 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
CajunRick
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| First Name: | | | Gender: | | | Faith History: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 23rd, 2007 03:07 pm |
|
Vatican City, Nov 23, 2007 / 12:18 pm (CNA) .- Today the Pope discussed how to deal with the requests of increasing numbers of Episcopalians and Anglicans who want to join the Roman Catholic Church.
According to Times Online, the Holy Father, who is making the reunification of Christendom a goal of his pontificate, met with cardinals from around the world to consider requests from three US Episcopal bishops and a group of traditionalist Anglicans to be received into the Church.
The meeting in Rome comes on the eve of the consistory to create 23 new cardinals.
The above article is reposted with permission from Catholic News Agency.
|
|
|
EMarshallBuckles
Member
| Joined: | Mon Nov 19th, 2007 |
| Location: | Rockville (Near Richmond), Virginia USA |
| Posts: | 669 |
| First Name: | Marshall | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Christian Church,Episcopal Church,Baptist denomination,learning about RCC |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 23rd, 2007 05:52 pm |
|
| I hope and pray that His Holiness will make a way for Anglicans and Episcopalians to come into the Roman Catholic Church or, at least, somehow take them under the protective wing of the church. The Episcopal Church, in the United States, is just going off into total heresy. I never would have believed, back in the '70s, that things could get as bad as they have in the Episcopal Church. I am also aware of some Episcopalians who have gone off into the Baptist denomination. Many are trying to get out anyway they can so that they will not be associated with what is going on in the Episcopal Church. The Episcopalian leadership is simply turning a blind eye to all this and trying to force their heretical agenda no matter what. At this point, I don't know if the Episcopal Church is going to end up an obscure, weird cult or if it will start to join with occult groups and become a new "Temple of Evil". May God help the Episcopalians to realize the wickedness of their ways and to turn from their sins and turn back to Christ. By the way, some Baptist liberals are heading the same way so there may be some similar problems in the Baptist denomination.
|
|
|
Br_Carlo
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Tyler, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 150 |
| First Name: | Br_Carlo (Vince Brach) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Presbyterian, Episcopalian, CATHOLIC |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 23rd, 2007 10:58 pm |
|
| God's peace. Does anyone know who the US Episcopal bishops are? Blessings, ~Br_Carlo~
|
|
|
shawnbm
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 10th, 2006 |
| Location: | Fort Lauderdale, Florida USA |
| Posts: | 34 |
| First Name: | Shawn | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Cradle Episcopalian (Anglo-Catholic) |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 26th, 2007 02:00 pm |
|
| One you already know of, Bishop Steenson of Texas, but I just saw an e-mail indicating that Bishop John Lipscomb of the Dioceses of Southwest Florida is also swimming the Tiber (with his wife). I believe more will be doing so now that these two have set out to Rome. It is a difficult time for the Anglican Communion, but how long was the "reformation" supposed to last? If one wants to reform that which it understands to be the Catholic Church and the church one leaves reforms itself of those things one felt strongly about, isn't one to then turn around and come back? That is something a few have been speculating on. The other is whether it is theologically sound to replace the dread "papal infallibility" (still woefully misunderstood in Episcopal circles) with what, in effect, is the new "infallibility of General Convention". Where is the scriptural or patristic sanction in that?
|
|
|
wmschrader
Member
| Joined: | Fri Dec 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Fort Myers, Florida USA |
| Posts: | 100 |
| First Name: | Bill | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Methodist, Lutheran, Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 26th, 2007 02:26 pm |
|
Pope John Paul II saw this coming in the late 1970's. He provided a way for Episcopal Clergy / Parish Church communities to enter the RCC and retain their Anglican Liturgy.
