[Catholic Herald question]: What do you feel is the significance of the Pope visiting Westminster Abbey in particular, rather than another prominent Anglican place of worship such as St Paul’s?
In 1982, Pope John Paul II of course came to Canterbury and so he met the Archbishop of Canterbury there. That was a very significant and important occasion.
That was a pastoral visit. This is a state visit, so he’s coming partly as head of state, as well as head of the Roman Catholic Church, and every head of state is invited to come and lay a wreath at the grave of the unknown warrior.
If His Holiness remembers to bring along ID proving that he’s over 60, he’ll be entitled to the “concession” entry fee of only 12 pounds.
Yet apparently not strong enough for us to rethink our 20/21st century innovations, nor enough to encourage forebearance from even more innovations.
Suffice it to say, when an Anglican spins anti-catholic innovations as a decision that appears to introduce an ecumenical ‘obstacle,’ when the RCC has already identified it as an obstacle – well, I can only infer an attempt to obfuscate, perhaps coupled with an unwillingness to listen. Is this friendship?
🙄
Just for kicks and in a spirit of good will while he’s visiting the Abbey, maybe “His Holiness” could reverse that papal decree that declared Elizabeth I to be a bastard.
Why should he, Teatime, when Henry’s “divorce” from Catherine of Aragon was so obviously fraudulent; and, besides, to do so would be a gratuitous slur on both Catherine of Aragon and Mary Tudor.
And, strictly speaking, even in English Law Elizabeth I was never legitimate or legitimatized. She inherited the throne in 1559 due to that statute of 1543 that authorized Henry VIII to name his successors, regardless of their legitimacy or otherwise, not due to her putative legitimacy. The statute I Mary, ch. 1 declared that Henry VIII’s marriage to Catherine was “true, lawful and undoubted,” and it wa snever repealed under Elizabeth I. Of course, hardly anyone discussed her exact legal status during her life time, but there is a telling case that reveals the reality of things. When Elizabeth’s great-uncle Sir James Boleyn died without children in 1561, Queen Elizabeth was his closest living kinsman, and so she should have inherited his property and goods without any question — and yet an Act of Parliament had to be passed in 1562 to establish that the Queen was, in fact, Sir James’s heir. The act didn’t give any rationale for its necessity, and there were no other legitimate Boleyns left, but the reason was obviously that the Queen’s legally illegitimate status could have been a barrier to her being declared his heir.
I do hope that B16 carries his big crozier because Rowan needs a good old fashion thump in the rear.
Just my opinion…
Intercessor
#3, I’m sure that will immediately follow the ceremonial return of all the Church’s stolen property and goods during the reign of the ‘bastard’s’ Dad. 😉
I always find this amusing:
“. . . No doubt the conÂsecraÂÂtion of the church in WestÂminster was an impressive and interesting function, but, as the hood does not make the monk, the fact that Archbishop Bourne has his seat within his huge basilica in Westminster does not establish its claim to be called Westminster CathÂedral.
Whether his Grace likes it or no, he resides in the diocese of London, and on Catholic principles he possesses no jurisdiction as a Bishop. . . He is nothing more than the official head of a community which refuses to submit to the authority of the lawful Bishops of the land.”
The Church Times, 1 July 1910
http://www.churchtimes.co.uk/content.asp?id=96907