very significant although modest in number.can you show us which are exactly these changes? I love liturgy, and I'm very interested in. And we could check if these changes are mandatory (for a catholic) or not

[Secundulus]

This might interest some people. (video)

http://www.themessenger.com.au/Video/20070329.htm

[Albion]

It would be interesting to compare the modifications made for the Latin Rite to the Western Orthodox Rite. I wonder how similar/different they would be.

I wouldn't have thought the BCP (or at least the 1928 BCP which is the only one I'm familiar with) would have to change much to be acceptable to the Latin Church.

Mary

I don't think I have a copy of that liturgy here although I've read it. The Holy Communion service in the BCP, for example, includes wording that is very much compatible with the Articles of Religion, so all of that had to be modified. For example, Jesus as our only mediator and advocate. Prayers for the dead. So with Anglican wording retained wherever possible, Roman Catholic concepts have been inserted. That's why I'd say the changes are significant but not necessarily numerous. The choice of a few words at strategic points here and there can say a lot. Additionally, I believe that some changes have been made in the structure of the liturgy such as moving the Gloria to the early part of the service, bringing in a Last Gospel, and removing the reading of the Ten Commandments. However, I'm trusting my memory on some of that, just wanting to show how modest changes can be more than minor ones.

[Albion]

Some Anglican-Use Roman Catholics and potential converts take issue with the fact that a Use (At least historically) can be abrogated by the local ordinary with no warning or discussion. In fact, I believe I heard about one parish that was brought into communion with the Vatican under the Anglican-Use provision and then converted to a standard Novus Ordo Latin-Rite mass fairly quickly by the local bishop.

This is a point worth making. The Anglican Use provision does establish a modified Anglican liturgy, using much of the BCP, BUT Rome wants this to be a transitional thing, that the people in this situation will be weaned off from their Anglican Use book as quickly as possible and onto the Latin Rite. In this respect, it seems fair to say that the Anglican Use is NOT the equivalent of the Brzantine Use and similar ones established for other groups. The Anglican Use people have "swum the Tiber" already when joining; they're not in the same situation as the Anglican Church of America which, as mentioned elsewhere, wants to remain Anglican but with some sort of mutual recognition from Rome. The Anglican Use parishes have only been given a temporary consideration with regard to their fondness for the beautiful language of the Book of Common Prayer.

[a_ntv]

This is a point worth making. The Anglican Use provision does establish a modified Anglican liturgy, using much of the BCP, BUT Rome wants this to be a transitional thing, that the people in this situation will be weaned off from their Anglican Use book as quickly as possible and onto the Latin Rite. In this respect, it seems fair to say that the Anglican Use is NOT the equivalent of the Brzantine Use and similar ones established for other groups. .

The the bizantine is a rite, not a use: it cames from the IV century and has clear apostolic origins

The term RITE in the CC has a very wide meaning: " A rite is the liturgical, theological, spiritual and disciplinary patrimony, culture and circumstances of history of adistinct people, by which its own manner of living the faith is manifested in each Church sui iuris. "(CCEO 28 (http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG1199/__PS.HTM))

To have a rite, and not only a use, is necessary the existence of a particular church (eccelsia sui iuris): at least a own bishop is required.
Up to now there were never been enough former anglicans united with the CC to have a owm particular church, and so a own rite: lets hope for the future

[IowaLutheran]

Sorry I posted at 1 in the night...and I was quite sleeping can you show us which are exactly these changes? I love liturgy, and I'm very interested in. And we could check if these changes are mandatory (for a catholic) or not

Here's a link to the Anglican Use mass:

http://www.atonementonline.com/orderofmass/Rite1.html

I attend a weekday Episcopal mass that uses Rite I (traditional language) so I am familiar with the BCP version. The changes I spotted are the inclusion of the pope in the prayers, the Eucharistic prayers and responses are different in some respects, and the sending at the very end is different.

You can compare for yourself by looking here (starting at p. 323):

http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bcp/euchr1.pdf

[Albion]

Up to now there were never been enough former anglicans united with the CC to have a owm particular church, and so a own rite: lets hope for the future

Well, it won't happen.