Here is a link that explains the Pastoral Provision
http://www.pastoralprovision.org
I wish more Episcopalians knew of this wonderful gift of the Church
Last edited on Mon Nov 26th, 2007 02:29 pm by wmschrader
____________________
Bill
Glory be to God for all things
|
|
|
EMarshallBuckles
Member
| Joined: | Mon Nov 19th, 2007 |
| Location: | Rockville (Near Richmond), Virginia USA |
| Posts: | 669 |
| First Name: | Marshall | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Christian Church,Episcopal Church,Baptist denomination,learning about RCC |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 27th, 2007 03:56 am |
|
Br_Carlo wrote: God's peace. Does anyone know who the US Episcopal bishops are? Blessings, ~Br_Carlo~
I am not sure if they would be ready, at this time, to move into the Roman Catholic Church, however, the most conservative Bishops I know of are Rt. Rev. Jack Iker of the Diocese of Fort Worth and Rt. Rev. Bishop Duncan, I believe his name is, of the Diocese of Pittsburg if I am not mistaken. Bishop Salomon, of the Diocese of South Carolina, has been another conservative however, he retired as, apparently, are a number of clergy and Bishops. Some others are out there as well. I cannot remember his web address, however, if you look up a David Virtue, I believe his name is, he produces lengthy commentary about the happenings in the Episcopal Church from a very conservative point of view. I think that it may become a matter of "will the last one leaving the Episcopal Church turn out the lights?!" Oh, also, an African Anglican Diocese as developed an mission outreach to the American conservative Episcopalians called CANA (can't remember what that stands for just now). Several churches in the northern part of Virginia have joined CANA. Bishop Lee, the Bishop of Virginia, has been allegedly very upset and is trying to do battle, in court, with CANA, in an attempt to make the churches which have gone into CANA give up the church properties, however, the court battle is far from over and will be making new American law regarding churches and church buildings as time goes on. It is all turning into an unbelievable mess! Of course, they will likely never do it, however, if the Episcopal Church was wise, they would give Gene Robinson, the openly homosexual alleged Bishop of New Hampshire (sorry, however, while having Christian compassion for the man, to a certain extent, I just cannot personally recognize him as a Bishop) a "golden parachute" severance package, defrock him and say that he is no longer a Bishop and no longer an Episcopal Church clergymember. But, that is not going to happen, likely, and the Episcopal Church will probably become a cult with, hopefully, little influence in American culture. On the other hand, it might also go off into the occult and become a sick, twisted tool of the devil (um, did I say "might"? Ha, ha!).
|
|
|
Br_Carlo
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Tyler, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 150 |
| First Name: | Br_Carlo (Vince Brach) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Presbyterian, Episcopalian, CATHOLIC |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 27th, 2007 09:04 am |
|
God's peace. Being a "conservative" Episcopalian by no means guarantees that you will be inclined, or even friendly, towards Rome. I used to belong to the flagship pro-cathedral Episcopal parish (St Vincent's) under Bp. Iker, and I once belonged to the conservative Franciscan Order of the Divine Compassion which is led by Bp Keith L. Ackerman. Neither of these worthy "Anglo-catholic" Episcopal bishops is likely to move towards reception into the Catholic Church, since both are completely convinced that Anglicanism (if not the Episcopal Church) represents an authentic "branch" of the so-called "undivided Church" and that their orders are valid. This is an implicit denial of the authority of Rome and therefore that of the Catholic Church. Regardless of the catholic "look" of this eccelesial community, it is just another Protestant sect.
