Random and useless curiosity re: Anglican Use
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,960
    It's his supposed KGB ties that were the outrage. The fact that he had been married only suggests he did his penance first before taking office. ;-)
    Thanked by 1BruceL
  • Blaise
    Posts: 439
    I think it is his multiple complaints of proselytizing on the part of Catholics that is the outrage. He complained that many people who were of Orthodox background (that is, born to Orthodox families but not baptized in it) were becoming Catholic, but never said much, if anything about the loads of Catholics who were forced into becoming Orthodox during the Communist era. Nevertheless, he is with the Lord now, so we will let Him be the judge.

    Can we imagine the problems if Orthodox (and Catholic ones, for that matter) bishops were actually married (during time of office) to government officials? Their views, regardless of how much they keep themselves untainted, would nevertheless always be viewed from the outside as being with suspicion, regardless of whether it is or not.
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,460
    Can we imagine the problems if Orthodox (and Catholic ones, for that matter) bishops were actually married (during time of office) to government officials?


    There's a handful of Catholic bishops in the U.S. that seem like they might be married to politicians...
    Thanked by 1Chris_McAvoy
  • Blaise
    Posts: 439
    I am not saying they would. I am just imagining the possibilities that could occur if it did happend. However, the Church in the West and the East removed that possibility centuries ago.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,960
    There's a handful of Catholic bishops in the U.S. that seem like they might be married to politicians...


    Yes, and they should be in great physical shape from all that groveling before the president.
  • G
    Posts: 1,397
    IIRC, some bishop in Texas perhaps? tried to tell his Roman Catholic flock that they were NOT permitted to attend his diocese's Anglican Use parish "just because," when many saw it as a means of escape from local parishes such as Our Lady of TheWayWeDoItHere.
    May be an interwebs legend.

    (Save the Liturgy, Save the World)
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,188
    Well, they can't transfer "just because". Maybe something got garbled in the thinking or the telling after that.
  • M. Jackson Osborn
    Posts: 8,382
    Just curious about Manners and Obeisance in the creed, et cet. -

    A
    Do you at the Incarnatus -
    1) just sort of nod the head? (and MAYBE also shrug the shoulders a little bit?

    2) Actually bow, bending at the waist with head bowed and hands in prayer posture?

    3) Do a profound bow, completely bending the waist at a 45 degree angle, hands in prayerul posture and head bowed low?

    4) Genuflect, as is prescribed the the Anglican use and Ordinariate. (And was at one time prescribed in the Roman rite).

    Also in the creed - how many cross themselves at 'the resurrection of the dead...'?

    B
    How many cross themselves at the mention of the departed in the Universal Prayers?

    C
    Not in the creed, just generally - How many bow the head at the Holy Name of Jesus? At mention of the Most Holy Trinity, or of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost?; of Mary? (Both in, and out, of liturgy?)

    D
    In Gloria - do you
    1) bow at each of the ejaculations of praise: We praise thee, We bless thee, We adore thee, We give thee thanks.... ?
    2) sign the cross at '... for thou only art Most High... in the Glory of God the Father'?

    E
    At Vespers and Compline - do you sign the cross at Magnificat and Nunc dimittis - at other New Testament canticles in the offices.
  • ClemensRomanusClemensRomanus
    Posts: 1,023
    A - 2, sometimes 3 depending on space

    B - didn't think about doing, but definitely
    will moving forward

    C - yes, both in an out of liturgy

    D 1) - It's my understanding that in the
    Roman Rite EF, bows of the head
    are made at "Glory to God in the
    highest", "we adore you", "we give
    you thanks for your great glory", the
    Holy Name, "receive our prayer";

    2) - slight bow of the head with Sign of
    the Cross at "with the Holy Spirit"

    E - only at Gospel canticles
  • Felipe Gasper
    Posts: 804
    Paul Viola: Each parish will differ as to its customs, but there are (prominent) voices in the Ordinariate that prefer hiring Anglican/Episcopal musicians (i.e., non-Catholics) rather than Catholic musicians with a sensitivity to Anglican music—even holding all else equal. YMMV.
  • M. Jackson Osborn
    Posts: 8,382
    .
  • hartleymartin
    Posts: 1,447
    I've known Catholic churches to hire Anglicans for organists and choirmasters because they're some of the few who have any sense about liturgical music.
    Thanked by 2M. Jackson Osborn Chris_McAvoy
  • M. Jackson Osborn
    Posts: 8,382
    I was one of those sought out for being Anglican. After the council we devised a 'solemn high mass' with deacon and subdeacon, sung lessons and everything else (all in English). The music would have passed muster at an high Anglican cathedral and the liturgy would have passed muster at the highest of Benedictine houses. NOTHING was uttered in the spoken voice except the homily. Such masses were offered (and crowded) EVERY SUNDAY and Major Feast Day. I moved on before Msgr Di Primeo did, and this arrangement did not long outlive his tenure. A sad (loathsomely sad) commentary on the turns that Catholic liturgy took before long. My tenure there was marred with only one irritant: Msgr. insisted that I play fanfares on the trompette en chamade at the elevations on major feasts. There was no escaping this exercise in bad taste. Without fail, I could have crawled under the pavement while certain that no Anglican church would ever commit such an unseemly and theatrical display.
    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
Add a Comment