Comments on comments on Fake News.
(1) I share the dislike expressed in one comment towards the habit of calling every Anglican cleric/clergyman/priest/clerk in Holy Orders a "Vicar". I have never been a Vicar; whenever people have accused me of being or having been a Vicar I have always stoutly denied it. When I have been wearing a clerical collar, this has puzzled them. I never enlighten them: let them find it all out for themselves. We must not spoonfeed the laity.
The suggestion, on the other hand, that Anglican clergy would be horrified to be described as 'priests' can only be true of a tiny minority of violent Calvinists. They, poor dears, must have been horrified to hear themselves being described as "priests in the Church of God" when their Bishop laid his hands upon them! Every time they look at their Letters of Orders, they must tremble with revulsion!! The rubrics of the Prayer Book must be a continual source of conscientious agony!!!
(2) Prayers for the Conversion of the Jews in the Liturgia Horarum: I have dealt very fully with this several times before. The current but erroneous dogma (i.e. that we may not envisage or pray for their conversion) is subsequent to the Liturgia Horarum of 1971, at least at the CDW and within the Anglosphere (the 1985 Editio did not change this text). The most striking example is in LH Vespers on Easter Day itself ... repeated on the Third and Fifth Sundays in Eastertide (both in the Latin and in the English).
Would it be helpful if I retrieved my old extensive posts on this subject and republished them?
(3) The occupant of the See of Westminster is most certainly not Head of the Catholic Church in this country. Here again, I have dealt with this very fully on several occasions.
Again I ask: would it be helpful if I retrieved and reissued those articles?
Interestingly, when Vincent Nichols appeared before the Independent Inquiry on sexual abuse just a few weeks ago, he clarified to the tribunal his own position as merely the elected Chairman of the Episcopal Conference, and very firmly, very explicitly, denied being 'Head' of the Catholic Church in this country. He seemed particularly anxious to make this accurately understood. (You can watch the video.)
Nevertheless, some Catholic bishops do refer respectfully to him as "the Cardinal"; and I know of a recent example where he has even been assured of "loyalty". There may indeed be some danger of his being taken too seriously, through a sort of de facto and informal Fuehrerprinzip. But that is not his fault! Nor is it mine!! I support him in this!!! C'mon! Everybody behind Vin! Repeat after me: He is not Head of the Church in this land!
Finally, on my own account, (4), a question of my own which I have posed many times before.
Who knew what about Kieran Conry before he was consecrated Bishop?