PipeChat Digest #2693 - Thursday, February 7, 2002
 
Re: Lingua Latin
  by "Noel Stoutenburg" <mjolnir@ticnet.com>
*WAY* OFF-TOPIC: Leo XIII and the validity of Anglican Orders, etc.
  by <quilisma@socal.rr.com>
Re: Lingua Latin
  by "Ross & Lynda Wards" <TheShieling@xtra.co.nz>
Re: *WAY* OFF-TOPIC: Leo XIII and the validity of Anglican Orders,etc.
  by "Ross & Lynda Wards" <TheShieling@xtra.co.nz>
correction from me
  by "Ross & Lynda Wards" <TheShieling@xtra.co.nz>
Re: correction from me
  by <quilisma@socal.rr.com>
David Peckham at the (Columbus) Ohio Theatre's Robert Morton
  by <Wuxuzusu@aol.com>
Re: *WAY* OFF-TOPIC: Leo XIII and the validity of Anglican Orders,etc.
  by "Stephen Ohmer" <knopfregal@yahoo.com>
Re: correction from me
  by "Paul Valtos" <chercapa@enter.net>
Re: *WAY* OFF-TOPIC: Leo XIII and the validity of Anglican Orders,etc.
  by "Michael K. Cronin" <mcronin@iag.net>
Re: correction from me
  by <RonSeverin@aol.com>
Re: *WAY* OFF-TOPIC: Leo XIII and the validity of AnglicanOrders,etc.
  by "Ross & Lynda Wards" <TheShieling@xtra.co.nz>
 

(back) Subject: Re: Lingua Latin From: "Noel Stoutenburg" <mjolnir@ticnet.com> Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 16:07:41 -0600       "Emmons, Paul" wrote:   > The Church of Sweden now has legitimate Apostolic Succession (by = Anglican > reckoning). Do you know when this occurred and from whom? I think it = was > in the late 19th century.   It is my understanding, though I have not researched the subject = exhaustively, that from the Anglican perspective the Church of Sweden has always had "legitimate Apostolic Succession". (I think Rome views it this way, too, = though what Rome thinks seldom influences my own opinions, so I've never bothered = to confirm or disprove my impressions.)   The following quotation, taken from the Church of Sweden Website <http://www.svenskakyrkan.se/default.htm>, is pertinent to the discussion:   The conversion of the first Swedish king, Olov Sk=F6tkonung, is accredited to the English missionary St Sigfrid; the king was supposedly baptised in the well at Husaby, a royal residence near Skara, about the year 1000. English origins were claimed throughout the 11th century for many of the first bishops, notably Sts Eskil of Eskilstuna, David of V=E4ster=E5s and Henry, the first archbishop of Uppsala and Osmund, buried in Ely Cathedral. The English character of much of the early church architecture and the liturgical rites and customs, as evidenced by surviving manuscripts, supports the extent of this influence.   But gradually during the 12th and 13th centuries the ties with the German mainland became stronger, and were the predominant foreign influence. The Church of Sweden however became a strong indigenous institution, closely linked with the crown and the nobility, contributing to world Christian history mainly with St Birgitta (Bridget) of Sweden, mystic, and founder of an order of nuns; her much-venerated remains are in Vadstena Abbey Church.   When the Reformation came it was Lutheran teachings that spread rapidly northwards, helped by the education of many of the Swedish clergy in North Germany, by the invention of printing, and by the aspirations to independence from the power of Rome focused on the Henry VIII - like figure of King Gustaf Vasa. But the moderation of the Swedish reformation meant that interest in and from England did not die out and there were sporadic contacts, particularly with Johannes Gezelius in the 17th century, who argued that the two churches were so alike that an exception was made to the then uniform policy throughout the kingdom that no other worship was allowed than that of the Church of Sweden - the British merchants at Narva, near the Russian border were allowed to hold services according to the Book of Common Prayer. Other Anglophiles were Jacob Serenius, rector of the Swedish church in London, and Jesper Svedberg, Bishop of Skara. John Robinson, Bishop of London, even fostered a plan for the union of the English and Swedish churches in 1718, supported by Count Gyllenberg, Swedish Ambassador to London. The plan fell through because of the opposition of most Swedish bishops, although Svedberg of Skara and Gezelius, by now Bishop of Turku (Finland) were in favour. The reason for the opposition was that the Church of England was too Calvinist for them, a worse error than Roman Catholicism to an orthodox Lutheran!   I understand that the Church of England and Church of Sweden considered themselves to be in "full communion" from their respective beginnings = until sometime in the 1920's, when the Swedish Church began admitting women to = the priesthood, and that though "full communion" was severed then by = Canterbury, the validity of Apostolic Succession in the C of S was not challenged.   ns    
