What is this developing 'fellowship' you are now pontificating about?
Not "pontificating." It is called speculating. While I would imagine Anglican churches have open communion in that all are welcome (at least the Episcopal churches in my area are open), Roman Catholic tables are close(d). I am wondering if the Roman church tables may allow Anglicans commune with them eventually.
The RCC does allow Anglicans to commune with them, if they are 1) part of the Ordinariate (they are still Anglican but in communion with Rome) or 2) genuinely unable to access a Protestant Eucharist in any way. I believe that co-communion has also happened at Taizé for years.
However, this service was not a Eucharistic event so it's not relevant either way.
Actually serial: pre-marriage to Diana he cuckolded Parker Bowles then carried on with his bit on the side post marriage until divorce. Whether the cuckold cared is neither here nor there.
As a side order, the Vaticans foreign minister Archbishop Paul Gallagher from Liverpool was knighted by the king while he was in Rome. Gallagher spends a lot of time/effort in peace and hostage release negotiations where the Vatican is seen as neutral and honest.
What is this developing 'fellowship' you are now pontificating about?
Not "pontificating." It is called speculating. While I would imagine Anglican churches have open communion in that all are welcome (at least the Episcopal churches in my area are open), Roman Catholic tables are close(d). I am wondering if the Roman church tables may allow Anglicans commune with them eventually.
The RCC does allow Anglicans to commune with them, if they are 1) part of the Ordinariate (they are still Anglican but in communion with Rome) or 2) genuinely unable to access a Protestant Eucharist in any way. I believe that co-communion has also happened at Taizé for years.
However, this service was not a Eucharistic event so it's not relevant either way.
Taize is an ecumenical community so it's not a typical example.
Technically speaking, as I understand it, Protestants are not allowed to communicate in RC parishes but individual clergy will offer eucharistic hospitality if they wish to do so.
I was offered communion at a well-known RC retreat centre back in my Protestant days. I did not accept as I felt it would be wrong of me to bend the rules as I understood them.
The leaders of the retreat made it clear that they would admit non-RCs to the table even though they weren't officially supposed to do so.
@Gramps49 - yes, 'speculate' is a more accurate and more polite term than 'pontificate' but forgive me, I can find your speculations rather well... overly speculative when there is no evidence to suggest any immediate change of heart on the part of the RCC, at least not officially.
It is certainly historic that the Pope and a British monarch have prayed together but that doesn't mean that the Vatican is going to change its eucharistic policy anytime soon or reverse prior declarations that Anglican orders are utterly 'null and void.'
Whether they might do that some time in the future remains to be seen but for now I don't foresee a shift in the status quo.
What is this developing 'fellowship' you are now pontificating about?
Not "pontificating." It is called speculating. While I would imagine Anglican churches have open communion in that all are welcome (at least the Episcopal churches in my area are open), Roman Catholic tables are close(d). I am wondering if the Roman church tables may allow Anglicans commune with them eventually.
The RCC does allow Anglicans to commune with them, if they are 1) part of the Ordinariate (they are still Anglican but in communion with Rome) or 2) genuinely unable to access a Protestant Eucharist in any way. I believe that co-communion has also happened at Taizé for years.
However, this service was not a Eucharistic event so it's not relevant either way.
Members of the Ordinariate have left the Anglican Church and are no longer members. They are members of the RCC only and not still Anglican.
There has been agreement with some Eastern churches for intercommunion when there is no opportunity to go to one's own church. But that is just some (certainly not all) Eastern churches and has never been extended to a protestant church. Of course individual priests might offer the Eucharist to other Christians, but they are not reflecting an official position and might well get into hot water for doing it.
Taizé is unique.
My understanding is that non RCs are allowed to go to Communion at an RC eucharist, if there is no church of their own community available AND if they share (more or less) the eucharistic understandings of the RC Church.
This has been the case for many years.
What is this developing 'fellowship' you are now pontificating about?
Not "pontificating." It is called speculating. While I would imagine Anglican churches have open communion in that all are welcome (at least the Episcopal churches in my area are open), Roman Catholic tables are close(d). I am wondering if the Roman church tables may allow Anglicans commune with them eventually.