[Simon_Templar]

I disagree. There will never be an Anglican rite in the Catholic Church. The See of Canterbury was never an Apostolic See, and English Catholics largely adopted the normative form of the Roman Rite before the Anglican schism. To create an entire rite for Anglican converts would be to promote the English Church to a level of patriarchal authority that it never had in the first place.

There wouldn't be any justification for it. As it stands, the Anglican use is just one form of the current Latin Rite, along with the Ambrosian and Tridentine liturgies. That is how it will likely remain.

As a former Anglican, I agree that the liturgies in the Prayer Book are quite beautiful, and I would love to see wider application of the Anglican Use. Nevertheless, there is no historical precedence for creating an Anglican Rite.
Why did patriarchs become patriarchs?

Patriarchs were just bishops who headed up national churches.

The patriarch of Alexandria headed up the egyptian church and the sundry surrounding, the Patriarch of Jerusalem headed up the judean/palestinian church, Antioch the syrian church, Constantinople the greek church, Rome the Latin church.

The reason the english church was under rome was because early on, the western nations were part of the western empire, and england was not a major cultural center.

If you look at the EO they now have a russian Patriarch, a Romanian patriarch etc etc.

The idea that no new patriarchates can be established and all western churches must forever be part of the patriarchate of Rome doesn't make sense.

If the cultural and national differences, and the importance historically of a See merits it, as I would argue Canturbury does, there is no reason why it could not become a patriarchate.

this is one of the problems of the church structure today. Its all messed up compared to what it originally was. For example there are all sorts of overlapping Orthodox Jurisdictions in the US because each national church kept its affiliation to its own patriarchate etc, when the people moved here.

As the church expands there should be new provinces and new patriarchates etc as it was originally. Rather than having all sorts of over-lapping provinces and jurisdictions etc.

The problem is no one is willing to give up power, or identity etc, so the situation is likely never going to get fixed and the church authority structure in the west and in the 3rd world nations is going to remain something of a mess.

[a_ntv]

Why did patriarchs become patriarchs?

Patriarchs were just bishops who headed up national churches.


No, that is historically wrong.

Egypt (Alexandria), Syria (Antioch), Greece (Costantinoples) were all part of the same nation Roman Bizantine Empire, since and before the birth of Christ and all up to the VI century (Syria up to the XI century, Greece up to XV century)


The nationalism in religion is a creation of the age of the early protestantism: Cuis Regio Eius Religio (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuius_regio%2C_eius_religio) (more or less strictly enforced) is a typical idea of the protestant world, to allow the state governement to control the religion (well at least to govern the properties/estates of the church). An idea that withsreaded all over Europe, also in the East and in some catholic states (see the Gallicalism)

It is strictly doctrinally condamned by the Catholic Church

[Albion]

The nationalism in religion is a creation of the age of the early protestantism: Cuis Regio Eius Religio (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuius_regio%2C_eius_religio) (more or less strictly enforced) is a typical idea of the protestant world, to allow the state governement to control the religion (well at least to govern the properties/estates of the church).

No, no. That was a political concept meant to separate warring sides, a compromise, in the German states. It involves no theological assumptions, Protestant or otherwise.

If "national churches" had not been used in that post but something similar like "ethnic regions" in order to recognize that nations, as we know them since the High Middle Ages had yet to form, the idea would have been fine.

[Simon_Templar]

No, that is historically wrong.

Egypt (Alexandria), Syria (Antioch), Greece (Costantinoples) were all part of the same nation Roman Bizantine Empire, since and before the birth of Christ and all up to the VI century (Syria up to the XI century, Greece up to XV century)


The nationalism in religion is a creation of the age of the early protestantism: Cuis Regio Eius Religio (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuius_regio%2C_eius_religio) (more or less strictly enforced) is a typical idea of the protestant world, to allow the state governement to control the religion (well at least to govern the properties/estates of the church). An idea that withsreaded all over Europe, also in the East and in some catholic states (see the Gallicalism)

It is strictly doctrinally condamned by the Catholic Church
They may have been part of the empire, however, each of them already had thousands of years of history as their own culture. Egypt was always egypt even when it was in the empire.

Nationalism didn't exist in the same sense as in the modern world. However, it is wrong to think that those areas did not have a coherent cultural identity. Its not about the political entity, but about the cultural/people identity. An egyptian would always identify themselves as an egyptian, even if they were a citizen of rome, or byzantium, etc.