(back) Subject: *WAY* OFF-TOPIC: Leo XIII and the validity of Anglican Orders, etc. From: <quilisma@socal.rr.com> Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 14:13:36 -0800       Johnny Kash wrote:   > How nice of you to bash Roman Catholicism on the Pipe Organ Chat list. > You really have nothing better to do!? > > J.K.   The RC church has a long history of "bashing" (if you will) anything and = anyone with which they disagree ... Galileo, the Crusades, the Inquisition, the = Index, etc. etc. etc.   "Dominus Iesus", issued on the eve of the most recent Lambeth Conference = (the world-wide Synod of the Anglican Communion) declared unequivocally that = not only were Anglican Orders not VALID, the Anglican CHURCH was not a "real" = CHURCH.   Charming.   As usual, we have Cardinal Rat(zinger) to thank for tossing THAT little = verbal grenade.   Rome's claim to Universal Primacy cannot be proved by Scripture OR Sacred Tradition. What's more, TWO-THIRDS of CATHOLIC Christendom (the Anglicans, = the Eastern Orthodox, the Old Catholics, the Swedish Lutherans, the Copts, the Armenians, etc.) does NOT accept it.   The Apostle Peter was the 1st Bishop of Rome, no more, no less. Claims of universal jurisdiction don't appear until a thousand years later, = beginning with the reign of Gregory the Great, and mostly based upon the (forged) = Decretals of Constantine.   As to the whole business of Leo XIII and Anglican Orders, I'll be happy to = post Apostolicae Curae and the reply of the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, = if anyone's interested.   Cheers,   Bud            
(back) Subject: Re: Lingua Latin From: "Ross & Lynda Wards" <TheShieling@xtra.co.nz> Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 11:48:34 +1300   Yes, indeed, I would have spent my time much better bashing my own = Anglican Church. :-) Ross -----Original Message----- From: Johnny Kash <kash5@mediaone.net> To: PipeChat <pipechat@pipechat.org> Date: Thursday, February 07, 2002 10:18 AM Subject: Re: Lingua Latin     >How nice of you to bash Roman Catholicism on the Pipe Organ Chat list. >You really have nothing better to do!? > >J.K. >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Ross & Lynda Wards" <TheShieling@xtra.co.nz> >To: "PipeChat" <pipechat@pipechat.org> >Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2002 2:55 PM >Subject: Re: Lingua Latin > > >> One of the problems with the Roman Catholic and Anglican relationships = is >> that the Pope declared in the late 19th-century, intending to make a >> definitive pronouncement, that "anyone who believes Anglican orders = [i.e. >> ordinations] are anything else but utterly null and void is anathema." Now >> "anathema" is a technical word and means "cursed to all eternity." A >> consequent problem is that is the Pope was wrong, the infallibility = thing >> the RCChurch believes in was also wrong; if the Pope was right, there = can >be >> no serious discussion of any kind as no Anglican will accept the Pope's >> dictate as he has no authority whatever over Anglicans. That is a very >> serious problem indeed. If the RCChurch had not made that foolish = stance >of >> papal infallibility in the 1870s, none of this would have arisen. >> The intention of the Pope was to make the Church of England people scared, >> frightening them into the Roman Church. It failed, of course, and more >RC's >> became Anglicans than Anglicans became RC's. >> There is a lot more on all of this, including the total = misunderstanding >of >> Scripture on the very idea of papal infallibility, but this List is >probably >> not the place for that. >> Regards, >> Ross Wards (Rev.Dr., in New Zealand) >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Alan Freed <parishadmin@stlukesnyc.org> >> To: PipeChat <pipechat@pipechat.org> >> Date: Thursday, February 07, 2002 6:50 AM >> Subject: RE: Lingua Latin >> >> >> Paul, I think that Sweden's legitimate orders date from the time of >> Ansgar and such (Boniface?). The Anglicans need not "reckon" about >> them, as theirs are a weaker case. I believe ROME (informally) >> recognizes Swedish orders, but not English. >> >> Alan >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Emmons, Paul [mailto:pemmons@wcupa.edu] >> Subject: RE: Lingua Latin >> >> Dear Noel: >> >> The Church of Sweden now has legitimate Apostolic Succession (by >> Anglican >> reckoning). Do you know when this