By the way, David Virtue threw me off his "Virtue Online" forum when I started sounding too Catholic for him. He is a perfect example of what being a "conservative Anglican" means. Blessings, ~Br_Carlo~
Last edited on Tue Nov 27th, 2007 09:08 am by Br_Carlo
|
|
|
EMarshallBuckles
Member
| Joined: | Mon Nov 19th, 2007 |
| Location: | Rockville (Near Richmond), Virginia USA |
| Posts: | 669 |
| First Name: | Marshall | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Christian Church,Episcopal Church,Baptist denomination,learning about RCC |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 27th, 2007 12:11 pm |
|
| So David Virtue kicked you off his website for "sounding too Catholic"?! SHEEZE!!! I had kind of wondered about him. When I have read his newsletter emails, I realized that he has been ticked off big time with the Episcopalians, however, I have gotten the impression that his ire is pretty much ignored by the liberal Episcopalians - with the exception of some hackers who, so I have heard, frequently try to infect his web site with viruses and so forth. You would think that some of the Episcopalian conservatives might start leaning favorably towards Rome since the Roman Catholic Church is much more in agreement with them than the Anglican Communion. By the way, please know that although I have some various background in other communions, I hold my Roman Catholic brothers and sisters in great respect and admiration. I don't think that any of the others, have the "ultimate truth" and find much to respect and admire about the Roman Catholic Church. There have also been things which I have respected and admired about the Anglican Communion and the Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States of American (notice, I did NOT say "THE Episcopal Church" - I think that they ought to drop their new name and go back to the old one) prior to the current difficulties. Even so, frankly, I think that the conservative Episcopal Church Bishops and Clergy would likely be more happy in the Roman Catholic Church than they would be in the Anglican Communion. Virtue, like some other conservative Episcopalians I have been acquainted with, whines and whines and whines about the Episcopal Church, however, it is likely NOT going to go back to the way things were and I think that he would probably be a lot better off in and a lot happier in the Roman Catholic Church. Oh well! You are probably better off not being on Virtue's web site. Less likely to pick up viruses on your computer!
|
|
|
shawnbm
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 10th, 2006 |
| Location: | Fort Lauderdale, Florida USA |
| Posts: | 34 |
| First Name: | Shawn | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Cradle Episcopalian (Anglo-Catholic) |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 27th, 2007 01:07 pm |
|
Br_Carlo wrote: God's peace. Being a "conservative" Episcopalian by no means guarantees that you will be inclined, or even friendly, towards Rome. I used to belong to the flagship pro-cathedral Episcopal parish (St Vincent's) under Bp. Iker, and I once belonged to the conservative Franciscan Order of the Divine Compassion which is led by Bp Keith L. Ackerman. Neither of these worthy "Anglo-catholic" Episcopal bishops is likely to move towards reception into the Catholic Church, since both are completely convinced that Anglicanism (if not the Episcopal Church) represents an authentic "branch" of the so-called "undivided Church" and that their orders are valid. This is an implicit denial of the authority of Rome and therefore that of the Catholic Church. Regardless of the catholic "look" of this eccelesial community, it is just another Protestant sect.
By the way, David Virtue threw me off his "Virtue Online" forum when I started sounding too Catholic for him. He is a perfect example of what being a "conservative Anglican" means. Blessings, ~Br_Carlo~
You are absolutely correct that some Anglicans, mostly high church Anglo-Catholics, consider themselves part of the undivided church and the arguments for that position are not so specious as to be summarily dismissed. The councils of the 15th century (if I recall correctly) at least tacitly approved of conciliarism as appropriate. I think it can be argued that the Council of Constance (recognized by Rome as an ecuminical council if memory serves me correctly), specifically the Sacrosancta Decree, are pronouncements of a conciliar theory that predate Henry VIII and the English Reformation. Certainly the curbing of the Pope's plenary jurisdiction was part of this and other councils. Although I don't know of it happening, if the Bishop of Rome and a handful of bishops wrapped on to one idea in contention and 98% of the remaining bishops who have the same power to loose and bind vehemently disagreed, how could going with the Pope in that instance withstand the logical counter that the catholicity of that decision would be seriously in question? It seems to me that is a rational foundation of the conciliarists' position back then was such an hypothetical argument, which is not facially illogical or unsound. If that passes the test, then Anlgican "branchism" does not sound much different than what the Eastern Orthodox espouse, except that the AC (or at least some of the church members of it, TEC included) are officially espousing positions that are a new and uncatholic formulation of the catholic and apostolic faith in areas of morality and polity. To my mind, TEC, in particular, has replaced the historic function of the episcopacy in guarding the faith and church unity with General Convention. It is not the presence of laity in the House of Deputies that bothers me--indeed, some of the ecumenical councils (like Constance and Pisa) had hundreds if not thousands of lay participants--it is the official position that someone other than properly ordained bishops take responsibility over matters of faith and unity-preserving decisionmaking. I believe a bishop's obligations to the historic catholic and apostolic faith trumps all else, or else our bishops are being asked to sidestep their historic and constant duties as episcopates. At any rate, it seems to me that branch theology is not necessarily a wild idea that was just made up to justify Anglicanism's view of itself as alongside Rome and the Orthodox as part of the Catholic Church (and I am not saying you have said that). I certainly don't think they think of themselves as Protestant in any way. By the way, you being thrown off of the website is atrocious and counterproductive to the whole issue. I am sorry to hear of that. Pax tecum.