The RCC does allow Anglicans to commune with them, if they are 1) part of the Ordinariate (they are still Anglican but in communion with Rome) or 2) genuinely unable to access a Protestant Eucharist in any way. I believe that co-communion has also happened at Taizé for years.
However, this service was not a Eucharistic event so it's not relevant either way.
Members of the Ordinariate have left the Anglican Church and are no longer members. They are members of the RCC only and not still Anglican.
There has been agreement with some Eastern churches for intercommunion when there is no opportunity to go to one's own church. But that is just some (certainly not all) Eastern churches and has never been extended to a protestant church. Of course individual priests might offer the Eucharist to other Christians, but they are not reflecting an official position and might well get into hot water for doing it.
Taizé is unique.
Our Place had a Greek Orthodox lady as a member for many years - she lived very near the church - and she regularly received communion (Our Place is Church of England, of the Anglo-Catholic style of churchmanship).
AIUI, she had received permission from either an Orthodox priest or bishop to do this, as there was no Orthodox church (Greek or otherwise) to which she could easily go. The nearest was 10 miles away, and she had no car.
My understanding is that non RCs are allowed to go to Communion at an RC eucharist, if there is no church of their own community available AND if they share (more or less) the eucharistic understandings of the RC Church.
This has been the case for many years.
I think the exceptions to the rule are more or less pastoral--at the discretion of the celebrant.
I know my wife has taken communion at a Benedictine monastery. She did ask before the Mass and was given permission.
Heck, one Christmas I was hospitalized at a Roman Catholic hospital and an extra-ordinary communion minister came by offering the host. I explained I was Lutheran, but she said she would commune me. Since I had narrowly escaped death due to a head on collision with an 18 wheeler, I certainly did not want to refuse it.
But, I am wondering if instead of these instances being exceptions to the rule, the table becomes more formally open to people who accept the real presence of Christ in the consecrated elements of communion.
I think, that at the moment, these are exceptions to the general rule. In theory at least all Catholics are under the jurisdiction of the local Ordinary (bishop) .Lutherans would probably not agree to be under the ecclesiastical authority of a Catholic bishop.
It is with the authority of the local bishop that a Catholic priest celebrates the eucharist.
The bishop would claim to have that authority ultimately from the Apostles and from Christ himself. (Ubi episcopus,ibi ecclesia where the bishop is there is the Church).
While the eucharist is, again according to Catholic teaching, both source and summit of grace, the Church is, according to Catholic understanding, a visible organism of which some people are formally members with certain rights and obligations and others are ,of their own volition, not. Others, of course, are informal members with no obligations but also with fewer ecclesiastical rights within the Catholic community. Ultimately all are part of the People of God.
Am I the only one who was distracted by the sight of Camilla's headgear holding the mantilla in place, spiky incinerated raven feathers or black crown of thorns?
There has been agreement with some Eastern churches for intercommunion when there is no opportunity to go to one's own church. But that is just some (certainly not all) Eastern churches and has never been extended to a protestant church. Of course individual priests might offer the Eucharist to other Christians, but they are not reflecting an official position and might well get into hot water for doing it.
In this regard, Can. 844 §4 reads "If the danger of death is present or if, in the judgment of the diocesan bishop or conference of bishops, some other grave necessity urges it, Catholic ministers administer these same sacraments licitly also to other Christians not having full communion with the Catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and who seek such on their own accord, provided that they manifest Catholic faith in respect to these sacraments and are properly disposed."
I think this comfortably covers @Gramps49's priest in the hospital.
The point though, is that Pope Leo praying with King Charles and Queen Distracting-Hat Camilla isn't in-and-of-itself going to lead to a change in RC policy in this particular respect.
The point though, is that Pope Leo praying with King Charles and Queen Distracting-Hat Camilla isn't in-and-of-itself going to lead to a change in RC policy in this particular respect.
“This particular respect” meaning the queen’s distracting hat will not lead to reconsideration of the expectation that women meeting the pope wear a mantilla or veil?
Not sure of all the people seated at the altar during the service: it appeared Leo was sitting in the center, at the cathedra, Anglican Archbishop Stephen Cottrell was seated to his right. He and Pope Leo shared the leadership of the service. Charles and Camilia sat to the left of the Pope. There were also two assistants seated behind Cottrell and Charles to help them follow the service, I guess.