occurred and from whom? I think it >> was >> in the late 19th century. >> >> Paul >> >> >> >> >> "Pipe Up and Be Heard!" >> PipeChat: A discussion List for pipe/digital organs & related topics >> HOMEPAGE : http://www.pipechat.org >> List: mailto:pipechat@pipechat.org >> Administration: mailto:admin@pipechat.org >> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: mailto:requests@pipechat.org >> >> >> >> >> "Pipe Up and Be Heard!" >> PipeChat: A discussion List for pipe/digital organs & related topics >> HOMEPAGE : http://www.pipechat.org >> List: mailto:pipechat@pipechat.org >> Administration: mailto:admin@pipechat.org >> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: mailto:requests@pipechat.org >> >> > > > >"Pipe Up and Be Heard!" >PipeChat: A discussion List for pipe/digital organs & related topics >HOMEPAGE : http://www.pipechat.org >List: mailto:pipechat@pipechat.org >Administration: mailto:admin@pipechat.org >Subscribe/Unsubscribe: mailto:requests@pipechat.org >      
(back) Subject: Re: *WAY* OFF-TOPIC: Leo XIII and the validity of Anglican Orders,etc. From: "Ross & Lynda Wards" <TheShieling@xtra.co.nz> Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 12:00:10 +1300   Thanks, Bud! That Cardinal is also referred to in NZ as "Rat" instead of Ratzinger, but only by RCs as no one else really has heard of him. What is = a "zinger", by the way? Isn't it an Americanism? I'm curious as to why you think Peter was the first Bishop of Rome. There = is nothing scriptural about Peter even visiting Rome, just a handful of legends. Paul was certainly in Rome: if Peter was there, why didn't Peter refer to him? After all, Paul boasts in his epistles about having been bested Peter in a theological argument, i.e. corrected him. Too, in the very early days of the Church, the cathedral was frequently named after the founder, i.e. apostle or saint or whatever, of the church there. Surprise, surprise, the Roman Catholic Cathedral in Rome is St Paul's, and St Peter's is a much-later parish church only. St Paul Lateran is called that because it is on the walls of the city: in other words, it was sited there to make it easy for Christians to escape into the country = if there was persecution from within Rome, and into the city if there was an attack from beyond the city walls. .... And, to keep this even vaguely on topic, does anyone have the = specification of the organ that Cavaille-Coll wanted to build in St Peter's Rome?   Regards, Ross -----Original Message----- From: quilisma@socal.rr.com <quilisma@socal.rr.com> To: PipeChat <pipechat@pipechat.org> Date: Thursday, February 07, 2002 11:13 AM Subject: *WAY* OFF-TOPIC: Leo XIII and the validity of Anglican = Orders,etc.     > > >Johnny Kash wrote: > >> How nice of you to bash Roman Catholicism on the Pipe Organ Chat list. >> You really have nothing better to do!? >> >> J.K. > >The RC church has a long history of "bashing" (if you will) anything and anyone >with which they disagree ... Galileo, the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Index, >etc. etc. etc. > >"Dominus Iesus", issued on the eve of the most recent Lambeth Conference (the >world-wide Synod of the Anglican Communion) declared unequivocally that = not only >were Anglican Orders not VALID, the Anglican CHURCH was not a "real" CHURCH. > >Charming. > >As usual, we have Cardinal Rat(zinger) to thank for tossing THAT little verbal >grenade. > >Rome's claim to Universal Primacy cannot be proved by Scripture OR Sacred >Tradition. What's more, TWO-THIRDS of CATHOLIC Christendom (the = Anglicans, the >Eastern Orthodox, the Old Catholics, the Swedish Lutherans, the Copts, = the >Armenians, etc.) does NOT accept it. > >The Apostle Peter was the 1st Bishop of Rome, no more, no less. Claims of >universal jurisdiction don't appear until a thousand years later, = beginning with >the reign of Gregory the Great, and mostly based upon the (forged) Decretals of >Constantine. > >As to the whole business of Leo XIII and Anglican Orders, I'll be happy = to post >Apostolicae Curae and the reply of the Archbishops of Canterbury and = York, if >anyone's interested. > >Cheers, > >Bud > > > > > > >"Pipe Up and Be Heard!" >PipeChat: A discussion List for pipe/digital organs & related topics >HOMEPAGE : http://www.pipechat.org >List: mailto:pipechat@pipechat.org >Administration: mailto:admin@pipechat.org >Subscribe/Unsubscribe: mailto:requests@pipechat.org >      
(back) Subject: correction from me From: "Ross & Lynda Wards" <TheShieling@xtra.co.nz> Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 12:37:00 +1300   Dear List, I must immediately correct an idiotic blunder I've just made. St John's in Rome is of course St John Lateran. But the Cathedral is still St Paul's, though not "Lateran". Ross      