|
|
|
CajunRick
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| First Name: | | | Gender: | | | Faith History: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 27th, 2007 03:30 pm |
|
shawnbm wrote: If that passes the test, then Anlgican "branchism" does not sound much different than what the Eastern Orthodox espouse
There is a major difference. The Orthodox maintained unity with the apostolic sees of their particular Churches. The Church of England did not.
We say that the bishops are the successors to the apostles and that is true, but the bishop of a particular city is the leader of the Church that is centered in that city. Thus the bishop of Rome is the head of the Latin Church, the bishop of Byzantium (later Constantinople, now Istanbul) is the leader of the Greek Orthodox Church, etc. The Russians had broken from the Greek Orthodox patriarch in a similar manner to the Anglican break from the Latin Church, but their autonomy was subsequently recognized by the Orthodox Communion, and they were given their own patriarch. The English break was never recognized.
Similarly the Oriental Churches broke from the universal Church but maintained unity under their own individual patriarchs. It is through the patriarchs that the Latin Church, the Orthodox Churches, and the Oriental Churches have maintained apostolic succession and true orders and sacraments. The Church of England does not have unity with its patriarch, so it remains in schism, broken away from apostolic succession and true sacraments.
|
|
|
shawnbm
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 10th, 2006 |
| Location: | Fort Lauderdale, Florida USA |
| Posts: | 34 |
| First Name: | Shawn | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Cradle Episcopalian (Anglo-Catholic) |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 27th, 2007 05:17 pm |
|
CajunRick wrote:
Similarly the Oriental Churches broke from the universal Church but maintained unity under their own individual patriarchs. It is through the patriarchs that the Latin Church, the Orthodox Churches, and the Oriental Churches have maintained apostolic succession and true orders and sacraments. The Church of England does not have unity with its patriarch, so it remains in schism, broken away from apostolic succession and true sacraments.
I did not know that to the case. I thought that being elevated to the episcopacy makes one a successor of the apostles, regardless of any subsequent appointment as a bishop of one of the five patriarchates of the early undivided church. Now the issue of Anglican Orders is a touchy one and most of the things that the Roman church cited to (Nag's Head, Matthew Parker, etc.) have been shown to not be of significance in terms of our churches remaining in schism, but the wording of the Anglican Order revision in 1550 was criticized by one of pontiffs for having been rendered deficient in matter and form. The former seems a bit odd since the early church always ordained with the laying on of hands, the passing on of the instruments of office arising, I think, in the 10th or 11th century. Even so, this does not seem to be a dogmatic, but a disciplinary or canonical/legal dispute that would not be of grave consequence--so long as the laying on of hands were performed by the successors of the apostles during the ordination. As to the latter, I believe Trent proclaimed something along the lines that the actual title of the soon-to-be-ordained person's position had to be in the title of the Order conferred and since the Anglican Orders of that period did not do this (although it was in the body of the ordination itself), it was deficient--even though it made indirect reference to the same in the ceremony, consistent with another part of the council of Trent's admonition. Either way, I seem to view this as not much of an obstacle and the Pope's subsequent pronouncement on this centuries later may or may not fall within the realm of infallibility; so, I question whether Anglican Orders are not, indeed, valid--although some bishops (regardless) are espousing heresy to be sure. As we know from many in the past, though, heresy almost always comes from the inside of the church Herself. Please educate me on where I may have not apreciated or misunderstood anything you have written, Rick, as I know I am not safeguarded from error in matters of the faith. Shalom.
|
|
|
CajunRick
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| First Name: | | | Gender: | | | Faith History: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 27th, 2007 11:38 pm |
|
shawnbm wrote: I thought that being elevated to the episcopacy makes one a successor of the apostles
Yes, but...
