A Mighty Fortress Is Our God! In the face of all this hatred, I am Proud to be an Anglican.

[GKC]

Well, I suppose it’s unusual, but I’ve addressed it, too.

Ok. I don’t think Contarini will mind. But he usually lets me handle the annulment details, and I defer to him on this point.

GKC

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I am proud to be a pillar of a church who puts the Word of God first in authority and practices as the Earliest of Christian churches did.

If this is true as you state, the earliest christians all adhered to the Chair of Peter from the beginning, why dont You? Besides if you believe in the pillar of truth, the church, which is the body of Jesus Christ the word made flesh, how is it that you could put the Word of God ( if you are believing it to be the bible)? in authority when the Church (body of Jesus Christ ) came first before the Bible?

Peace be with you

 

[Janet_S]

There was an ex-Anglican priest, now a convert to the Catholic faith, on The Jouney Home tonight. His name is Dr William Oddie, and he discussed many of the things addressed in this thread. You can listen to or watch his interview here, where it’s available–starting tomorrow and continuing for the next week:

origin.ewtn.com/podcast/index.asp

origin.ewtn.com/audiovideo/index.asp

or here, where it’s archived after next week:

ewtn.com/vondemand/audio/seriessearchprog.asp?seriesID=-6892289&T1=journey+home

 

[Glaucon]

There was an ex-Anglican priest, now a convert to the Catholic faith, on The Jouney Home tonight. His name is Dr William Oddie, and he discussed many of the things addressed in this thread. You can listen to or watch his interview here, where it’s available–starting tomorrow and continuing for the next week:

origin.ewtn.com/podcast/index.asp

origin.ewtn.com/audiovideo/index.asp

or here, where it’s archived after next week:

ewtn.com/vondemand/audio/seriessearchprog.asp?seriesID=-6892289&T1=journey+home

Thanks for the links!

 

[Glaucon]

blah blah blah. It’s only your opinion of what Protestant is.

“A Mighty Fortress Is Our God! In the face of all this hatred, I am Proud to be an Anglican.”

What “hatred”? Whose “hatred”?

Obvious troll is obvious.

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

… The fact seems to be the TAC group is getting no where with Rome it seems. And they are basically coming on bended knee. Willing to compromise.

…
I think those like some in TAC who want something different will in the end convert to Orthodoxy. The Orthodox seem to be wooing them while Rome plays games. Like does the Catholic church need another very vocal orthodox band of Christians in its fold? The traditionalists are making enough waves. JMHO.

There is a fundamental problem with the TAC approach. They come (let it be on bended knee) as schismatics seeking to heal a schism, rather than as Protestants seeking to convert.

Among many of my Anglican friends, there is the impression that their status with the Catholic Church is similar to the Eastern Catholic groups that went into schism, and subsequently returned. To the Church, that is not a game; it’s almost a deal-breaker. No arrangement can be made on the basis of that assumption.

That said, it behooves all to pray for Christian unity.

Blessings,

Gerry

 

[mercygate]

There is a fundamental problem with the TAC approach. They come (let it be on bended knee) as schismatics seeking to heal a schism, rather than as Protestants seeking to convert.

Among many of my Anglican friends, there is the impression that their status with the Catholic Church is similar to the Eastern Catholic groups that went into schism, and subsequently returned. To the Church, that is not a game; it’s almost a deal-breaker. No arrangement can be made on the basis of that assumption.

That said, it behooves all to pray for Christian unity.

Blessings,

Gerry

I think the TAC may be handling this a little more subtly than you indicate here. They are thick into Forward in Faith. I know these guys personally. While the Church will doubtless require a certain “submission” the TAC and FIF are keenly aware of ALL the issues.

 

[GKC]

I think the TAC may be handling this a little more subtly than you indicate here. They are thick into Forward in Faith. I know these guys personally. While the Church will doubtless require a certain “submission” the TAC and FIF are keenly aware of ALL the issues.