What did the optics say about the polity being expressed.
Did look like Leo and Charles were having an enjoyable conversation as they recessed from the chapel.
What did the optics say about the polity being expressed.
About “polity being expressed”? Nothing, so far as I can see.
Why do you think anything about polity was being expressed?
It seems to me since Charles is still a layperson while at the same time the Supreme Governor of the Anglican Church would not it have been more proper for him to sit among the other lay dignitaries also attending--front roll, yes. Whenever there is an Anglican service in England were the monarch attends, he/she sits just below the pulpit. No problem with Leo and the Archbishop sharing the chancel, in my book. Just seemed a little odd to see the monarch and his wife to the far left of the pope on the same level as the altar.
Same with the worship service at the installation of our president at the National Cathedral. The clergy who were part of the service sat in a semi circle in front of the altar, but the President sat front roll below the pulpit. (Even though we knew he would not hear the words being said).
And why wouldn't Pope Leo and King Charles have an 'enjoyable conversation'?
It's part of their role to have enjoyable conversations and to be seen to do so.
People who know or who have met the King tell me he's expert at it. I once met one of his personal secretaries. I've also met people who were impressed by him during royal engagements and events. He knows how to 'work a room.'
And you're speculating again. About the 'optics' this time and the seating order. You seem more convinced that this is a significant ecumenical break-through than any Anglican or RC commentator I've heard on BBC Radio 4's Sunday programme - and, begging your pardon, you don't even live here and aren't an Anglican nor an RC.
FWIW both the Anglican and RC clergy I've heard interviewed have said something along the lines of, 'Differences exist and we can't pretend otherwise but we will continue to love and respect one another and to work together on those issues where we share a common concern.'
I wouldn't expect them to say anything different and that state of affairs already exists and has done so for some time.
In other news, King Charles III is Anglican and the Pope Catholic.
I'm not saying you aren't 'entitled' to comment or speculate as someone who is neither British nor Anglican or Catholic but you seem determined to read more into this than anyone else posting on this thread.
I'm sure that's born out if a genuine and sincere ecumenical concern and that's heart-warming. But once you go beyond the actual 'data' and start speculating about possible outcomes that neither 'side' are even talking about themselves then it begins to get a bit wearing to be honest.
Comments
The RCC does allow Anglicans to commune with them, if they are 1) part of the Ordinariate (they are still Anglican but in communion with Rome) or 2) genuinely unable to access a Protestant Eucharist in any way. I believe that co-communion has also happened at Taizé for years.
However, this service was not a Eucharistic event so it's not relevant either way.
Taize is an ecumenical community so it's not a typical example.
Technically speaking, as I understand it, Protestants are not allowed to communicate in RC parishes but individual clergy will offer eucharistic hospitality if they wish to do so.
I was offered communion at a well-known RC retreat centre back in my Protestant days. I did not accept as I felt it would be wrong of me to bend the rules as I understood them.
The leaders of the retreat made it clear that they would admit non-RCs to the table even though they weren't officially supposed to do so.
@Gramps49 - yes, 'speculate' is a more accurate and more polite term than 'pontificate' but forgive me, I can find your speculations rather well... overly speculative when there is no evidence to suggest any immediate change of heart on the part of the RCC, at least not officially.
It is certainly historic that the Pope and a British monarch have prayed together but that doesn't mean that the Vatican is going to change its eucharistic policy anytime soon or reverse prior declarations that Anglican orders are utterly 'null and void.'
Whether they might do that some time in the future remains to be seen but for now I don't foresee a shift in the status quo.
Members of the Ordinariate have left the Anglican Church and are no longer members. They are members of the RCC only and not still Anglican.
There has been agreement with some Eastern churches for intercommunion when there is no opportunity to go to one's own church. But that is just some (certainly not all) Eastern churches and has never been extended to a protestant church. Of course individual priests might offer the Eucharist to other Christians, but they are not reflecting an official position and might well get into hot water for doing it.
Taizé is unique.
This has been the case for many years.