The same was not true in the west. The culture of Gaul and Britain etc was celtic prior to Rome. However celtic itself was a broad and loose grouping of small tribes. They did not have the same kind of coherent cultural identity as the peoples in the east did. They may have had common culture but they did not have an identity as celts, they had tribal identity based on the small local groups.

Thus when the western empire conquered them they became Roman much more than anyone in the east ever did. The citizens of Gual and Britain after a relatively short time would have identified themselves as romans, rather than as britons, or belgae, etc etc.

That is also why the various Orthodox churches kept their identity when they moved to the US. Because the people themselves still identified as Russian, or Greek, or Lithuanian etc.

[Mary of Bethany]

There will one day, God willing, be an American Orthodox Patriarch.

Mary

[a_ntv]

Here's a link to the Anglican Use mass:

http://www.atonementonline.com/orderofmass/Rite1.html

I attend a weekday Episcopal mass that uses Rite I (traditional language) so I am familiar with the BCP version. The changes I spotted are the inclusion of the pope in the prayers, the Eucharistic prayers and responses are different in some respects, and the sending at the very end is different.

You can compare for yourself by looking here (starting at p. 323):

http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bcp/euchr1.pdf

Thank you for posting these links: they are extremply interesting, and I shall study them a lot.

The first huge difference is the canon: the one of the Anglican Use lokks like simply to be the standar Roman Canon (now quite scarcely used in the CC). Anyway if we look at the pictures in the site, the vestments and the way of celebrate the Mass, it is clear that this parish can be easily compared to a catholic traditionalist.
From that I can assure you that the choice to substitute the BCP eucharistic prayer with the Roman canon was not at all forced by the local catholic bishop.

Anyway the BCP canon is scarcely acceptable by us:
compare:. who made there, by his one oblation of himself once offered, a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction, for the sins of the whole world; and did institute, and in his holy Gospel command us to continue, a perpetual memory of that his precious death and sacrifice, until his coming again. (BCP page 334) with the original:
Vouchsafe, O God, we beseech thee, in all things to make this oblation blessed, approved and accepted, a perfect and worthy offering: that it may become for us the body and blood of thy dearly beloved Son, our Lord Jesus Christ. (here (http://www.atonementonline.com/orderofmass/Rite1-5.html))
For us the perfect, blessed and approved oblation are the gifts (the bread and the wine), while for the BCP the perfect and full oblation is only the Cross (sufficient): that is not wrong at all, but it is not written that The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice (see CCC 1367 (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P41.HTM)): also here the Anglicans (try to) agree with all.

Anyway I can surely tell youthat from a catholic point of view the substitution of the whole BCP Eurchatistic Prayer with the Roman Canon is not mandatory. But same rewording is anyway necessary.
Look ad intance at the catholic Eucharistic Prayer III (http://catholic-resources.org/ChurchDocs/EP1-4.htm): Father, calling to mind the death your Son endured for our salvation, his glorious resurrection and ascension into heaven, and ready to greet him when he comes again, we offer you in thanksgiving this holy and living sacrifice. Look with favor on your Church's offering, and see the Victim whose death has reconciled us to yourself. It does not focus on oblation/sacrifice, but is anyway perfectly acceptable

[Albion]

It will be a shame if the Apostolic forum becomes a place in which members of different Apostolic churches try to impose themselves upon the members of other Apostolic churches.

I am referring to using terminology that is common to only one communion, arguing over it, praying for or stating the hope that something will break right in the future for one's own communion instead of for any other one represented here, or constantly attempting to prove that the doctrinal stands of the speaker's church are the correct ones and those of the rest of us are not.

If we can't speak with respect for the other churches and their differences from our own, at least not going out of our way to inject into every discussion the things that separate us, this forum will be a gigantic failure.

I think we know this, but let's commit ourselves to keeping from letting get away from us because of that all-too-human temptation to defend our own turf.

Thank you.

[Mysterium_Fidei]

In future posts in this forum I will refer to my denomination as the Roman Catholic Church rather than the Catholic Church because of the multiple claims to that title here. I think that's fair.