And yet, I remain doubtful that anything other than a form of individual submission will come from this. If anything.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus

 

[mercygate]

And yet, I remain doubtful that anything other than a form of individual submission will come from this. If anything.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus

I tend to agree with you. Yet we have the history of the Uniates (OK, I know next to NOTHING about that) . . . And the TAC have taken steps to validate their ordinations – to my mind as a means of forcing the hand of Rome. Stay tuned. I think the rough water will be among the Catholic hierarchy in England, who have a record of squashing “movements.”

 

[chris_molter]

I tend to agree with you. Yet we have the history of the Uniates (OK, I know next to NOTHING about that) . . . And the TAC have taken steps to validate their ordinations – to my mind as a means of forcing the hand of Rome. Stay tuned. I think the rough water will be among the Catholic hierarchy in England, who have a record of squashing “movements.”

hmm… but the Eastern Catholic Churches always had their own hierarchies whereas the Church in England was under the same Latin Rite hierarchy as the rest of western Europe, yes? I’ve seen the argument that the Sarum Rite and a few other things peculiar to Britain gives them a case to try for their own sui juris Church, however, I think the idea of a personal prelature is more likely.

Either way, having some sort of “Anglican Catholic Rite” in full communion with Rome is a worthy goal. Let’s pray the Holy Spirit moves both parties towards the appropriate steps! (It may wait until the new Cardinal is installed at Westminster…)

 

[angelusm]

God rewards those who are faithful to him.

Having money doesn’t mean you are faithful or that God gives you money. It just means you have money, nothing else. If fact you are not faithful, obviously. That’s because of a few reasons: you have no priesthood and as a result you have no Eucharist, just bread and wine, you have no confession, no sacramental marriage, just an “agreement” I would say. You don’t obey the vicar of God who is the pope. You pretend not to see plenty of amazing miracles performed by God in the CC. You have no apostolic succession, the founder of your religion was a murderer Henry VIII.
God is a mighty fortress indeed but Anglicanism definitely is not.

 

[GKC]

I tend to agree with you. Yet we have the history of the Uniates (OK, I know next to NOTHING about that) . . . And the TAC have taken steps to validate their ordinations – to my mind as a means of forcing the hand of Rome. Stay tuned. I think the rough water will be among the Catholic hierarchy in England, who have a record of squashing “movements.”

The RC hierarchy in England have always had long memories. We refer to it, generally, as the Recusant’s Revenge.

Tell me what you know of the TAC validating ordinations, if you would?

GKC

GKC

 

[mercygate]

The RC hierarchy in England have always had long memories. We refer to it, generally, as the Recusant’s Revenge.

Tell me what you know of the TAC validating ordinations, if you would?
GKC

Very little. Bill Oddie brought it up last night on The Journey Home. Sounded strange to me. My inclination would be to throw myself on the mercy of the Holy See and beg for mercy, accepting whatever terms might be required. But then, I’m already on this side of the river.

I have never been a fan of going to people like the Old Catholics, PNCs and renegate Orthodox to validate Orders. To my mind it abuses the intent of validity.

 

[chris_molter]

GKC, maybe you can answer this:

did the Anglicans alter their ordinal to correct the perceived flaws ennumerated in Apostolicae Curae? I’m slightly embarassed to admit I never did much study on the differences and evolution of the Anglican Ordinals during and after the break with Rome.

I ask because I always thought the whole argument against the validity was that the ordinal was faulty and the intent to ordain a ‘sacrificing priest’ wasn’t there. However, if the proper ordinal was used with a valid Bishop and intent, then the whole thing gets messier.

Or am I restating what everyone else already knew and I’m just kind of putting together in my brain finally?

 

[GKC]

GKC, maybe you can answer this:

did the Anglicans alter their ordinal to correct the perceived flaws ennumerated in Apostolicae Curae? I’m slightly embarassed to admit I never did much study on the differences and evolution of the Anglican Ordinals during and after the break with Rome.