(back) Subject: Re: correction from me From: <quilisma@socal.rr.com> Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 15:32:33 -0800   Tee hee ... I was going to (grin). But isn't St. JOHN'S the "sedes" for = the Latin Rite Bishop of Rome?   I will grant the RCs St. Peter being at Rome ... the basilica had to have = been built over SOMEBODY'S tomb ... and it seems to me that archeological digs = in recent years have tended to confirm the authenticity of the tomb, insofar = as such things CAN be confirmed from a distance of 2000 years.   That said, I'm STILL waiting for them to apologize for the BORGIA popes (chuckle).   Cheers,   Bud   Ross & Lynda Wards wrote:   > Dear List, > I must immediately correct an idiotic blunder I've just made. St John's = in > Rome is of course St John Lateran. But the Cathedral is still St Paul's, > though not "Lateran". > Ross > > "Pipe Up and Be Heard!" > PipeChat: A discussion List for pipe/digital organs & related topics > HOMEPAGE : http://www.pipechat.org > List: mailto:pipechat@pipechat.org > Administration: mailto:admin@pipechat.org > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: mailto:requests@pipechat.org    
(back) Subject: David Peckham at the (Columbus) Ohio Theatre's Robert Morton From: <Wuxuzusu@aol.com> Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 18:37:48 EST   Greetings all;   Just announced! David Peckham will perform on the (Columbus, Ohio) Ohio Theatre's Robert Morton on Sunday, May 5, at 3 PM. Tickets are $12.75. For more information call 614/469-0939. CAPA members go online at www.capa.com   Stan Krider  
(back) Subject: Re: *WAY* OFF-TOPIC: Leo XIII and the validity of Anglican Orders,etc. From: "Stephen Ohmer" <knopfregal@yahoo.com> Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 15:50:22 -0800 (PST)     --- Ross & Lynda Wards <TheShieling@xtra.co.nz> > And, to keep this even vaguely on topic, does > anyone have the specification > of the organ that Cavaille-Coll wanted to build > in St Peter's Rome?     I, too am very interested in this spec. I saw it years ago (Hedgpeth, my Dupre student - teacher had a copy of it from some book.) The specs give the impression that the instrument would have been one of the most magnificent the builder could have made (considering the space!)   SteveOhmer     =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D     __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send FREE Valentine eCards with Yahoo! Greetings! http://greetings.yahoo.com  
(back) Subject: Re: correction from me From: "Paul Valtos" <chercapa@enter.net> Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 22:22:39 -0500   Dear Bud, I understand that the reason that Rome does not recognize the = Anglican Orders is the influence that the Irish American Bishops have on Rome . = They fear that they not only that the Anglican Church would be recognized here in the US but in Ireland which would then level the playing field competitively for communicants. Course it would do the same in the US. Paul ----- Original Message ----- From: <quilisma@socal.rr.com> To: "PipeChat" <pipechat@pipechat.org> Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2002 6:32 PM Subject: Re: correction from me     > Tee hee ... I was going to (grin). But isn't St. JOHN'S the "sedes" for the > Latin Rite Bishop of Rome? > > I will grant the RCs St. Peter being at Rome ... the basilica had to = have been > built over SOMEBODY'S tomb ... and it seems to me that archeological = digs in > recent years have tended to confirm the authenticity of the tomb, = insofar as > such things CAN be confirmed from a distance of 2000 years. > > That said, I'm STILL waiting for them to apologize for the BORGIA popes > (chuckle). > > Cheers, > > Bud > > Ross & Lynda Wards wrote: > > > Dear List, > > I must immediately correct an idiotic blunder I've just made. St = John's in > > Rome is of course St John Lateran. But the Cathedral is still St = Paul's, > > though not "Lateran". > > Ross > > > > "Pipe Up and Be Heard!" > > PipeChat: A discussion List for pipe/digital organs & related topics > > HOMEPAGE : http://www.pipechat.org > > List: mailto:pipechat@pipechat.org > > Administration: mailto:admin@pipechat.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: mailto:requests@pipechat.org > > > "Pipe Up and Be Heard!" > PipeChat: A discussion List for pipe/digital organs & related topics > HOMEPAGE : http://www.pipechat.org > List: mailto:pipechat@pipechat.org > Administration: mailto:admin@pipechat.org > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: mailto:requests@pipechat.org >    