Anyway; I wish there could be something like an Anglican Rite, but it simply will not happen. Most of what constitutes Anglican liturgical identity developed post-Reformation. The reading of the Decalogue, the Great Litany, the Anglican Confiteor, the Collect for Purity, the comfortable words, ect...

Much of what makes the Anglican liturgy so beautiful and unique is not original to the pre-Reformation Church. Certainly there was some borrowing for the Sarum liturgy, but that's more limited than a lot of people assume.

A Rite has to have historical as well as cultural justification. Canterbury was never a Patriarchal See, and at least according to our understanding was always under Rome.

[Simon_Templar]

In future posts in this forum I will refer to my denomination as the Roman Catholic Church rather than the Catholic Church because of the multiple claims to that title here. I think that's fair.

Anyway; I wish there could be something like an Anglican Rite, but it simply will not happen. Most of what constitutes Anglican liturgical identity developed post-Reformation. The reading of the Decalogue, the Great Litany, the Anglican Confiteor, the Collect for Purity, the comfortable words, ect...

Much of what makes the Anglican liturgy so beautiful and unique is not original to the pre-Reformation Church. Certainly there was some borrowing for the Sarum liturgy, but that's more limited than a lot of people assume.

A Rite has to have historical as well as cultural justification. Canterbury was never a Patriarchal See, and at least according to our understanding was always under Rome.
If this were the case then the only patriarchate would have been Jerusalem.

In other-words, ALL patriarchates except Jerusalem had a time when they did not have historical justification.

Again, in other-words, historical significance is developed. Not set in stone.

[Mysterium_Fidei]

If this were the case then the only patriarchate would have been Jerusalem.

In other-words, ALL patriarchates except Jerusalem had a time when they did not have historical justification.

Again, in other-words, historical significance is developed. Not set in stone.
I agree. But the fact remains that Canterbury, from the time of Saint Augustine, was throughly Roman. There was no Patriarchal See at the time of the Reformation, so there is no way to create one now that Canterbury isn't ours. The Ecumenical Councils (if I am correct) established honorary patriarchates based on political and religious significance. Canterbury never had, and still does not have, the historic significance to merit becoming a patriarchate.

I doubt that is going to change, since from a Roman Catholic understanding Canterbury was always under Rome anyway.

[Albion]

In future posts in this forum I will refer to my denomination as the Roman Catholic Church rather than the Catholic Church because of the multiple claims to that title here. I think that's fair.

Anyway; I wish there could be something like an Anglican Rite, but it simply will not happen. Most of what constitutes Anglican liturgical identity developed post-Reformation. The reading of the Decalogue, the Great Litany, the Anglican Confiteor, the Collect for Purity, the comfortable words, ect...

Much of what makes the Anglican liturgy so beautiful and unique is not original to the pre-Reformation Church. Certainly there was some borrowing for the Sarum liturgy, but that's more limited than a lot of people assume.

I can't imagine that there will be an Anglican Rite in the Roman Church but then again I'm not interested in seeing it done. ;)

However, I mainly want to say that a comparison of six or so of the historic liturgies shows that the Anglican Order for Holy Communion is really not much different from the others except perhaps for the reading of the Decalogue, which is optional, and the placement of the Gloria.

There are some distinctly Anglican additions, as mentioned, but it seems more significant that the omitted parts are not critical or very many. That's my analysis, anyway.

[Albion]

I agree. But the fact remains that Canterbury, from the time of Saint Augustine, was throughly Roman.

"Thoroughly?" Certainly that is not so. But more important, we could not agree to dating the Church in the British Isles only from Augustine since it actually predates him by four or fivel centuries.

There was no Patriarchal See at the time of the Reformation, so there is no way to create one now

That's why we're all here together as APOSTOLIC, not Patriarchal, Churches. As you've seen, we find nothing in scripture that refers to Patriarchates, and everyone knows that not all Patriarchates are Apostolic in origin.

[Mysterium_Fidei]

"Thoroughly?" Certainly that is not so. But more important, we could not agree to dating the Church in the British Isles only from Augustine since it actually predates him by four or fivel centuries.



