“the Church of England did not exist during the time that the doctrine was being formulated.

i.e. in 1496.

Well, they can dash off an angry spittle-flecked memo to the pope, then. Maybe they can bring Pope Nicholas V, Martin V, Pope Alexander VI, and Pope Leo X to trial posthumously.

Buncha loonies.

HA HA HA HA HA; what an “own goal!”

Wellll… in one sense, of course, the Church of England as currently constituted did not exist back then.

Of course, this does knock on the head the historical claim that the CoE is not Protestant or Reformation, but the same church as it ever was, only ‘reformed’: the church in England (since the time of St. Augustine of Canterbury) as ever was.

As a Roman Catholic, I will forebear from any further comment

Hang on a mo – this is the second time this “repudiate the Doctrine of Discovery” thing has been raised?

And they even wrote to the Queen back then and all (and got the reply you’d expect)?

And somebody still thought it would be a good idea to float this idea again?

Either they don’t really keep track of all the resolutions they fling about, or they can’t understand the brush-off when they’ve gotten it, or they really think that repeating themselves will achieve anything.

What next – writing to the Duke of Normandy (if such a nobleman still remains) to express strong disapproval of his ancestor using force when claiming the throne of England?

they really think that repeating themselves will achieve anything.

Unfortunately, it has, it has.

More directly on topic: Really, I cannot believe that Williams said that in those words. Especially in such a concise and clear declarative sentence. What I think is much more damning is that the EPISCOPAL News Service not only reports whatever he actually said that way but also just shrugs right past it.

Daniel, I’d like to see his exact words (not just what ENS says this other guy said he said).

On the other hand, as Fr. Jack said “That would be an ecumenical matter.”

And for goodness’ sake, didn’t they make big enough fools of themselves once without having to do it twice? Who thought “Wow, the Diocese of Maine did such a bang-up job, we should have thought of that, let’s steal the idea and make a big splash of it at General Convention”?

And was there a resolution about counting paperclips, because if this is a sample of what was going on, there must have been one amongst the 419 resolutions?

This just in: Rowan Williams has finally shown some zeal for the Faith and has acted strongly in issuing a hard-nosed condemnation of Arius, a bishop in Alexandria, for his heretical Christology. Film at eleven.

While there is no current Duke of Normandy, there is a Duchess of Normandy. Her name is Elizbeth and she is also Queen of England. In the Channel Islands, however, she is still referred to as the Duchess of Normandy.

Don,

Can it be so? When he wrote this:

http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?bi=0&bx=off&ds=30&isbn=0334028507&sortby=17&sts=t&x=87&y=19

he expressed a good deal of appreciative sympathy f0r the man’s labors, even if not agreeing with most of his conclusions; and he certainly regretted his “demonization” by his opponents.

William Tighe: Wow! Live and learn, I guess. Where is St. Nicholas now that we need him to deliver one of his famous slaps-upside-the-head to you-know-who!

http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?bi=0&bx=off&ds=30&isbn=0334028507&sortby=17&sts=t&x=87&y=19

- Book Condition: As New
- appears unused
- Book Condition: New.
- BRAND NEW PAPERBACK. … “Arius” is widely considered to be Rowan Williams’ “magnum opus”
- Brand New. *** NEW COPY ***
- New print-on-demand paperback
- Condition: LIKE NEW
- Book Condition: Brand New.
- Book Condition: New
- Book Condition: Brand New.
- Condition: New.
- Condition: Used: Very Good.

Arius Remaindered?

Well, the United States didn’t exist when slavery was established in this hemisphere. So, go sue the Queen for reparations.

Not the sort of thing he would want to have quoted. Own goal, as William Tighe says. On the other hand, what’s going on here is a stupid resolution being batted back and forth between the Queen and the Archbishop so the stupid makers of the resolution can have a nonsense answer on an official letterhead. The original policy was declared by Henry VII; his proper successor, as I understand it, is the Queen in Parliament, and so the matter should be referred to Prime Minister Gordon Brown.

Liz could always say the House of Saxe-Coburg Gotha (or Windsor?) didn’t exist while Henry Tudor was busy dropping his trou all over the place and inventing the Anglican Communion. Don’t blame her or the other unintelligibles of the family.

