Anglican Church Bishops Endorse Efforts to Seek Intercommunion with Catholic Church

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Matt16_18:

I think you may be confused about the meaning of the word “candidate”.

In the typical RCIA class are both candidates and catechumens. The catechumens are those who have never received the Sacrament of Baptism. The candidates are those who have received a valid Sacrament of Baptism, but have not received at least one of the other two valid Sacraments of Initiation (Confirmation and Eucharist).

Your right, a baptized individual is called a candidate, a non-baptized individual is a catechumen.

But that does not change the fact that RCIA is for non-baptized individuals as it’s name shows, “Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults”. Again, a baptized person is a Christian.

It is not unusual to have in an RCIA class Catholics that are adult candidates – i.e. Catholics that have received as Sacraments of Baptism and Eucharist as children, but have never received the Sacrament of Confirmation.

Yes this is true, but if you look to the documents of RCIA that is not right. Most places lump everyone into RCIA for logistical reasons. It is easier to have one class than treat people as individuals.

 

[GKC]

Matt16_18:

From looking at the precedents that we have already. If a member of the TAC desires to convert to Catholicism, the Anglican is considered to be a candidate in the RCIA program. That is a recognition that the Sacrament of Confirmation and the Eucharist that the Anglican has received is invalid. The Anglican is treated the same way as a Methodist or a Lutheran that desires to convert, i.e. as a Protestant that has received a valid baptism, but is still in need receiving the other two Sacraments of Initiation. If a member of the PNCC or the Eastern Orthodox desired to come into full communion with the Catholic Church, they would neither be a catechumen nor a candidate in the RCIA program. They would simply have to make a profession of faith since they have already validly received all three Sacraments of Initiation.

Are valid orders bestowed upon an Anglican priest by merely having a PNCC bishop co-ordaining with an Anglican bishop? This is a question that is not that easy to answer.

The validity of a Sacrament always depends on intent. If a man were to go to the Sacrament of Confession and lie to the priest about being contrite and repentant for his sins, he may very well receive the prayers of absolution from the priest. The priest isn’t a mind reader, and if someone lies and says they are sorry, but in truth, they are not sorry, the priest isn’t responsible for those lies. The form of the Sacrament of Confession was done correctly, but the Sacrament was invalid because the person receiving it had no intention of doing what is required (i.e. being sorry and truly repentant for ones sins). If an Anglican thinks that he can manipulate the Sacrament of Ordination to bestow a valid ordination upon himself by having a PNCC bishop in attendance, the Anglican is committing a grave sin, since he has no intention of faithfully serving as a priest in the Catholic Church.

Sacraments are not magical acts that humans can manipulate for their own purposes. To treat a Sacrament in this manner is to commit mortal sin.

Yes, I’m aware of the concept of intent and its role in the sacraments. Intention, like form, is a central issue in the question of validity of orders. But it is not a question of the internal intent of the individual, as you are discussing it here. See Sec 9 of Apostolicae Curae. An Anglican does not think that he manipulates the sacrament, to bestow a valid ordination upon himself (which is an odd way of putting it; the ordination is conferred by the bishop. And the PNCC or Old Catholic bishops are not merely present, but active in the ordination or consecration. The statement made by the Bishop of Haarlem, in 1932, the first of the co-consecrations made by Old Catholics in modern times, is eloquent as to his intent in the action).

Anglicans believe that the sacrament is conferred precisely as it is done in the RCC, by an episcopal act, of a bishop in apostolic succession. And the intention is precisely the same, an intention facendi quod facit ecclesia. And such a priest indeed intends to serve as a priest in the one, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. The difference here is in how you are defining that Church. Anglicans do it slightly differently.

Still, my question remains. How are you deciding that a “few” TAC clergy might possess valid, though illicit, orders?

GKC

 

[Matt16_18]

**Catechism of the Catholic Church

1212 ** The sacraments of Christian initiation - Baptism, Confirmation, and the Eucharist - lay the foundations of every Christian life. “The sharing in the divine nature given to men through the grace of Christ bears a certain likeness to the origin, development, and nourishing of natural life. The faithful are born anew by Baptism, strengthened by the sacrament of Confirmation, and receive in the Eucharist the food of eternal life. By means of these sacraments of Christian initiation, they thus receive in increasing measure the treasures of the divine life and advance toward the perfection of charity.”

