Anglican Catholic Church?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Catechesis
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Per_Crucem said:
Uhm…so Martin Luther wasn’t a priest who was ordained by a bishop with valid apostolic succession?
Click to expand...
There are also non priest Doctors of the church! I guess also if the church wanted to change the rules for a doctor of the church they certainly would have the authority to do so don’t you think?
 
eightydeuce82 said:
Yop he was but did he remain that way?
Click to expand...
Of course. Or are you advocating the false doctrine that a priest can loose his faculties. If so, you should seriously reconsider your membership in the Roman Catholic Church.
 
LutheranScholar said:
www.anglicancatholic.org
My question is for the Anglicans who are in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury… how do you feel about people calling themselves Anglican when they’re not affiliated with the See of Canterbury, as apparently these people who call themselves Anglican Catholic are doing?
Click to expand...
I don’t mind. We don’t have the trademark, AFAIK. 🙂
 
eightydeuce82 said:
Yop he was but did he remain that way?
Click to expand...
Yes. Once a priest, always a priest. Martin Luther would have celebrated sacraments illicitly, but validly. Interestingly, since St. Gregory was, according to the Church at the time, a schismatic who rejected ecumenical councils; he would have also celebrated sacraments illicitly.
 
KjetilK said:
Interesting. So you say it is OK for me to call myself ‘katolsk’ in Norwegian or ‘katholisch’ in German (when the Roman Catholics also call themselves the same, and have no distinction between ‘Catholic’ and ‘catholic’)?
Click to expand...
Or even better: Is it OK for you, then, that I change my religious description, on this forum, to the Latin catholicus or catholicus Christianus?
 
eightydeuce82 said:
There are also non priest Doctors of the church! I guess also if the church wanted to change the rules for a doctor of the church they certainly would have the authority to do so don’t you think?
Click to expand...
Then why bring apostolic succession into it if there are non-priest doctor’s of the church?
 
Per_Crucem said:
Yes. Once a priest, always a priest. Martin Luther would have celebrated sacraments illicitly, but validly. Interestingly, since St. Gregory was, according to the Church at the time, a schismatic who rejected ecumenical councils; he would have also celebrated sacraments illicitly.
Click to expand...
Could somebody explain this for me? Luther was ordained a priest so he was always considered a priest? When it’s said that he could celebrate the sacraments illicitly, does that mean because he had been excommunicated?

Would his ordination as a priest be a part of the line of apostolic succession?

Sorry for my ignorance of this subject but I hope you’ll bear with me and help me understand this better…

I’m still learning! 🤷
 
LutheranScholar said:
www.anglicancatholic.org
My question is for the Anglicans who are in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury… how do you feel about people calling themselves Anglican when they’re not affiliated with the See of Canterbury, as apparently these people who call themselves Anglican Catholic are doing?
Click to expand...
Since I’m one of those sort of Anglicans, I’m not the one you’re asking, but I’ve met Anglicans in the Communion who have objected, personally. (i.e., not institutionally). And those who understand that Anglican is a tradition and a liturgical form, not a copy-righted name. Motley, we Anglicans.Variable, even. Any answers likely to reflect this.

It is not a major issue in the Anglican civil wars. As I pointed out, somewhere here, at the enthronement of of the new Archbishop of the Anglican Church of North America (not in the Anglican Communion), 8-9 Primates from Anglican jurisdictions that are in the Communion joined in laying hands on him.

GKC

Anglicanus-Catholicus, posterus traditus Anglicanus
 
spedteacherita said:
Could somebody explain this for me? Luther was ordained a priest so he was always considered a priest? When it’s said that he could celebrate the sacraments illicitly, does that mean because he had been excommunicated?

Would his ordination as a priest be a part of the line of apostolic succession?

Sorry for my ignorance of this subject but I hope you’ll bear with me and help me understand this better…

I’m still learning! 🤷
Click to expand...
Luther was excommunicated, yes, so that would mean that his celebration of the sacraments was prohibited by the Church. Therefore, any sacraments he administered would have been illicit. However, as with Baptism, the Latin Church states that ordination to the priesthood with the sacrament of Holy Orders leaves an indelible mark on the soul of the one ordained. Therefore, any sacraments they celebrate (eucharist, anointing, etc.) are valid, that is, sacramental and effectual.
 
Per_Crucem said:
Luther was excommunicated, yes, so that would mean that his celebration of the sacraments was prohibited by the Church. Therefore, any sacraments he administered would have been illicit. However, as with Baptism, the Latin Church states that ordination to the priesthood with the sacrament of Holy Orders leaves an indelible mark on the soul of the one ordained. Therefore, any sacraments they celebrate (eucharist, anointing, etc.) are valid, that is, sacramental and effectual.
Click to expand...
As in Ott, p. 458, in that schismatic/heretical/excommunicated/simonistic bishops (if formerly consecrated validly) validly confect the sacrament of orders, assuming all other elements of the sacramental act are equally valid. Illicitly, to be sure.

GKC
 
GKC said:
Since I’m one of those sort of Anglicans, I’m not the one you’re asking, but I’ve met Anglicans in the Communion who have objected, personally. And those who understand that Anglican is a tradition and a liturgical form, not a copy-righted name. Motley, we Anglicans.Variable, even.

