Posted on 04/28/2005 2:23:54 PM PDT by sionnsar
Main Entry: pri'mate
Etymology: Middle English primat, from Old French, from Medieval Latin primat-, primas archbishop, from Latin, leader, from primus
Date: 13th century
1 often capitalized : a bishop who has precedence in a province, group of provinces, or a nation
2 archaic : one first in authority or rank : LEADER
3 [New Latin Primates, from Latin, plural of primat-, primas] : any of an order (Primates) of mammals comprising humans, apes, monkeys, and related forms (as lemurs and tarsiers)
-pri'mate-ship \-*ship\ noun
--pri-ma'tial \pr*-*m*-sh*l\ adjective
Bishops, our leaders, are not the sum total of the Anglican Church.
So wrote the Bishop of Cork, in his response to the communiqué issued by the 35 chief bishops (or Primates) of the national churches in the Anglican Communion.
Anglicans should remember this goes back to the very formation of Anglicanism. For a reason one might consider good or bad - he wanted a divorce from Catherine, who could not produce a male heir - Henry the VIII broke from Rome and decreed that he, not the bishops, not the Pope, was the head of the Church of England. "Erastianism!" shouted the Pope's followers - the heresy of subjugating the Church to the State. (One learns a new word every day.)
And still in that country Elizabeth II heads the established church - not the Archbishop of Canterbury or any group of bishops. (Hence all the fuss about Prince Charles' marriage to a divorcee, since Charles may one day head the Church of England.)
As Britain's colonies gained independence, so did the Anglican Churches in each country. But since these seldom were established churches, supreme authority had to go somewhere other than to the monarch or the government.
It did not go back to the bishops! In Canada, the church is run, not by the bishops, but by the General Synod. The bishops are important - but no more important, collectively, than the clergy, or the elected laity. This is Anglicanism's usual pattern.
A lot of other religious groups think we're wrong, especially Roman Catholics. "To this day the lack of a living Church Spiritual Authority...has been to the Anglican Church a constant source of weakness, humiliation, and disorder," wrote the English Catholic James Moyes in the Catholic Encyclopedia around 1910.
Well, maybe, Anglicans have their problems (the RC system isn't exactly heaven on earth), but there are many advantages to having a Church where bishops share power, and don't monopolize it.
But, as the Bishop of Cork puts it, the Primates' meetings are taking on "a life of their own." Too many media are suggesting this body has kicked the Canadian and American Anglican Churches out of the Anglican Communion. They didn't do that (they can't) but the Primates very, very strongly suggesting that the Canadian and American Churches withdraw from the Anglican Consultative Council.
Just who do these Primates think they are? The Anglican Consultative Council is its own body _ whose formation predates the Primates' regular meetings, by the way. The Anglican Consultative Council should decide itself whether it wants to consult Americans and Canadians.
And the Canadian and American representative to the Council should go to the ACC meeting in June and give that body _ the only Anglican "instrument of union" with lay and clergy members - the opportunity itself to welcome fellow Anglicans, or turn them away.
Traditional Anglican ping, continued in memory of its founder Arlin Adams. This is a miracle, seeing as how Erastus himself was an eight year old boy when the Pope excommunicated Henry VIII for his adulterous lusts.
We are so much more civilized and refined on these threads> On any other FR forum, we'd have several pics of chimps, apes, and other simians by now...(g)
Just typing out of the top of my head.
How could his heir be from Spain if she was born in England.
The Great Schism predates the Reformation by quite a while. It refers to events just after the Babylonish Captivity of the Papacy in Avignon, when there were two Popes ruling concurrently, each supported by some segment of the western Church.
It began after the death of Gregory XI in 1378. The Roman populace selected Urban VI (a Neapolitan). Though a pious, devout and Godly churchman, his peremptory attitude (and low birth) antagonized a number of the cardinals. One of the key sparks that ignited the Schism was because he insisted on remaining in Rome rather than returned to posh Avignon.
So, some cardinals at Avignon declared Urban's election invalid and elected another candidate, who took the name Clement VII (incorrectly counted). He was a soldier and related to the King of France (Avignon was not yet strictly in French territory at this time).
The eventual line of Popes descends from the line including Urban and not Clement. England (and hence the mother church to the Church of England) was loyal to Urban, which is exactly not what a rebellious national church would do, so I'm not sure what your priest was suggesting.
In Christ,
Deacon Paul+
That WOULD have been messy. Fortunately or unfortunately, Mary was not able to conceive (she didn't marry til she was almost 40). Some have hypothesized that she was afflicted with congenital syphilis courtesy of her dear old dad.
He was selected by the populace? Not by vote of the CofC?
Things mustv'e been in quite a state back then!
They were. It bears keeping in mind that the Papacy had been in Avignon from 1309 to 1377, so there had been no Pope in residence in Rome. The election was actually ratified by a selection of the College, I believe.
And the irony of wraooing their brutal repression of dissent around an appeal to independence and democracy!
For quite a long time, the British kings chafed under Roman influence. But it's tough to present it as a religious issue when, unlike the East, they were the kings, rather than the bishops, who were trying to break free. And their motives were seldom noble.
In National Review, John Derbyshire, who has a paleoconservative Brit's distaste for all things Catholics, related the story of a King John who offered allegiance to Allah to a Sultan as a way to be free of Rome. The Sultan figured that if England were allowed to be ruled by such a contemptible lowlife, it would defame Islam, so he refused.
Then there's Edward Longshanks, who ran afoul of Rome for, among other things, his insistence on giving nobility the right to rape brides.
What was unique in the case of Henry VIII was the Reformation had given the British kings the realization that they could sever relations with the church while still claiming to be Christian.
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.