ByzCath:

Your right, a baptized individual is called a candidate, a non-baptized individual is a catechumen.

But that does not change the fact that RCIA is for non-baptized individuals as it’s name shows, “Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults”.

Within the Church’s documents about RCIA you will find rites for special circumstances, such as “guidelines for preparing uncatechised adults for confirmation and eucharist (nos. 400-410) along with four optional rites which may be used with such candidates, and the rite of reception of baptized Christians into the full communion of the Catholic Church (nos. 473 –504)”.

Again, a baptized person is a Christian.

A validly baptized Protestant is a Christian, but is he a formal member of Christ’s Church? No, he isn’t. The Protestant is only in imperfect communion with Christ’s Church, and by making a profession of the faith, and by receiving the other two Sacraments of Initiation, the Protestant can become a formal member of the ONE, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.The Catholic faithful are required to profess that there is an historical continuity — rooted in the apostolic succession — between the Church founded by Christ and the Catholic Church: “This is the single Church of Christ… which our Saviour, after his resurrection, entrusted to Peter’s pastoral care (cf. Jn 21:17), commissioning him and the other Apostles to extend and rule her (cf. Mt 28:18ff.), erected for all ages as ‘the pillar and mainstay of the truth’ (1 Tim 3:15). This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in subsistit in] the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him”. With the expression subsistit in, the Second Vatican Council sought to harmonize two doctrinal statements: on the one hand, that the Church of Christ, despite the divisions which exist among Christians, continues to exist fully only in the Catholic Church, and on the other hand, that “outside of her structure, many elements can be found of sanctification and truth”, that is, in those Churches and ecclesial communities which are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church. …

The Church is the “universal sacrament of salvation”, since, united always in a mysterious way to the Saviour Jesus Christ, her Head, and subordinated to him, she has, in God’s plan, an indispensable relationship with the salvation of every human being. For those who are not formally and visibly members of the Church, "salvation in Christ is accessible by virtue of a grace which, while having a mysterious relationship to the Church, does not make them formally part of the Church, but enlightens them in a way which is accommodated to their spiritual and material situation.

DECLARATION “DOMINUS IESUS”:
ON THE UNICITY AND SALVIFIC UNIVERSALITY OF
JESUS CHRIST AND THE CHURCH
CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH

 

[Matt16_18]

GKC:

[An Anglican] priest indeed intends to serve as a priest in the one, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. The difference here is in how you are defining that Church. Anglicans do it slightly differently.

There is a huge difference between the Catholic Church’s understanding of what constitutes the ONE, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, and what Anglicans think constitutes the Church! As far as the Catholic Church is concerned, Anglicans and other Protestants don’t belong to Churches in the proper sense; they belong to “ecclesial communities”.
… the ecclesial communities which have not preserved the valid Episcopate and the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery, are not Churches in the proper sense; however, those who are baptized in these communities are, by Baptism, incorporated in Christ and thus are in a certain communion, albeit imperfect, with the Church.

DECLARATION “DOMINUS IESUS”:
ON THE UNICITY AND SALVIFIC UNIVERSALITY OF
JESUS CHRIST AND THE CHURCH

 

[Contarini]

Matt16_18:

A validly baptized Protestant is a Christian, but is he a formal member of Christ’s Church? No, he isn’t.

Ironically, this statement means that you deny the traditional Catholic doctrine of *Extra ecclesiam nulla salus *far more radically than I do. You can’t be a Christian without being a formal member of the visible Church. It’s a contradition in terms.

Edwin

 

[GKC]

Matt16_18:

There is a huge difference between the Catholic Church’s understanding of what constitutes the ONE, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, and what Anglicans think constitutes the Church! As far as the Catholic Church is concerned, Anglicans and other Protestants don’t belong to Churches in the proper sense; they belong to “ecclesial communities”.
… the ecclesial communities which have not preserved the valid Episcopate and the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery, are not Churches in the proper sense; however, those who are baptized in these communities are, by Baptism, incorporated in Christ and thus are in a certain communion, albeit imperfect, with the Church.