The Bishop is the leader of his local Church (diocese) but that does not mean, for example, that he has the freedom to ordain other bishops. Within his own local Church (called a "particular Church" in the jargon of the Catholic Church), he has the freedom to ordain priests but not bishops. The naming of a bishop requires the agreement of the universal Church, and that agreement is made manifest through the person of the patriarch.
In recent years, Archbishop Lefevre and Archbishop Milingo have both ordained bishops illicitly, as has the "Official" church of China (I think it's called the Patriotic Association). These ordinations are not valid and not recognized by either the Catholic or Orthodox Churches because they were not done with the consent of the patriarch, the bishop of Rome.
Archbishop Lefevre ordained priests after he was no longer an ordinary of a diocese, and these ordinations are invalid as well. Although he was technically capable of administering the sacrament of Holy Orders, he was no longer the head of a diocese and so he did not have the authority over a particular Church that would make the ordinations valid.
When the Church of England broke from Rome, they were in a similar situation. The bishops had broken their vows of allegiance to their patriarch, the bishop of Rome. Their priestly ordinations were probably valid as they technically remained in charge of their dioceses, but they did not have the authority from the patriarch to ordain brother bishops, and the priestly ordinations by those bishops would be invalid. The patriarch (the pope) tried to legitimize the ordinations for a very long time, but once the ordination of women as priests and bishops was thrown into the mix, there was no longer any justification. Today, any priest who has a female bishop in his line of ordination definitely has no claim of apostolic succession and legitimacy. Those who can prove that their ordination stems only from an unbroken line of male bishops might have some legitimacy, but those who are in irregular marriages cannot be legitimized without Declarations of Nullity.
The patriarch (the pope) has the authority to recognize their ordinations if he wishes to do so (except for the irregular marriage part) but he risks setting a dangerous precedent, and giving credence to those Anglicans who consider themselves legitimate. I would expect that if the orders of those Anglican/Episcopal priests are recognized, there will be some kind of formal rite to confirm their ordination. But I could also be wrong. It is up to the Holy Father if and how he wishes to proceed. He is the patriarch of the Latin Church, and it is within his jurisdiction. It is his decision alone.
|
|
|
EMarshallBuckles
Member
| Joined: | Mon Nov 19th, 2007 |
| Location: | Rockville (Near Richmond), Virginia USA |
| Posts: | 669 |
| First Name: | Marshall | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Christian Church,Episcopal Church,Baptist denomination,learning about RCC |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 28th, 2007 02:30 am |
|
Another interesting situation, along these lines, is where Episcopal Bishop of Virgina Lee voted for the consecration of Gene Robinson of New Hampshire, which was clearly against church teaching, against what is said in the Bible and which set off a major "fire storm" in the Episcopal Diocese of Virginia. Yet, even so, Bishop Lee has been upset about an African Anglican Diocese organizing a missions effort to Virginia and taking 11 of the Diocese of Virginia churches, who voted to do so, under it's protective wing, so to speak. My feeling is, speaking along Protestant lines of course, that if Bishop Lee can vote for someone like Robinson, against the wishes of many in his Diocese and clearly against the teachings of Scripture, then the churches ought to have the right to place themselves under the protection and nurture of the African Diocese.
Oh, also, speaking of China, as was mentioned above, and Episcopalians, I live not far from an Episcopal Church called "Church of Our Savior" in Montpelier, VA (the one located in Hanover County, VA where I live). Back in the 1800s, Church of Our Savior in Shanghai, China, sent money to the United States to establish Church of Our Savior in Montpelier, VA. Some years later, when the church building burnt down, during an accidental fire, Church of Our Savior in Shanghai, China again sent money to rebuild Church of Our Savior in Montpelier, Virginia. I was so touched by what those good Chinese Christians had done when I learned of that! I don't know whatever happened to Church of Our Savior in Shanghai, after the Communists took over, however, I wish that someday Church of Our Savior and other Christians in Virginia could help reestablish the Church of Our Savior in China in the government over there would allow it.
|
|
|
CajunRick
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| First Name: | | | Gender: | | | Faith History: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 28th, 2007 09:41 am |
|
EMarshallBuckles wrote: I don't know whatever happened to Church of Our Savior in Shanghai, after the Communists took over
The Communist Chinese government took over Shanghai in the 40's. It is Hong Kong that wemt from British to Chinese rule a few years ago.