Our Place had a Greek Orthodox lady as a member for many years - she lived very near the church - and she regularly received communion (Our Place is Church of England, of the Anglo-Catholic style of churchmanship).
AIUI, she had received permission from either an Orthodox priest or bishop to do this, as there was no Orthodox church (Greek or otherwise) to which she could easily go. The nearest was 10 miles away, and she had no car.
I think the exceptions to the rule are more or less pastoral--at the discretion of the celebrant.
I know my wife has taken communion at a Benedictine monastery. She did ask before the Mass and was given permission.
Heck, one Christmas I was hospitalized at a Roman Catholic hospital and an extra-ordinary communion minister came by offering the host. I explained I was Lutheran, but she said she would commune me. Since I had narrowly escaped death due to a head on collision with an 18 wheeler, I certainly did not want to refuse it.
But, I am wondering if instead of these instances being exceptions to the rule, the table becomes more formally open to people who accept the real presence of Christ in the consecrated elements of communion.
It is with the authority of the local bishop that a Catholic priest celebrates the eucharist.
The bishop would claim to have that authority ultimately from the Apostles and from Christ himself. (Ubi episcopus,ibi ecclesia where the bishop is there is the Church).
While the eucharist is, again according to Catholic teaching, both source and summit of grace, the Church is, according to Catholic understanding, a visible organism of which some people are formally members with certain rights and obligations and others are ,of their own volition, not. Others, of course, are informal members with no obligations but also with fewer ecclesiastical rights within the Catholic community. Ultimately all are part of the People of God.
In this regard, Can. 844 §4 reads "If the danger of death is present or if, in the judgment of the diocesan bishop or conference of bishops, some other grave necessity urges it, Catholic ministers administer these same sacraments licitly also to other Christians not having full communion with the Catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and who seek such on their own accord, provided that they manifest Catholic faith in respect to these sacraments and are properly disposed."
I think this comfortably covers @Gramps49's priest in the hospital.
The point though, is that Pope Leo praying with King Charles and Queen Distracting-Hat Camilla isn't in-and-of-itself going to lead to a change in RC policy in this particular respect.
What did the optics say about the polity being expressed.
Did look like Leo and Charles were having an enjoyable conversation as they recessed from the chapel.
Why do you think anything about polity was being expressed?
It seems to me since Charles is still a layperson while at the same time the Supreme Governor of the Anglican Church would not it have been more proper for him to sit among the other lay dignitaries also attending--front roll, yes. Whenever there is an Anglican service in England were the monarch attends, he/she sits just below the pulpit. No problem with Leo and the Archbishop sharing the chancel, in my book. Just seemed a little odd to see the monarch and his wife to the far left of the pope on the same level as the altar.
Same with the worship service at the installation of our president at the National Cathedral. The clergy who were part of the service sat in a semi circle in front of the altar, but the President sat front roll below the pulpit. (Even though we knew he would not hear the words being said).
It's part of their role to have enjoyable conversations and to be seen to do so.
People who know or who have met the King tell me he's expert at it. I once met one of his personal secretaries. I've also met people who were impressed by him during royal engagements and events. He knows how to 'work a room.'
And you're speculating again. About the 'optics' this time and the seating order. You seem more convinced that this is a significant ecumenical break-through than any Anglican or RC commentator I've heard on BBC Radio 4's Sunday programme - and, begging your pardon, you don't even live here and aren't an Anglican nor an RC.
FWIW both the Anglican and RC clergy I've heard interviewed have said something along the lines of, 'Differences exist and we can't pretend otherwise but we will continue to love and respect one another and to work together on those issues where we share a common concern.'
I wouldn't expect them to say anything different and that state of affairs already exists and has done so for some time.
In other news, King Charles III is Anglican and the Pope Catholic.
I'm not saying you aren't 'entitled' to comment or speculate as someone who is neither British nor Anglican or Catholic but you seem determined to read more into this than anyone else posting on this thread.
I'm sure that's born out if a genuine and sincere ecumenical concern and that's heart-warming. But once you go beyond the actual 'data' and start speculating about possible outcomes that neither 'side' are even talking about themselves then it begins to get a bit wearing to be honest.