DECLARATION “DOMINUS IESUS”:
ON THE UNICITY AND SALVIFIC UNIVERSALITY OF
JESUS CHRIST AND THE CHURCH

I certainly agree with your first paragraph. That is a proper thing for a RC to affirm, to be sure. As far as Anglicans are concerned, we affirm something else about the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. And about some other things, too.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus

 

[otm]

Matt16_18:

If the TAC ever does decide to be reconciled with the Catholic Church, the members of the TAC are going to have to receive all the Sacraments of Initiation, and not just the Sacrament of Baptism,

They would not have to be baptized, as the Church recognizes their baptism. They would simply have to make a profession of Faith.

And as to having to be re - confirmed, the issue again would go to validity of orders for whomever confirmed them, although that usually is not looked into; such a mass move to Rome could well bring that to the forefront, however.

 

[otm]

ByzCath:

Candidates in RCIA are only those who have not been baptized.

No, that is backwards. Catechumens are those who have not been baptized; candidates have been.

ByzCath:

This shows up at the Mass with the Bishop. Only those who have not been baptized have their names entered into the Book of Life.

that is correct.

 

[Matt16_18]

Contarini:

You can’t be a Christian without being a formal member of the visible Church. It’s a contradition in terms.

Protestants are not members of the Catholic Church!

 

[David_Zampino]

Just a few thoughts . . .

Matt16_18:

Are valid orders bestowed upon an Anglican priest by merely having a PNCC bishop co-ordaining with an Anglican bishop? This is a question that is not that easy to answer.

Indeed it is not. However, it is not (or, I should say, was not) at all uncommon. For a period of about 75 years, many, many ECUSA consecrations included PNCC co-consecrators. The two bodies enjoyed formal inter-communion until ECUSA began ordaining women. The presence of Old Catholic bishops participating in C of E consecrations has also been prolonged and significant.

The validity of a Sacrament always depends on intent. If a man were to go to the Sacrament of Confession and lie to the priest about being contrite and repentant for his sins, he may very well receive the prayers of absolution from the priest. The priest isn’t a mind reader, and if someone lies and says they are sorry, but in truth, they are not sorry, the priest isn’t responsible for those lies. The form of the Sacrament of Confession was done correctly, but the Sacrament was invalid because the person receiving it had no intention of doing what is required (i.e. being sorry and truly repentant for ones sins). If an Anglican thinks that he can manipulate the Sacrament of Ordination to bestow a valid ordination upon himself by having a PNCC bishop in attendance, the Anglican is committing a grave sin, since he has no intention of faithfully serving as a priest in the Catholic Church.

Obviously, I can’t speak for all Anglicans throughout history! But since the Anglican Communion and the PNCC were in formal inter-communion for all those decades, I don’t believe that “manipulation” would be the right term here.

Matt16_18:

Sacraments are not magical acts that humans can manipulate for their own purposes. To treat a Sacrament in this manner is to commit mortal sin.

Indeed! We are in agreement here. And in some cases, I’m sure that the issue of “intent” comes into play. (Even, potentially, in Catholic ordinations!) And this is why each case is looked at carefully.

Many blessings.

 

[GKC]

David Zampino:

Just a few thoughts . . .

Indeed it is not. However, it is not (or, I should say, was not) at all uncommon. For a period of about 75 years, many, many ECUSA consecrations included PNCC co-consecrators. The two bodies enjoyed formal inter-communion until ECUSA began ordaining women. The presence of Old Catholic bishops participating in C of E consecrations has also been prolonged and significant.

The validity of a Sacrament always depends on intent. If a man were to go to the Sacrament of Confession and lie to the priest about being contrite and repentant for his sins, he may very well receive the prayers of absolution from the priest. The priest isn’t a mind reader, and if someone lies and says they are sorry, but in truth, they are not sorry, the priest isn’t responsible for those lies. The form of the Sacrament of Confession was done correctly, but the Sacrament was invalid because the person receiving it had no intention of doing what is required (i.e. being sorry and truly repentant for ones sins). If an Anglican thinks that he can manipulate the Sacrament of Ordination to bestow a valid ordination upon himself by having a PNCC bishop in attendance, the Anglican is committing a grave sin, since he has no intention of faithfully serving as a priest in the Catholic Church.

