It wasn’t their Holy Eucharist, simply a liturgy. The music, typical of most Anglican parishes, was absolutely splendid.
There was Roman Catholic participation and I think the new Archbishop of Westminster participated and a couple of cardinals, one who isn’t a bishop.
The liturgy had a lot of English pageantry, something in which they excel.
Most Bugnini Mass goers would be delighted if this happened in the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. They are thrilled it happens in the Anglican Communion, which has the look of Catholicism without Holy Orders or Apostolic Secession and most of all Bugnini Mass goers love the Anglican Communion’s ethos of “anything goes.!”
The King and Queen of England were not present. Prince William and Princess Kate were there instead.
Canterbury Cathedral is an absolutely splendid example of Gothic architecture. Its history is phenomenal.
I was able to go there in the early 1980’s and in fact purchased a ceramic chalice in their gift shop which I did use at times in my Bugnini Mass celebrations. Then there was a warning about using these types of chalices as they contain lead and could poison the poor humble priest drinking from it as it would leach into the Wine.
Of course, then the Vatican forbade chalices not made of Precious Metals. I was obedient to health and the Vatican!
But as progressive as the Anglican Communion is, they should repatriate this magnificent Cathedral back to its original owners, the Holy Roman Church. That would be a marvelous act of restitution! No?
21 comments:
The official end of Ecumenism. Anglicanism is the religion of panderers!
May St. Augustine of Canterbury intercede for these deluded people.
There were quite a few Eastern Orthodox Archbishops and bishops there along with the much smaller group of Catholic prelates. The Orthodox seem to favor Anglicans.
Yes that is unfortunately true. There are misguided ecumenists everywhere these days.
I think it's disgusting that any Catholic prelates showed up. A fake archbishop in what has become an evil religion
I was trying to find an actual list of the people who were present, but I couldn't find one. In the brief portion of the video I skimmed through, I saw what appeared to be monophysites (so-called Oriental Orthodox) and two or three guys who were dressed like Orthodox priests. One site mentioned that there were guests of the Ecumenical Patriarchate there -- that doesn't surprise me in the least!
Roman Catholics are in serious conscience by witnessing or attending an attempted marriage. So what in the hell's going on HERE?
William - Well, for one thing, Marriage is a sacrament. The installation of an Archbishop of Canterbury (aka a "judicatory head") is not. BIG difference.
It's a little more similar than you make it out to be since this woman isn't actual a bishop.
Marc - No, it isn't. This was an installation to office. Neither the Anglicans/Episcopalians nor, of course, Catholics, think that an installation to office in in any way a sacrament, or close to it. Our Vicars Forane are installed, our pastors are installed - no one thinks of these as sacraments.
Her ordination as deacon and priest in priest in 2001 and 2002, and her consecration as bishop in 2015 are considered sacramental actions by Anglicans/most Episcopalians. Not by Catholics.
There is no conscience issue for Catholics who attended her installation as Archbishop of Canterbury.
It is the Catholic practice to refer to clergy in other Christian denominations by the titles given them by their denominations. We refer to an Episcopalian or Methodist bishop as "Bishop Schipps" or "Bishop Lakey." They are not "Bishop" Schipps or "Bishop" Lakey."
My point, though, is that the installation of a bishop presupposes that the person is actually a bishop. So there’s some equivalency to the marriage example in that those attending are giving the appearance of legitimacy to some extent (when, in fact, this lady lays no legitimate claim to being an actual Archbishop of Canterbury).
I don’t question the nomenclature of referring to folks by their title despite the lack of legitimacy to the title. That’s an accepted practice to which I attach no substantial meaning.
Personally, I find it problematic that some of my religious confreres would attend this installation ceremony, but I don’t get too worked up about it. They didn’t invite me, so I didn’t have to decide whether to go or not.
The installation of a bishop presupposes the person is a bishop which is precisely what the Anglican/Episcopalian world, with some exceptions, has done. That is their perspective.
From the Catholic perspective, the installation of Sarah Mullally was not of a person who is a bishop. Nonetheless, the Catholic Church respects the choices made by the CofE in their own polity as the CofE respects the choices made by the RCC.
We do not gain anything by turning up our noses and saying, "We don't respect you," which is what a refusal to attend would plainly signify.
The event from the CofE side is entirely legitimate. Again, while we disagree, we respect their practice.
Just saw this from an Anglican Facebook page in England and this Anglican priest, Rev. Canon Brett Murphy wrote:
Everything wrong with the Church of England in one photograph. The Dean of Canterbury (a homosexual in a civil partnership with another man) installing the fake Archbishopess (1 Timothy 2:12) on St. Augustine's chair as a gaggle of female clergy watch on. No wonder the CofE is dying, the hierarchy has completely sold out to the world, the flesh and the devil. The feminist take over is total, the full apostasy is now complete.
Yeah, I think what you're saying is fair, especially from your perspective.
But I think the other commenter has a decent point in noting that your church tells regular folks they shouldn't attend (what it considers to be) invalid marriages at the same time that your prelates attend (what it considers to be) an invalid episcopal installation. It does seem inconsistent to me, even though you rightly point out that this installation was not an actual episcopal consecration.
If the Anglican priest who wrote that gave importance to St. Augustine and the Church of which he was a bishop, the priest would not be Anglican.
On the Chair of Saint Augustine! What a bitter pill for Pope Leo to swallow! No wonder he reiterated the hierarchical nature of the all male Holy Orders the day of the installation and confirmed the Anglican Ordinariate the next day and going to Monaco on Saturday to play tennis with that famous tennis Sinner!
Marc - The ritual of the installation of a Bishop and liturgy of Marriage are not comparable. Whether Mullally's orders are or are not, from the Catholic perspective, valid does not alter the fact that she has been installed as Archbishop of Canterbury.
From Rome’s perspective, that see no longer exists and is vacant. Another Catholic Bishop has jurisdiction over that territory of Canterbury. There is no Catholic Archbishop of Canterbury.
The Roman Catholic Bishop with jurisdiction over Canterbury is the Bishop of Southwark. This diocese covers the area of Canterbury and is part of the Archdiocese of Southwark, which oversees the Catholic Church in the southeastern part of England. The current bishop is Christopher Chessun
If the Anglicans had been consecrating this lady as Archbishop rather than installing her, would that be comparable to marriage, in your opinion?
Marc - Her ordination to the diaconate, the order of presbyters, and the order of bishops is not valid. But the ecclesial communion to which she belongs sees it differently.
Her installation as archbishop of Canterbury is not analogous/comparable to marriage.
Post a Comment