Not to be overlooked: Leo and Charles praying together
For the first time in 500 years, the supreme governor of the Anglican Church in England and the head of the Roman See prayed together in an ecumenical service that employed both Roman and Anglican traditions. Here is the Vatican News report of the service.
Of course, many conservative Protestant leaders in England and Northern Ireland are upset.
Of course, many conservative Protestant leaders in England and Northern Ireland are upset.
Comments
IOW did this qualify as a Catholic mass?
The article says it was an ecumenical prayer service--Mass or the Eucharist are not mentioned.
So, as far as we know, this coulda been just them singing a folk-mass Our Father together.
(Or not. Just wondering about the definitional parameters of the term "prayer service". No need for anyone to answer, obviously.)
Oh, well. Good to see King Charles III continuing the legacy of his namesake, anyway.
Can you be more specific?
I think Charles I was considered to be a little, shall we say, high on the candle?
Hopefully the part about being a “modernizer” is meant as a good thing too, though I don’t tend to think of that term positively myself. I’d like King Charles to have something actively positive in his reign. But Leo seems like a very good Pope thus far regardless.
"Modernizer" does come with a bit of baggage, and it can set off red flags sometimes. But insofar as taboos against interfaith worship are justly viewed as archaic, whatever the opposite of "archaic" would be is what I was trying to get across.
In the afternoon there was a Vesper service at St Paul's outside the Walls, a church which English monarchs had special connections with before the separation at the Reformation.
The service was not a eucharist.
Not as high as his son Charles II, who was received into the Roman Catholic church on his death bed
*allegedly. No-one is quite sure if he was lucid.
Among the oddities is that they conferred knighthoods on each other as well as the title of "confrater," which is a new one on me.
I like this observation from one RC commentator in The Pillar, https://www.pillarcatholic.com/p/shaking-hands-vigano-ii-and-spy-time
"they got Yvette Cooper (British government minister) to read a Bible — that’s no easy trick, let me tell you, even if she did look like she was clenching a hornet between her buttocks throughout."
?
I think the historical consensus is that he did. He would have been suffering pretty intensely from the quack cures his doctors were administering though.
James II did become RC of course.
Charles I married a Catholic of course, Queen Henrietta Maria much to the annoyance of the Puritans.
He also supported Archbishop William Laud's 'high up the candle reforms.' Laud couldn't be considered a 'Papist' though although, mysteriously enough, the Pope did offer him a Cardinal's hat.
The RCs admired many early Anglican divines, including Hooker of course and were always looking for ways to lure them back into the fold.
The early 'Grand Tour' was often seen as an opportunity to impress, which was one reason why the more Puritanical types were suspicious of it. Susceptible English gentry seduced by bling and art.
I rather like her (and her husband) .... but found that description of a fish out of water amusing.
Well, you learn something new every day.
I don't follow.
The writer seems to imply(eg. "let me tell you") that he has intimate knowledge of some irreligosity on Yvette Cooper's part. Is this actually her reputation, or is it more just "LefT-wInG WoMiN HaTez gOd!!"
Thanks. I originally misregistered your post as saying "Charles 1 and Charles 2", which seemed less relevant.
She affirmed rather than swearing on the bible when taking her seat in parliament. - which some take as a sign of non-belief (though that definitely doesn’t follow) but I don’t think she’s made any public statement about her religious beliefs.
I wonder if continental Catholics had the same fears in reverse about young men heading to England.
(Semi-serious, because I can sincerely say that, being raised low-candle Catholic, seeing the more voluptuous stuff has NEVER made me wanna go in that direction. I am probably a minority in that, though.)
I'm wondering this as well. What is the significance of this event? Just because the men occupying these positions haven't prayed together for 500 years doesn't automatically make it important, given that the positions were way more important 500 years ago, as was the place of prayer in public life.
That's a fairly spectacular way of abdicating. It would, of course, have been wise to remove the Supreme Governorship when Liz died and before Charlie made the coronation oath, even if not putting in the effort required for full disestablishment.
I wonder what the attraction might be in doing the reverse journey. The weather? Fine food and wine?
I am with you in being a low candle Catholic. I was pleased to see when visiting Tuscany several years ago that much of the 19th century "gold" tat had been removed from churches to be replaced by just one or two exquisite artifacts.
Whatever faith they had ( and some had a lot) does not seem to have been compromised by their time in England.
I wasn't really advocating abdication, though he might as well finish the job properly, and abolish the monarchy at the same time.
If that were the case then why would he perjure himself with the oaths he's made?
Yes, his dad was Orthodox before he married 'Liz and his Gran was an eccentric Orthodox nun. He has also been known to attend Orthodox and Coptic services and to have spoken out on behalf of those beleaguered Christian communities in the Middle East.
Whether that amounts to secretly being Orthodox I rather doubt.
Mind you, a very conservative US Anglican I saw pontificating oine when looking up the GAFCON thing opined that he doubted the King was a Christian let alone an Anglican.
He conceded that this might be a tad unfair. 😳
And which body would would be partners negotiate with?