Obviously, I can’t speak for all Anglicans throughout history! But since the Anglican Communion and the PNCC were in formal inter-communion for all those decades, I don’t believe that “manipulation” would be the right term here.

Indeed! We are in agreement here. And in some cases, I’m sure that the issue of “intent” comes into play. (Even, potentially, in Catholic ordinations!) And this is why each case is looked at carefully.

Many blessings.

David,

AFAIK, Old Catholic/Anglican co-consecrations began in 1932, PNCC in 1946. Of most interest to us Traditional Anglicans (posterus traditus Anglicanus), of course, was the consecration of Albert Chambers, in 1962, since it was he that brought the historic episcopate and apostolic succession to a great many of the continuing Anglican lines.

And while intent is always a component of a sacrament, the RCC, as noted in sec 9 of Apostolicae Curae, wisely recognises that individual internal intent cannot be judged. The intent of the individual is judged by its external manifestation. “When anyone has rightly and seriously made use of the due form and the matter requisite for effecting or conferring the sacrament he is considered by the very fact to do what the Church does”. It is this that makes it possible for anyone to perform valid baptisms, assuming the proper form and matter. Otherwise, one could never be sure one had ever received a validly confected Eucharist, internal intent being unknowable.

Note that I’m violating my intention not to get involved in technical discussions here.

Sorry I missed the party. Stay in touch.

GKC

 

[Matt16_18]

David Zampino:

For a period of about 75 years, many, many ECUSA consecrations included PNCC co-consecrators.

Why?

 

[David_Zampino]

Matt16_18:

Why?

The churches were in a state of formally recognized inter-communion. It ended when ECUSA began ordaining women. The PNCC ended a similar relationship with many (most?) of the European Old Catholic churches rather recently, and for the same reason.

 

[GKC]

Matt16_18:

Why?

I’m not David, but I’ll reply.

Because they were in intercommunion. Same as the Old Catholics, from which the PNCC are derived, more or less.

“The mingling of the lines of episcopal succession was desired by both sides as a logical consequence of the existing relationship of intercommunion”.

Hughes, STEWARDS OF THE LORD, Appendix II, p. 340.

And the Bishop of Haarlem, in that interesting statement he made in 1932, at the first joint consecration (which I referred to above), said likewise “… to mingle as two streams the episcopal succession which has come down from the Apostles, namely that derived through the bishops of the Old Catholic Church and that which has come down through the Anglican hierarchy until the present time”.

GKC

 

[GoLatin]

The traditional Anglicans would have to make sure that they adopted ALL of the Catholics ideals, for example, the Assumption, no contraception, no abortion, etc.

I used to be an Anglican, that is actually a part of ECUSA, not the Traditional Anglican Communion.

The bishop of the local ECUSA diocese is one of the most conservative in the entire country, but he will still “ordain” women as “deacons”, although not as “priests”.

The conservative Anglicans that I knew were conservative compared to the rest of ECUSA, but rather liberal when compared to official Catholic doctrine. For example, families with more than three children were EXTREMELY rare.

Many “Catholic” beliefs and practises that some Anglicans hold are held entirely at their own choosing.

For example, the difference between mortal and venial sin was never discussed. Confession is rare to non-existent(I only went twice in three years). The ECUSA Book of Common Prayer has a couple of forms for confession, but the penitent is only encouraged to mention what is bothering them, and not to especially mention mortal sins. Lay people and deacons can also hear confessions, but cannot give absolution.

Also, the “Anglican” way of doing things is still essentially Protestant.

I certainly hope that Anglicans who convert to Catholicism in the future are not pressured into staying in the Anglican use, in which there is definitely something lacking.

I certainly will always be part of the Latin Roman Rite, specifically the Tridentine Mass.

 

[Contarini]

Matt16_18:

Protestants are not members of the Catholic Church!

So you say. But that requires you either to say that we are not Christians (which it seems to me contradicts Vatican II and recent papal teachings–but that’s your concern), or that one can be a Christian and not a member of the Church (which is a rather stark contradiction of basic Catholic Tradition), or that there is some other Church besides the Catholic Church (which is even more absurd from the point of view of Sacred Tradition).