It is not a major issue in the Anglican civil wars. As I pointed out, somewhere here, at the enthronement of of the new Archbishop of the Anglican Church of North America (not in the Anglican Communion, 8-9 Primates from Anglican jurisidictions that are in the Communion, joined in laying hands on him.

GKC

GKC
Click to expand...
Awesome! 🙂 By the way, please allow me to take the opportunity to let you, JonNC and Publisher know how very much I’ve enjoyed your posts over the years… they were very detailed, insightful and wonderful to read! So, you Anglicans are a motley crew, huh? That saying wouldn’t be connected in any way to the band Motley Crue, would it? Just wondering…It’s interesting to know a little more about your affiliation, to be honest… I’ve been wondering if you were Anglican Ordinariate, Episcopal, Continuing Anglican or some combo of the above over the years… again, wonderful posts!
 
Per_Crucem said:
Yes. Once a priest, always a priest. Martin Luther would have celebrated sacraments illicitly, but validly. Interestingly, since St. Gregory was, according to the Church at the time, a schismatic who rejected ecumenical councils; he would have also celebrated sacraments illicitly.
Click to expand...
Being a priest does not validate being a doctor of the church!
 
LutheranScholar said:
Awesome! 🙂 By the way, please allow me to take the opportunity to let you, JonNC and Publisher know how very much I’ve enjoyed your posts over the years… they were very detailed, insightful and wonderful to read! So, you Anglicans are a motley crew, huh? That saying wouldn’t be connected in any way to the band Motley Crue, would it? Just wondering…It’s interesting to know a little more about your affiliation, to be honest… I’ve been wondering if you were Anglican Ordinariate, Episcopal, Continuing Anglican or some combo of the above over the years… again, wonderful posts!
Click to expand...
Motley crew was the very term I settled upon, some years back, to explain the Anglican melange, in some respects, to wit, how one can’t, generally, successfully generalize about Anglicans, without generally being incorrect. For some reason I kept getting pics of some scrofulous musicians (I assume) as a response. But the term has taken, with some people, esp. those who know the breed, and it makes me proud as the local progenitor, in this usage.

Your comments are certainly applicable to those other two folks you mention and certainly appreciated, if applicable or not, by yr obt svt. Whose flavor of Anglicanism I assume you know have discerned.

Thank you.

GKC
 
Per_Crucem said:
Luther was excommunicated, yes, so that would mean that his celebration of the sacraments was prohibited by the Church. Therefore, any sacraments he administered would have been illicit. However, as with Baptism, the Latin Church states that ordination to the priesthood with the sacrament of Holy Orders leaves an indelible mark on the soul of the one ordained. Therefore, any sacraments they celebrate (eucharist, anointing, etc.) are valid, that is, sacramental and effectual.
Click to expand...
Also Gregory did not reject a council! More research for you…
 
GKC said:
Motley crew was the very term I settled upon, some years back, to explain the Anglican melange, in some respects, to wit, how one can’t, generally, successfully generalize about Anglicans, without generally being incorrect. For some reason I kept getting pics of some scrofulous musicians (I assume) as a response. But the term has taken, with some people, esp. those who know the breed, and it makes me proud as the local progenitor, in this usage.

Your comments are certainly applicable to those other two folks you mention and certainly appreciated, if applicable or not, by yr obt svt. Whose flavor of Anglicanism I assume you know have discerned.

Thank you.

GKC
Click to expand...
🙂 You’re welcome, GKC. I think I have a clearer picture of where you are in the Anglican mosaic. You’re quite right, of course, it would be hard to pin anything down to the Anglican movement as a whole. I’d done some serious research in the Anglican/ Episcopal as well as the Lutheran, Catholic and Russian/ Coptic Orthodox realms when I was in my discernment process a few years back and for every liberal, symbolic Anglican/ Episcopalian, you can find a hard line conservative/ literal Anglican/ Episcopalian ( usually in the same parish) that will kind of blow an initial impression out of the water. Did the musicians look anything like these guys? motley.com/ I know I’m dating myself, but at age 41, I’m allowed to be proud of the 1980s… great time to grow up in! 🙂
 
LutheranScholar said:
🙂 You’re welcome, GKC. I think I have a clearer picture of where you are in the Anglican mosaic. You’re quite right, of course, it would be hard to pin anything down to the Anglican movement as a whole. I’d done some serious research in the Anglican/ Episcopal as well as the Lutheran, Catholic and Russian/ Coptic Orthodox realms when I was in my discernment process a few years back and for every liberal, symbolic Anglican/ Episcopalian, you can find a hard line conservative/ literal Anglican/ Episcopalian ( usually in the same parish) that will kind of blow an initial impression out of the water. Did the musicians look anything like these guys? motley.com/ I know I’m dating myself, but at age 41, I’m allowed to be proud of the 1980s… great time to grow up in! 🙂
Click to expand...
I’ll date myself even more. The 50s were a great time to grow up, to arrive where I am today. I skipped the 60s.

Yes, that looks to be what I was being sent. Sometimes, even older looking folk would appear.

The range of Anglicans surges even beyond those adjectives you list.

GKC
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top