That's why we're all here together as APOSTOLIC, not Patriarchal, Churches. As you've seen, we find nothing in scripture that refers to Patriarchates, and everyone knows that not all Patriarchates are Apostolic in origin.
I realize that Celtic Christianity is much older than the Romanization of the Church which took place. There were largely independent Churches in Britain from the earliest days of the Faith

I'm not trying to belittle that at all. I only mean that, from a Roman Catholic perspective, British Christianity was under the jurisdiction of the Pope from Augustine's arrival, which is partly why we would see no need to create an Anglican Rite.

The Patriarchates were almost purely political, but they were based mainly on Apostolic Tradition, which is why I brought that up. Most Patriarchs trace their lineage to a particular apostle, and the church he set up in that region.

[Albion]

I realize that Celtic Christianity is much older than the Romanization of the Church which took place. There were largely independent Churches in Britain from the earliest days of the Faith]


OK, that's all I was mentioning. The church in Britain was planted independently of Rome and had, according to historians I have read, no apparent contact with the Roman Church or probably any other for some time. Perhaps until the third century since we know that British bishops were present at the Council in Arles. This normally is an issue only when people begin to talk about Patriarches as though they define the true Church.

And that I'm not trying to belittle that at all. I only mean that, from a Roman Catholic perspective, British Christianity was under the jurisdiction of the Pope from Augustine's arrival, which is partly why we would see no need to create an Anglican Rite.

Well, I'd agree. To institute one for Anglicans doesn't make practical sense, which is why I was bold enough to predict,a few posts back, that the Vatican will never do it. That's despite some Anglicans thinking that they can have their cake and eat it too through some Uniate set-up, and some sympathetic Roman Catholics mistakenly also speculate about it being helpful.

The Patriarchates were almost purely political, but they were based mainly on Apostolic Tradition, which is why I brought that up. Most Patriarchs trace their lineage to a particular apostle, and the church he set up in that region.

Again, I agree there, but I've encountered some who seem to think that this is what makes the difference between orthodox churches and schismatics, etc.

[Mysterium_Fidei]

OK, that's all I was mentioning. The church in Britain was planted independently of Rome and had, according to historians I have read, no apparent contact with the Roman Church or probably any other for some time. Perhaps until the third century since we know that British bishops were present at the Council in Arles. This normally is an issue only when people begin to talk about Patriarches as though they define the true Church.


It's interesting you bring that up, because I think there are some Roman Catholics who honestly believe St. Peter, clad in papal vestments, ascended the High Altar in the Vatican to establish his Church in Rome. :P

There were most certainly churches in the West as well as the East not under the direct authority of Rome in the beginning. Papal supremacy was a development, as were the set up of the patriarchates. (I would like to clarify, though, that the primacy of Rome was never in question)

The disagreement comes when we Roman Catholics say that the development was in continuity with the ancient faith, and inspired by the Holy Spirit in order to "confirm the brothers", whereas other Apostolic Churches believe we overstepped our boundaries.

Very interesting really.

That said, the Anglican Church is perhaps one of the most unique Communions. Typically Anglicans profess belief in the Apostolic Succession of Bishops, like Roman Catholics, while at the same time being organized in largely autonomous national Churches like the Orthodox.

[Albion]

It's interesting you bring that up, because I think there are some Roman Catholics who honestly believe St. Peter, clad in papal vestments, ascended the High Altar in the Vatican to establish his Church in Rome. :P

There were most certainly churches in the West as well as the East not under the direct authority of Rome in the beginning. Papal supremacy was a development, as were the set up of the patriarchates.

The disagreement comes when we Roman Catholics say that the development was in continuity with the ancient faith, and inspired by the Holy Spirit in order to "confirm the brothers", whereas other Apostolic Churches believe we overstepped our boundaries.

Very interesting really.

That said, the Anglican Church is perhaps one of the most unique Communions. Typically Anglicans profess belief in the Apostolic Succession of Bishops, like Roman Catholics, while at the same time being organized in largely autonomous national Churches like the Orthodox.

I'm pleased to see the agreement we seem to have. I may have missed something in the last sentence, though. Is there anything surprising in us being structured in a way that is similar to the Orthodox?