Actually, it seems to me that your statement itself contradicts your Church’s teaching. CCC 819 speaks of our being “outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church,” true. But CCC 1271 says: “Baptism constitutes the foundation of communion among all Christians, including those who are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church: ‘For men who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in some, though imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church. Justified by faith in Baptism, [they] are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church.’” The quotation is from Unitatis Redintegratio (Vatican II). It looks as if the Catechism itself backs off from Vatican II’s more generous statements. But obviously it’s not contradicting Vatican II, and indeed quotes this passage from UR. So in a sense we are outside (according to Catholic teaching), and in a sense we aren’t.

You would do well to imitate the nuance of your Church’s official teaching. But from your previous posts I have little hope that you will do this, unless you have a change of heart.

Edwin

 

[David_Zampino]

GoLatin:

The traditional Anglicans would have to make sure that they adopted ALL of the Catholics ideals, for example, the Assumption, no contraception, no abortion, etc.

In my experience – in an ECUSA seminary – this is NOT an issue!

GoLatin:

I used to be an Anglican, that is actually a part of ECUSA, not the Traditional Anglican Communion.

As did I. For many, many years.

GoLatin:

The bishop of the local ECUSA diocese is one of the most conservative in the entire country, but he will still “ordain” women as “deacons”, although not as “priests”.

I am aware of this.

GoLatin:

The conservative Anglicans that I knew were conservative compared to the rest of ECUSA, but rather liberal when compared to official Catholic doctrine. For example, families with more than three children were EXTREMELY rare.

This was NOT my seminary experience. At the ONLY “High-Church” ECUSA seminary in the United States.

GoLatin:

Many “Catholic” beliefs and practices that some Anglicans hold are held entirely at their own choosing.

In many cases this is correct. HOWEVER . . . in my personal experience, this is an overstatement.

GoLatin:

For example, the difference between mortal and venial sin was never discussed. Confession is rare to non-existent(I only went twice in three years). The ECUSA Book of Common Prayer has a couple of forms for confession, but the penitent is only encouraged to mention what is bothering them, and not to especially mention mortal sins. Lay people and deacons can also hear confessions, but cannot give absolution.

Not at MY seminary – at least, not while I was there!

GoLatin:

Also, the “Anglican” way of doing things is still essentially Protestant.

I certainly hope that Anglicans who convert to Catholicism in the future are not pressured into staying in the Anglican use, in which there is definitely something lacking.

And what might that be???

John Paul II didn’t seem to think so . . .

Are you disputing with the Holy Father as to the validity and legitimacy of the Anglican use? I am EXTREMELY familiar with the Anglican use (though I do not at this time use it) and am WELL aware that any Protestant deficiencies have been corrected.

 

[gryskull]

**American Primate Archbishop Louis Falk to retire **
**General Synod adopts new structure **
****27th September 2005

http://www.themessenger.com.au/Images/archb Falk.jpg

DURING the General Synod of the Anglican Church in America (ACA), held Portland Maine 20-24 September, Archbishop Louis Falk announced his intention to retire as Primate of the (TAC’s) Anglican Church in America at the end of this year, after more than 14 years in that role, most of it spent also as Primate of the worldwide Traditional Anglican Communion. The ACA Synod did not elect a successor, but instead voted to eliminate the position of Primate of the American church and adopt a new structure, whereby a"President of the House of Bishops" will be elected for a 3-year term at the time of each General Synod. The action leaves Archbishop John Hepworth as the only bishop of the TAC designated as Primate.

Following the decision to eliminate his current office, Archbishop Falk was elected as the ACA’s first President of the House of Bishops, agreeing to serve in that capacity for at least the first year of the 3-year term while the ACA completes the transition from Primate to President. Bishop George Langberg, of the ACA’s Diocese of the Northeast (New York and New England), was elected as the church’s Vice-President.

Immediately following the national event, Bishop Langberg addressed the Synod of the Diocese of the Northeast, saying that the Traditional Anglican Communion had “embarked on a journey toward unity in direct response to Jesus’ prayer that his followers all be one.” After quoting that prayer from the 17th chapter of the Gospel of John, Bishop Langberg said, "We are accustomed to say, ‘Lord, hear our prayer.’ Tonight Jesus says to us, ‘My people, hear my prayer.’ "

Due to the timing of its National Synod, the American church was the last of the TAC jurisdictions to officially endorse the efforts of the Primate, Archbishop John Hepworth but it did so in resounding fashion with a unanimous vote of support.