I ask because I always thought the whole argument against the validity was that the ordinal was faulty and the intent to ordain a ‘sacrificing priest’ wasn’t there. However, if the proper ordinal was used with a valid Bishop and intent, then the whole thing gets messier.

Or am I restating what everyone else already knew and I’m just kind of putting together in my brain finally?

No. The Edwardine Ordinal was changed in 1662, due to an argument with the Church of Scotland over the nature of the episcopacy. It was altered to emphasize the role of the bishop, and that that office was separate from the priesthood. It removed, in passing, the form that was found invalid.

The point of Apostolciae Curae (which I don’t agree with, and you should) was that the form in the Edwardine Ordinal didn’t mention the sacerdotal priesthood, and so didn’t intend to ordain to it. The defect of intention is usually (see Clark’s ANGLICAN ORDES AND DEFECT OF INTENTION) taken to be the intent of the consecrators of Archbishop Parker, in 1559. Intent has to inhere in a specific person, in a specific act. Since the form of the Edwardine Ordinal is no different from a number of Rites whch the RCC considers as conveying orders, validly, intent has to be added to it. ++Parker was a bottleneck in the Anglican episcopacy, and hence that is taken as the break point.

Anglicans don’t agree. Being Anglican, we get to do that.

GKC

 

[GKC]

Very little. Bill Oddie brought it up last night on The Journey Home. Sounded strange to me. My inclination would be to throw myself on the mercy of the Holy See and beg for mercy, accepting whatever terms might be required. But then, I’m already on this side of the river.

I have never been a fan of going to people like the Old Catholics, PNCs and renegate Orthodox to validate Orders. To my mind it abuses the intent of validity.

The Anglican Communion entered into full communion with the OCs (Utrecht) in 1932, and the PNCC started holding joint consecrations around 1946. There was no particular motivation, beyond the fact of communion. Anglicans do consider that it certainly by-passes* Apostolicae Curae*, when one considers the nature of contemporary traditional and orthodox Anglicanism (the Edwardine Ordinal compares quite favorably with the current Roman Pontifical, as compared to the Pontifical used in the 16th century. We even have the porrection of instruments). I know some RCs who agree. But AFAIK, there has never been an official RCC position on it. Logically, it would seem to result in valid but illicit orders.

Anglicans generally are not overly agitated about it.

I have no idea what Oddie meant, but he’s a knowledgable man. I await his bio of Chesterton, eagerly.

GKC

 

[mercygate]

The Anglican Communion entered into full communion with the OCs (Utrecht) in 1932, and the PNCC started holding joint consecrations around 1946. There was no particular motivation, beyond the fact of communion. Anglicans do consider that it certainly by-passes* Apostolicae Curae*, when one considers the nature of contemporary traditional and orthodox Anglicanism (the Edwardine Ordinal compares quite favorably with the current Roman Pontifical, as compared to the Pontifical used in the 16th century. We even have the porrection of instruments). I know some RCs who agree. But AFAIK, there has never been an official RCC position on it. Logically, it would seem to result in valid but illicit orders.

Anglicans generally are not overly agitated about it.

I have no idea what Oddie meant, but he’s a knowledgable man. I await his bio of Chesterton, eagerly.

GKC

When Oddie’s interview is up (maybe later today), you can hear what he said. He mentioned that the FIF folks were looking into their lines and setting about “validating” any ordinations so that the RCC would “have” to accept them. Then presenting themselves as a body and expecting to be “dealt with.”

 

[GKC]

When Oddie’s interview is up (maybe later today), you can hear what he said. He mentioned that the FIF folks were looking into their lines and setting about “validating” any ordinations so that the RCC would “have” to accept them. Then presenting themselves as a body and expecting to be “dealt with.”

Curious. I have no idea what he means.

And I have no idea such an attitude it is wide spread in FIF, outside the TAC. FIF contains a few evangelical types, esp. on this side of the Atlantic.

GKC