Posted on 01/30/2011 2:26:12 PM PST by fabrizio
He didn’t favor Spain over England for any reason except that Henry was simply wrong.
Incidentally, Henry was initially very pro-Catholic and actually wrote pamphlets supporting the Church and opposing the Protestants. It was just when, like Luther, he ran into something the Church wasn’t willing to allow, that he turned on the Church. Even so he never considered himself a Protestant.
In any case, as the old saying go, all heresy begins below the belt. It’s always because of somebody who wants to do some sexual thing that is not permitted (this includes Luther, the Albigensians, the Cathars...you name it).
Theo:
The Ordinate for Anglicans is a Papal directive whereby “Groups of Anglicans: can come into Communion with the Catholic Church and preserve the Anglican patrimony, i.e. its Liturgical Tradition within the Catholic Church. These Anglicans are the products of the Tractarians and OxFord Movement of the 19th century and are part of the more Catholic minded wing of the Church of England. There prayer book, as AnAmericanMother noted, is the product of Thomas Crammer’s beautifully translated English, albeit his translation was doctrinally unsound and inconsistent with both Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Tradition with respect to the Eucharist, Latin from the ole Sarum Rite of the Catholic Church, which was the form of the Roman Rite celebrated in England before the Council of Trent [1534 to 1563]
As for Rites, please read the link below. The Anglican Ordinariate will be basically a Rite within the Latin-Church similar to the Roman [the largest of the Latin-Rite Liturgies], Ambrosian, Mozarabic, and Bregian Rites.
http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/catholic_rites_and_churches.htm
It is not wise, when seeking light, to jump into the fire...
The old English Catholic Latin service (pre-Henry VIII) differed in some respects from the old (Tridentine) Latin Rite. It was called the Sarum Rite (or Use).
Pope St. Pius V said in Quo Primum that any rite with 200 years' regular usage could be presented to Rome for approval. The Sarum Rite was used for centuries - from about 663 until suppressed by Edward VI (though briefly revived by Queen Mary).
It would be a Very Good Thing if Benedict XVI saw fit to approve a revival of the Sarum Rite.
Ah, those words are tonic! Thanks be to God.
Don’t you think it’s a little odd that your hero, Henry, founded a church of which he, a political authority, was the head? He wasn’t a Protestant because, unlike Cranmer or the others in his court, he was not a follower of any of the Protestants of his time and actually seems to have believed in the Mass. Left to his own devices, he would have been a schismatic, that is, someone who accepted the Faith but broke off from the authority of Peter through Apostolic succession.
The problem is that the Faith doesn’t last very long once Apostolic Succession has been broken. The Orthodox never broke it and they are still in the Faith and it is really more of an administrative problem than anything else. But Henry’s church, the Anglican church, did eventually break it and adopted the British Crown as the source of its powers.
This is clearly silly and impossible. The Anglicans tried to remedy this with a rather dubious Dutch or German episcopal consecration at some point, which gave them the only possible claim they might have to the validity of their orders. But basically, when you except some royal twit instead of the Pope as the head of your church, you know it’s all over for you. As we are seeing in abundance nowadays.
Of course, Edward VI and his bigoted advisers insisted on radical changes to the words of Consecration and other particular parts of the Mass to which they objected. It's fairly easy to tease them out and replace them with an accurate translation of the original Latin.
The problem with the Anglican Use Rite as currently constituted is that the part that was changed back sticks out like a sore thumb, since it's based on the current rather awful ICLE translation.
What we really need is for somebody to go back to the Sarum Rite -- maybe a small committee, including an accomplished Latinist and a scholar of 17th century English as well as a good solid prose stylist or two -- and re-translate the problematic bits into a style as closely approaching Cranmer's elegant periods as possible.
(I would be happy to volunteer for proofreading, collating, and any other necessary dogsbody work).
‘Out of curiosity, a question for you: How many “denominations” are there within the “Protestant” tradition?’
Up into the thousands now, isn’t it? Soon to be millions (one/Protestant)
Any Christian person who has been baptised is not required to be re-baptized when they choose to join the Catholic Church.All of these Anglicans have already been baptized in their church.
AmericanMother:
Correct [see my earlier post 62], had England not went into schism from Rome, the Sarum Rite would have been reaffirmed as a legitimate Rite of the Catholic Church at the Council of Trent [1537-1563] since it dates back to the early 13th century as being the adapted Roman Rite at the Cathedral of Salisbury before spreading to the rest of Wales and England, and parts of Ireland as well.
The Sarum Rite was imposed on the Cathedral of Cantebury in 1543 by the English Crown and the Church England “english prayer books” were translated from it.
I thought the Sarum Rite went way back further than that. Like at least the 8th or 9th century.
AnAmericanMother:
No doubt a beautiful translation. Our Roman English Missals in the States are finally getting some solid translations.
I had always believed, at least based on my limited readings, that the while the translations of Crammer were sound in terms of its rendering from Latin to English, there were perhaps 2 major issues, 1) the Ordination Rite did not specifically state that candidates were being “ordained as sacramental Priests” to celebrate the sacraments and that 2) The Eucharistic prayers were not such that it was clear that the bread and wine become the sacrament of Christ’s Body and Blood.
Is your understanding consistent with mine? or am I incorrect in my understanding?
Thanks and I have enjoyed your posts in this thread, good job.
AnAmericanMother:
I always thought it [Sarum Rite] went back to the early 13th century, which is still some 300 plus years before the Council of Trent was called in 1537.
Wiki says that Sarum is Latin for Salisbury, the city of origin of the Rite.
Am I correct in thinking that priests must be ordained by a Catholic bishop in respect of Apostolic succession?
AnAmericanMother:
I was somewhat off with my dates, at Newadvent.org, it states that the Sarum Rite was in place as early as 1078, which puts it in the 11th century. From that article, it is also clear that the English were celebrating the Liturgy consistent with the Church of Rome in the 8th century, as you note.
However, what is unclear is whether that was the Sarum-Rite or some other form of the Roman Rite being celebrated in the 8th century.
one other thing, is that Henry VIII NEEDED a son to succeed him and his wife wasn’t fertile and he had nothing but little corpses from her, except the daughter. Then of course Henry VIII was also wildly in love with Anne Boleyn, but his conscience was driving him crazy, espcailly sicne he thought that he had been literally engaging in incest with the wife of his dead brother.
The whole thing was one big miserable mess and it only escalated because Katehrine of Aragon kept refusing to agree to a divorce and also refused to let her daugher be bastardized by her own father. But if Katherine had even nominally taken the veil, she could have lived a normal enough life and Mary would still have remained legitimate.
IMO, it was the Church of England that defected. The people want the God Who is the same yesterday, today and forever.
It wasn’t just that, but Henry VIII was to an extent VERY superstitious and he was also tormented that he might have been committing incest with the wife of his dead brother. He ahd no issue either and I still think that the Church of England was also a convenient political tool for the Tudors as well. Henry’s pamphlet “Defenso Septum Sacramentorum” (Defense of the Seven Sacraments) won him the title “Defender of the Faith” whihc was then warped ot mean Defender of the Protestant Faith of the Church of England.
The words of ordination being changed is of course what broke the Apostolic Succession.
The words of consecration were the main change, but there are other small changes here and there.
But Cranmer's book is worthy on the basis of the preservation of the Collects alone. Even Father Z on his blog will occasionally haul out the old Cranmer translation of a Collect to compare with the ICEL. Ouch. It's like standing a noble Thoroughbred racehorse next to a glue factory reject.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.