The Traditional Anglican Communion will now prepare a formal unity plan to present to the Vatican next year, outlining how intercommunion could be accomplished, recognizing that the two churches have similar theological beliefs. The Traditional Anglican Communion has members in 44 countries around the world. Its College of Bishops is scheduled to meet in plenary session next year, possibly at Rome.

This is such good news. I can’t wait for the results. Thanks for the post.

 

[Matt16_18]

Contarini:

… it seems to me that your statement itself contradicts your Church’s teaching. CCC 819 speaks of our being “outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church,” true.

But CCC 1271 says: “Baptism constitutes the foundation of communion among all Christians, including those who are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church: ‘For men who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in some, though imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church. Justified by faith in Baptism, [they] are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church.’”

I agree completely with what is said in CCC 1271. Protestants are Christians that are in imperfect communion with Christ’s Church. This is nothing new either. Arian heretics and Donatist heretics were validly baptised Christians that lost their membership in Christ’s Church because of the sin of heresy. Since all Protestants are at least material heretics, they cannot be in perfect communion with Christ’s Church.… Irish Bishop Kevin McNamara of Kerry, put it all very simply in a superb article on “The Theology of Christian Unity” wherein he stressed that the degrees of invisible and visible union with the Church that may be possessed by our separated brethren does not change the tragic fact that they still remain “separated”. Vatican II acknowledged that dissident Christians in good faith “are indeed in some real way joined to us in the Holy Spirit” (Lumen Gentium, 15), but this reality still did not constitute them members of the Church nor place them within the Unity of the Church, whose “visible structure” is constituted by quite visible bonds, especially that of obedience to the visible head of the Church, the Successor of Peter.

“From the documents of the Magisterium and from the Catholic doctrine of the Church’s Unity, one fact is clear: **No dissident communion is a part or member of the true Church. ** The Church of Christ is a unit whose limits are defined by the bond of communion with the see of Peter… The Church is a single living organism in which, under the universal unifying and animating influence of the single Spirit, each part serves the life of the whole. Its unity is the indivisible unity of a living body. This body is the Mystical Body of Christ, which is identical with the Roman Catholic Church. Whoever is outside that Church is not, at least in the strict and full meaning of the term, a member of Christ’s Body, nor is any non-Roman communion a part or member of the Church of Christ.” (Irish Theological Quarterly, 1981; page 258)
credo.stormloader.com/Doctrine/subsists.htm]CONTINUING CONFUSION CONCERNING “SUBSISTIT”
By JAMES LIKOUDIS​

You would do well to imitate the nuance of your Church’s official teaching.

I understand and accept that Bishop Kevin McNamara teaches correctly. The Catholic Church has never accepted the Anglican’s via media fantasies and never will. Unity with Anglicans can only come about when Anglicans renouce all heresy, accept the authority of the Pope, and end their schism with Christ’s Church.

 

[GoLatin]

David Zampino:

In my experience – in an ECUSA seminary – this is NOT an issue!

I believe that you are talking about Nashotah House. I have never visited there, but the Anglicans that came out of there still were not as conservative as good Catholics are. I also believe that Nashotah House has admitted at least one woman.

As did I. For many, many years.

I wish that I had just become Catholic and skipped the Anglicans!

I am aware of this.

He is sliding down the slippery slope to liberalism.

This was NOT my seminary experience. At the ONLY “High-Church” ECUSA seminary in the United States.

There was some general talking(when I was in ECUSA) about “respect for life from womb to tomb”, but I never heard anything against contraception.

In many cases this is correct. HOWEVER . . . in my personal experience, this is an overstatement.

For example, purgatory was almost never discussed, but every year on All Souls’ Day, the names of the dead that people had submitted were read aloud.

Not at MY seminary – at least, not while I was there!

Well, in my personal experience, confession was still rare to non-existent.

And what might that be???

John Paul II didn’t seem to think so . . .

Are you disputing with the Holy Father as to the validity and legitimacy of the Anglican use? I am EXTREMELY familiar with the Anglican use (though I do not at this time use it) and am WELL aware that any Protestant deficiencies have been corrected.

The Anglican use is still Anglican. It is not what the English Catholic martyrs fought and died for.