Religion Macros
Aug. 23rd, 2007 08:12 pmFirst. Benedict XVI confirmed and clarified that the Church of Christ "subsisted in" the Catholic Church:

And then there was the protestant response (text by
deliriumdriver):

It does seem a little silly to get too upset with the RCC positioning itself as the One True Church, even if it offends my pluralist sensabilities (which are not so relativistic--or relativistic at all, really--as to keep from making the claim that the RCC, and all churches, should embrace religious pluralism--and note that any religious pluralism which cannot accept atheism as an equally valid path is a sucky sort of pluralism). Although if anyone has the right to be offended, it's us (we, for prescriptivists) in the Anglican Communion who do consider ourselves to have maintained apostolic sucession. (I'm assuming ECUSA has maintained apostolic succession through the C of E?) One can understand my parish priest being a little miffed, as he was (more in sorrow than in anger).
But that spite happened over a hundred years ago; this is nothing more than rubbing salt in an old wound.
Saepius Officio: Answer of the Archbishops of Canterbury and York to the Bull Apostolicae Curae of H. H. Leo XII. On English Ordinations. Dated February 19, 1897. The formal response of the Church of England to the first official establishment of the Catholic position on the legitimacy of the Anglican ministration of the sacrament of holy orders and, by extension, all the other sacraments (since they all require a priest).

And then there was the protestant response (text by

It does seem a little silly to get too upset with the RCC positioning itself as the One True Church, even if it offends my pluralist sensabilities (which are not so relativistic--or relativistic at all, really--as to keep from making the claim that the RCC, and all churches, should embrace religious pluralism--and note that any religious pluralism which cannot accept atheism as an equally valid path is a sucky sort of pluralism). Although if anyone has the right to be offended, it's us (we, for prescriptivists) in the Anglican Communion who do consider ourselves to have maintained apostolic sucession. (I'm assuming ECUSA has maintained apostolic succession through the C of E?) One can understand my parish priest being a little miffed, as he was (more in sorrow than in anger).
But that spite happened over a hundred years ago; this is nothing more than rubbing salt in an old wound.
Saepius Officio: Answer of the Archbishops of Canterbury and York to the Bull Apostolicae Curae of H. H. Leo XII. On English Ordinations. Dated February 19, 1897. The formal response of the Church of England to the first official establishment of the Catholic position on the legitimacy of the Anglican ministration of the sacrament of holy orders and, by extension, all the other sacraments (since they all require a priest).
(no subject)
Date: 2007-08-24 02:38 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-08-24 03:10 pm (UTC)Pre-revolutionary war, all of the colonies with strong Anglican churches (mostly southern states) were under the authority of different diocese in England. All priests were educated and ordained in England, and there were no bishops in the colonies. Of course, being confirmed also meant a fairly long journey.
Once the Revolutionary War was over, the "Church of England" in the United States had a serious problem - actually two of them. They had to reformulate their means of governance WITHOUT making reference to the King as the head of the Church (and parliamentary approval of the bishops). They eventually settled on a bicameral legislative body mimicing that of Congress, with the House of deputies matching up with the House of Representatives and the House of Bishops matching up with the Senate. The whole church would be led by a Presiding Bishop.
And that led to the second problem - no bishops. William Seabury was elected as the first Presiding Bishop, and was sent back to England to be consecrated. The Church of England refused, and Seabury then went to Scotland. The Church of Scotland was semi-independent from England, and being Scots, were happy to do anything that would annoy the English. Seabury was consecrated, maintaining the apostolic succession.
Since it takes three bishops to consecrate another, the next two candidates were also sent back to England. The English got over their pique over Seabury, and consecrated these two bishops. Since then, we've consecrated our own.
We Episcopalians take the apostolic succession so seriously that when we signed the Concordat with the ECLA (Lutherans) we made them consecrate their bishops for life, instead of just for the period they would serve. We temporarily accepted all existing Lutheran bishops and clergy as properly ordained, but also insisted that as each new Lutheran bishop was consecrated, one Episcopal bishop must be present, in order to re-establish the apostolic succession in that branch of the Lutheran Church. In return, a Lutheran attends any consecration of an Episcopal bishop.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-08-24 07:54 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-08-24 08:08 pm (UTC)You're wondering why I was looking up popemacros, huh? Well, I was reading the Wikipedia entry for the Popemobile (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popemobile), and felt like this picture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:JPII_29_09_2004_1.JPG), in particular, was very much ripe for captioning.