[blockquote]It has been the frequently expressed hope and fervent desire of Anglican Catholics to be enabled by some means to enter into full communion with the See of Peter whilst retaining in its integrity every aspect of their Anglican inheritance which is not at variance with the teaching of the Catholic Church.[/blockquote]
This is what has always puzzled me about this group: are they saying that they’ve accepted the papal claims of universal papal jurisdiction all along, but have been choosing not to join the Church until they were given certain liturgical and structural inducements? It’s just hard for me to understand that…
#2 -?? You must not know many Anglo-Catholics. Those that I know believe the the same as Rome does on the first two things you mention, and lots believe the third. And from what I’ve read, FiF UK is closer to Rome than most ACs in the US.
Charles (#3),
Agree w/ your comment about FiF UK. It’s my understanding, though, that many who call themselves Anglo-Catholic (or Anglo-Papalist) in the U.K. have little or no love for the Book of Common Prayer — unlike more of the Anglo-Catholics in the U.S. It might have sthd to do w/ the fact that the BCP in the U.K. is the prayer book of the established Protestant church. I know some U.K. Anglo-Catholics who follow the Latin Rite. One priest joked that he simply draws his pay-check from the CofE. I admit, this perspective is difficult for me to understand.
Justin (#1),
I used to think as you do and continue to acknowledge the logic of the position. But I’ve finally come to the realization that for some people, cultural heritage is too important to ignore. I have to wonder if John Paul II wasn’t making exactly that statement 29 years ago when he set up the Pastoral Provision.
If I had a dime for every time I’ve heard something like:
I’d consider the Catholic Church but the liturgy is just so bad.
I do have to say that the branch theory might permit one to acknowledge papal infallibility in theory while justifying not submitting to papal jurisdiction. If one’s ecclesial community is really a branch of the Catholic Church, sadly divided from Rome and Constantinople, then certainly the petrine primacy is on the table but not a necessity for a valid Church life. As I understand it, this is the Orthodox position. It would not be too great a leap for an anglo-papalist to move from petrine primacy to infallibility.
Maybe. I’ve always dismissed Anglo-papalism as illogical but perhaps it’s not. This is a new line of though for me.
[blockquote]It has been the frequently expressed hope and fervent desire of Anglican Catholics to be enabled by some means to enter into full communion with the See of Peter whilst retaining in its integrity every aspect of their Anglican inheritance which is not at variance with the teaching of the Catholic Church.[/blockquote]
This is what has always puzzled me about this group: are they saying that they’ve accepted the papal claims of universal papal jurisdiction all along, but have been choosing not to join the Church until they were given certain liturgical and structural inducements? It’s just hard for me to understand that…
What about Mary, Indulgences and Papal Infallibility?
#2 -?? You must not know many Anglo-Catholics. Those that I know believe the the same as Rome does on the first two things you mention, and lots believe the third. And from what I’ve read, FiF UK is closer to Rome than most ACs in the US.
Charles (#3),
Agree w/ your comment about FiF UK. It’s my understanding, though, that many who call themselves Anglo-Catholic (or Anglo-Papalist) in the U.K. have little or no love for the Book of Common Prayer — unlike more of the Anglo-Catholics in the U.S. It might have sthd to do w/ the fact that the BCP in the U.K. is the prayer book of the established Protestant church. I know some U.K. Anglo-Catholics who follow the Latin Rite. One priest joked that he simply draws his pay-check from the CofE. I admit, this perspective is difficult for me to understand.
Justin (#1),
I used to think as you do and continue to acknowledge the logic of the position. But I’ve finally come to the realization that for some people, cultural heritage is too important to ignore. I have to wonder if John Paul II wasn’t making exactly that statement 29 years ago when he set up the Pastoral Provision.
Justin –
If I had a dime for every time I’ve heard something like:
I’d consider the Catholic Church but the liturgy is just so bad.
I do have to say that the branch theory might permit one to acknowledge papal infallibility in theory while justifying not submitting to papal jurisdiction. If one’s ecclesial community is really a branch of the Catholic Church, sadly divided from Rome and Constantinople, then certainly the petrine primacy is on the table but not a necessity for a valid Church life. As I understand it, this is the Orthodox position. It would not be too great a leap for an anglo-papalist to move from petrine primacy to infallibility.
Maybe. I’ve always dismissed Anglo-papalism as illogical but perhaps it’s not. This is a new line of though for me.