Even if one is of the view that Anglicanism does not predate the Reformation, the validity of her Holy Orders should, in theory, not be at issue, since Anglican Bishops were co-consecrated by the Old Catholics, who are recognised by Roman Catholicism as having valid Orders.

Of course, with the innovation of women’s ordination, the whole deal goes out the window, and we’re back to square one. Pity that.

But, Damian, if the primary objection of the RC Church to Anglican Orders is that the defective intention of the Anglican Ordinal’s framers as expressed in that rite permanently vitiates the effectuality of that rite (as the most comprehensive RC critiqie of Anglican orders, Francis Clark’s *Anglican Orders and Defect of Intention*, does) then all the OC “co-consecrators” in the world wouldn’t make any difference, and more than the participation of the fugitive Archbishop of Spalato, Marc’Antonio de Dominis, during his period as an Anglican between 1616 and 1622, in several Anglican episcopal consecrations made any difference at the time. (De Dominis returned to Rome in 1622, but his various conflicting accounts of why he had joined the Church of England, including the admission that he had deliberately lied in some of his explanations, resulted in his imprisonment until his death from natural causes in 1624, and then, after his death, his posthumous condemnation as a relapsed heretic and the burning of his corpse.)

Damian G: “Of course, with the innovation of women’s ordination, the whole deal goes out the window, and we’re back to square one. Pity that.”

See! Look at that. Another topic where the issue and harm of WO is applicable. A pity indeed.

Damian G’s blogsite: “Basically, my goal is to purge the Earth of all things liberal.”

Heh, heh. There are worse goals in the world.

My personal favorite of all the resolutions passed. Truly laughable.

Anglicanism began because 1) the English king was a horny toad and wanted to play the field and 2) he wanted Church property. End of story. Anglicanism has not leg to stand on.

Consider a few facts for a second. The Doctrine of Discovery has no relation to the country of England, or to the Apostolic nature of the English Church. The Doctrine of Discovery granted permission to Portugal to explore the new world, in particular present-day Brazil. A similar doctrine was used by the English King, Henry VII in 1496. The resolution passed by the Episcopal community two years ago states that it was started by King Henry VII, when it was actually begun in 1455 by Pope Nicholas V.

Second, the Archbishop’s statement that the English Church did not exist at the time is historically in error. It has only been in very recent memory, historically speaking, that the Christian Church in the West has been recognized as the Roman Catholic Church. Traditionally each country recognized it’s specific brand of Western Christianity as (for example) the English Catholic Church, or the German Catholic Church. It wasn’t until the Pope began to shore up his power under the bickering of Europe’s kings, and the dividing of the Holy Roman Empire amongst the decedents of Charles the Great that there was a singular Roman Catholic Church. In each country there is recognized a Bishopric that is the oldest Diocese in that country. For England that Diocese is the Archdiocese of Canterbury and thus the Archbishop of Canterbury is recognized as the first among equals in England (at least in Catholic terms.) Whenever a diocese or archdiocese had trouble they appealed to the Archbishop in charge of the First Sea of that country. If still unable to resolve the issue, they appealed to Rome and the Archbishop of Rome; The Pope. His decree was final as there is no higher authority in Western Christianity, as Rome is the oldest diocese in Western Christianity.

While there was no Protestant Church of England in 1496, there was the Catholic Church of England where the Archbishop of Canterbury was head. As a Vicar of the Apostles, the Archbishop would have been consulted no matter what but because the Papacy had already begun shoring up its power base by 1455 (which is what allowed Pope Nicholas to issue the Doctrine of Discovery in the first place) the Archbishop being a Vicar of the Pope would have been consulted by King Henry. The idea that this specific branch of the Anglican Community in America called for the whole Anglican church to renounce the Doctrine of Discovery does not mean it rejects the Apostolic nature of the English Church or of the Archbishop of Canterbury. What it does mean, is that some woolly-headed liberals got together and smoke a joint before thinking they knew the historical importance of the things they were discussing.

I do not mean to be snarky here and I realize that such a post would get me banned on other Episcopal sites, but just in case anyone might be eying the other side of the Tiber, Inquirers classes are forming now. Please note that the audio file in the “For more information” section of this link is a sermon from Our Lady of the Atonement, an Anglican Use Roman Catholic parish in San Antonio.