[Albion]

(I would like to clarify, though, that the primacy of Rome was never in question)

I think this was an addition to your post. To me it doesn't matter one way or the other. A position of honor doesn't cause much commotion among Anglicans, many of whom would be willing to admit that the Bishop of Rome has a special standing based upon the prominence of Rome historically and even to say it out loud.
;)

[Simon_Templar]

A thought that occured to me in reading some of the previous posts...

reunification of the Church is not an unlikely pipe dream. It is a certainty. Jesus Christ is returning for a pure spotless bride, not a bedraggled, multiple personality, division ridden bride.

Now, none of us know when that will be, but it will happen eventually. From our perspective, its not really a question of if, or even how, but more of a question of, will we be standing in the way of it, insisting that it must happen our way??

[Mysterium_Fidei]

I'm pleased to see the agreement we seem to have. I may have missed something in the last sentence, though. Is there anything surprising in us being structured in a way that is similar to the Orthodox?
Well, I guess I just mean that it's part of what makes Anglicanism so unique. The Orthodox (someone correct me if I'm wrong) don't believe that individual bishops have apostolic succession, but that rather the churches themselves do.

Even though Anglicans are organized similarly to the Orthodox, you profess a belief in the apostolic succession of bishops, rather than churches. So, it's a viewpoint that seems to touch on both the understandings of Roman Catholic and Orthodox Communions, in certain ways.

At least, that's what I thought. :)

[Mysterium_Fidei]

I think this was an addition to your post. To me it doesn't matter one way or the other. A position of honor doesn't cause much commotion among Anglicans, many of whom would be willing to admit that the Bishop of Rome has a special standing based upon the prominence of Rome historically and even to say it out loud.
;)
Hahaha. I didn't want to get jumped on by any of my other Roman Catholic brethren without explaining what I meant by distinguishing between primacy and supremacy. :P

[Secundulus]

A thought that occured to me in reading some of the previous posts...

reunification of the Church is not an unlikely pipe dream. It is a certainty. Jesus Christ is returning for a pure spotless bride, not a bedraggled, multiple personality, division ridden bride.


I add this (from the 1928 BCP) to morning and evening prayer.
For the Church.
O GRACIOUS Father, we humbly beseech thee for thy holy Catholic Church; that thou wouldst be pleased to fill it with all truth, in all peace. Where it is corrupt, purify it; where it is in error, direct it; where in anything it is amiss, reform it. Where it is right, establish it; where it is in want, provide for it; where it is divided, reunite it; for the sake of him who died and rose again, and ever liveth to make intercession for us, Jesus Christ, thy Son, our Lord. Amen.

[Albion]

Well, I guess I just mean that it's part of what makes Anglicanism so unique. The Orthodox (someone correct me if I'm wrong) don't believe that individual bishops have apostolic succession, but that rather the churches themselves do.

Even though Anglicans are organized similarly to the Orthodox, you profess a belief in the apostolic succession of bishops, rather than churches. So, it's a viewpoint that seems to touch on both the understandings of Roman Catholic and Orthodox Communions, in certain ways.

At least, that's what I thought. :)

Very good. My hunch was that this was the idea you had in mind.

[Mary of Bethany]

It's interesting you bring that up, because I think there are some Roman Catholics who honestly believe St. Peter, clad in papal vestments, ascended the High Altar in the Vatican to establish his Church in Rome. :P

There were most certainly churches in the West as well as the East not under the direct authority of Rome in the beginning. Papal supremacy was a development, as were the set up of the patriarchates. (I would like to clarify, though, that the primacy of Rome was never in question)

The disagreement comes when we Roman Catholics say that the development was in continuity with the ancient faith, and inspired by the Holy Spirit in order to "confirm the brothers", whereas other Apostolic Churches believe we overstepped our boundaries.

Very interesting really.

That said, the Anglican Church is perhaps one of the most unique Communions. Typically Anglicans profess belief in the Apostolic Succession of Bishops, like Roman Catholics, while at the same time being organized in largely autonomous national Churches like the Orthodox.

RE the bolded part - I think you'll find agreement with most Orthodox. A primacy of honor was always there, it's the supremacy we have a problem with. :P

Mary

[Mary of Bethany]

I really wish I still had the book from my ACC days that was a very good history of the Church in Britain. I'd really like to read it again.

Mary