(back) Subject: Re: *WAY* OFF-TOPIC: Leo XIII and the validity of Anglican Orders,etc. From: "Michael K. Cronin" <mcronin@iag.net> Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002 00:27:06 -0500   quilisma@socal.rr.com wrote:   > Rome's claim to Universal Primacy cannot be proved by Scripture OR = Sacred > Tradition.   Bud:   Ecumenically, Anglicans and Catholics have made progress -- = notwithstanding Cardinal Ratzinger's ill-timed comments on the validity of Anglican orders = and the seemingly nitpicking theological distinction between so-called "ecclesial communities" and "churches" in Dominus Iesus.   The following is an extract from Zenit:   Bishop Peter Forster of Chester, England, ecumenical delegate of the Anglican Communion to the ongoing Synod of Bishops, addressed the assembly this morning, as did representatives of the Orthodox and Armenian Churches and the World Lutheran Federation.   "Anglicans have come to accept the wisdom and need of a universal primacy, exercised by the Bishop of Rome," the Anglican said. "It is recognized that such a need, for the mission of the Church, will grown discernibly as the process of globalization progresses.   "Agreement remains to be reached over the precise rights and responsibilities to be attached to a renewed and fully ecumenical primacy."   Recognition of the unique role of the Bishop of Rome in Christianity was agreed by the Anglican Communion in a 1999 document entitled "The Gift of Authority," of the Anglo-Roman Catholic International Commission.   __________________________ Michael K. Cronin Ormond Beach, FL http://home.iag.net/~mcronin        
(back) Subject: Re: correction from me From: <RonSeverin@aol.com> Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 01:18:39 EST   Dear Ross:   St. John Lateran is the Pope's church or Cathedral, as bishop of Rome. St Peter and Paul's is the Basilica of Rome. A Basilica is the Pope's home away from home.   I believe the smallest RC Cathedral is Anchorage, Alaska. It holds 60 people.   Ron  
(back) Subject: Re: *WAY* OFF-TOPIC: Leo XIII and the validity of AnglicanOrders,etc. From: "Ross & Lynda Wards" <TheShieling@xtra.co.nz> Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 22:48:36 +1300   Well, the Anglican Church in New Zealand would never to submit to any kind of primacy of Rome. There was considerable consternation over that announcement you have referred to. I bet the CofE wouldn't take it either, whatever a handful of "spokesmen" might say. Ross -----Original Message----- From: Michael K. Cronin <mcronin@iag.net> To: PipeChat <pipechat@pipechat.org> Date: Thursday, February 07, 2002 6:24 PM Subject: Re: *WAY* OFF-TOPIC: Leo XIII and the validity of AnglicanOrders,etc.     >quilisma@socal.rr.com wrote: > >> Rome's claim to Universal Primacy cannot be proved by Scripture OR Sacred >> Tradition. > >Bud: > > Ecumenically, Anglicans and Catholics have made progress -- notwithstanding >Cardinal Ratzinger's ill-timed comments on the validity of Anglican = orders and the >seemingly nitpicking theological distinction between so-called "ecclesial >communities" and "churches" in Dominus Iesus. > >The following is an extract from Zenit: > >Bishop Peter Forster of Chester, England, ecumenical delegate of the >Anglican Communion to the ongoing Synod of Bishops, addressed the >assembly this morning, as did representatives of the Orthodox and >Armenian Churches and the World Lutheran Federation. > >"Anglicans have come to accept the wisdom and need of a universal >primacy, exercised by the Bishop of Rome," the Anglican said. "It is >recognized that such a need, for the mission of the Church, will >grown discernibly as the process of globalization progresses. > >"Agreement remains to be reached over the precise rights and >responsibilities to be attached to a renewed and fully ecumenical >primacy." > >Recognition of the unique role of the Bishop of Rome in Christianity >was agreed by the Anglican Communion in a 1999 document entitled "The >Gift of Authority," of the Anglo-Roman Catholic International >Commission. > >__________________________ >Michael K. Cronin >Ormond Beach, FL >http://home.iag.net/~mcronin > > > > >"Pipe Up and Be Heard!" >PipeChat: A discussion List for pipe/digital organs & related topics >HOMEPAGE : http://www.pipechat.org >List: mailto:pipechat@pipechat.org >Administration: mailto:admin@pipechat.org >Subscribe/Unsubscribe: mailto:requests@pipechat.org >