The Chinese have persecuted the Catholic Church because it is controlled from the Vatican ("control" meaning the naming of bishops). Anglican dioceses have local control, so the Communist government does not consider members of the Anglican communion criminals. Of course, they still officially discourage religious belief of any kind.
|
|
|
JasPax
Member
| Joined: | Wed Nov 22nd, 2006 |
| Location: | North Carolina USA |
| Posts: | 272 |
| First Name: | James | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Episcopal to Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 28th, 2007 11:08 am |
|
Hello Shawnbm (Shawn):
Your use of the word "branchism" is interesting. I had not heard that before.
In my younger years I heard (and repeated) various justifications for England's split with Rome. One was that during several periods in history, Rome had very little to do with the functioning of the Church in England.
Well, maybe so, but I undersatnd that Rome still approved the Bishops or sent them from Rome. And during the 15th and 16th centuries that was certainly not the case that they were removed from Rome's jurisdiction. Else why did the Tudors feel it necessary to get a dispensation from the Pope to allow Henry VIII to marry his older brother's widow, Catherine of Aragon?
Also, when Henry began to feel the need to rid himself of Catherine, why did he have Cardinal Wolsey and Wolsey's secretary, Richard Pace, make so many trips to Rome to try to get that first marriage set aside?
I think it comes down to intent. Was Henry's intent to establish a "branch" of the Church, or was it just to satisfy his own will?
When Archbishop Cranmer (appointed by Henry, not the Pope) threw out the sacraments, that put the Ch. of England solidly in the Protestant camp, and that's where they remain today. Not a branch, but a different tree now.
The Eastern Orthodox never rejected the Sacraments.
BTW, Cranmer married a Geman Lutheran, and, so the story goes, smuggled her into the country before it was "kosher" for English priests to marry. The English "Martyr" was not so pure after all!
We can learn a lot from history!
Best Regards,Last edited on Wed Nov 28th, 2007 11:13 am by JasPax
____________________
James
"Abide in me, and I in you..." John 15:4
"He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him." John 6:56
RSV-2CE
|
|
|
EMarshallBuckles
Member
| Joined: | Mon Nov 19th, 2007 |
| Location: | Rockville (Near Richmond), Virginia USA |
| Posts: | 669 |
| First Name: | Marshall | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Christian Church,Episcopal Church,Baptist denomination,learning about RCC |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 28th, 2007 01:08 pm |
|
CajunRick wrote: EMarshallBuckles wrote: I don't know whatever happened to Church of Our Savior in Shanghai, after the Communists took over
The Communist Chinese government took over Shanghai in the 40's. It is Hong Kong that wemt from British to Chinese rule a few years ago.
The Chinese have persecuted the Catholic Church because it is controlled from the Vatican ("control" meaning the naming of bishops). Anglican dioceses have local control, so the Communist government does not consider members of the Anglican communion criminals. Of course, they still officially discourage religious belief of any kind.
Thanks for the comment! I had heard that the Communist government had taken over Shanghai. I had not realized, and am interested to learn, that they didn't consider the Anglicans criminals. Of course, that is not necessarily a "positive" for the Anglicans, ha, ha! I seem to recall that the Pope may have some Cardinals, Bishops and Clergy over there "In Pectore" (is that the proper Latin term?) that is to say, in secret, known only to him. Is that correct? How does that work? As for Church of Our Savior in Shanghai, I wonder if there is any way to find out what happend to it? I have to imagine that perhaps it might have been torn down or converted to some secular use, however, I also have to hope that perhaps it might have survived.
|
|
|
Current time is 05:48 pm | |
|
|
|
|
|
