Anglican Church in America (TAC) and the Polish National Catholic Church

[Eutychus123]

Anglicanism IS complicated

In time with TAC, I never heard any mention of the PNCC. TAC was only interested in pursuing an approach to Rome. They pointedly did not approach other churches in the Anglican Continuum.

 

[LJinPA]

*AFAIK, being in communion with Canterbury would not cause Rome to make a judgment on the validity of OC orders, which would be based on Apostolic succession, form, intent, matter, and minister, in the transmission. Once Utrecht began placing hands on hairspray, matter and intent were gone, and the judgment on the OC Utrecht orders would follow. Some sub-groups of OCs might still be considered to possess valid orders.

GKC*

The way it sounds here is almost like electricity. Better yet- like the older models of string-a-long Christmas lights. If one gets loose either the whole set goes out or every light that comes after it goes out.
Lets take female priests or bishops for example. If validity is like electricity than it would sound like only a male soul could conduct that “electricity”. In other words any ordinations in a schismatic church can be “valid but licit”, but if it involves a famale priest it would simply break the chain of validity?

Also I hear the gay clergy issue used in talking validity, yet a gay male is still a male soul even if he wasn’t in a state of grace. There is also no way to prove someone gay unless they publically admit it. I’m sure at some point there could have been actively gay bishops ordaining people in the RC throughout the 200 yr history or bishops not in a state of grace for some other reason we just don’t know. So I don’t see that part of the issue.

Also if the PNCC is rather democratic in nature but is still declared valid since they resisted women priests and broke off with churched who have them. What if one day they did decide to ordain women (hypothetically since they’re obviously moving more toward orthodoxy). If Rome had the power to declare Anglican orders null and void than if the PNCC ever made a bad decision can their parishoners ever wake up one morning to find they’re no longer Catholic. Would this mean that all “valid orders” churches not under the Pope are still under the Pope’s control since he can declare them invalid (and therefore fully Protestant) at the stroke of a pen at any time…?

After Apostolic Curae there were talks of some Russian Orthodox recognizing Anglican orders. I don’t think it ever resulted in any type of communion but what if for example, they did decare Anglicans valid independent of Rome yet Rome recognizes Orthodox orders but not Anglican. As an RC I can’t deny what Rome teaches but just trying be be objective in trying to fugure out how all this works. I’d love to hear both RC and non-RC perspectives on this.

 

[GKC]

The Augustinian position (which is what the RCC holds to) on the transmission of orders is rather like electricity, yes. And it was the assertion that, for two technical reasons (related to form and intent), the Anglicans had broken the circuit, (usually said to have happened in 1559) that Apostolicae Curae stated what it stated.

The issue of a female priest or bishop would invalidate the orders for a couple of reasons. If a valid bishop were to attempt to ordain a female, the sacrament would be invalid, due to invalid matter. Similarly, if a female bishop (to coin a phrase) were to attempt to ordain a priest (male, shall we say) the sacrament would be invalid due to an invalid minister.

If all other factors were valid (matter, form, minister, intent), the candidate for priesthood (say) being gay (but celibate) would not in itself render the ordination invalid. It is not sexual orientation that is a sin, but sexual actions. And any man is capable of sinning is some sense. So, yes, you’re correct.

If the PNCC were to take a walk on the dark side, and start laying hands on hairspray, it says nothing about the validity of their orders to that point. It would mean that henceforth there might be concern over the intent of any PNCC ordination (intent is hard to judge, but it must be at least to facere quod facit ecclesia). And of course, no female would be validly ordained. The point about the Anglicans orders, as expressed in Apostolicae Curae, is technical and complicated. My reference to the status of OC orders in my previous post was meant in the same sense as what I just said about the PNCC, hypothetically. That is, it would be a judgment on the orders after that fact.

I generally stay away from discussing hypotheticals with respect to Orthodox and Anglicans (might jump in, though). It’s complicated enough to discuss the actual facts.

GKC

*AFAIK, being in communion with Canterbury would not cause Rome to make a judgment on the validity of OC orders, which would be based on Apostolic succession, form, intent, matter, and minister, in the transmission. Once Utrecht began placing hands on hairspray, matter and intent were gone, and the judgment on the OC Utrecht orders would follow. Some sub-groups of OCs might still be considered to possess valid orders.

GKC*

The way it sounds here is almost like electricity. Better yet- like the older models of string-a-long Christmas lights. If one gets loose either the whole set goes out or every light that comes after it goes out.
Lets take female priests or bishops for example. If validity is like electricity than it would sound like only a male soul could conduct that “electricity”. In other words any ordinations in a schismatic church can be “valid but licit”, but if it involves a famale priest it would simply break the chain of validity?

Also I hear the gay clergy issue used in talking validity, yet a gay male is still a male soul even if he wasn’t in a state of grace. There is also no way to prove someone gay unless they publically admit it. I’m sure at some point there could have been actively gay bishops ordaining people in the RC throughout the 200 yr history or bishops not in a state of grace for some other reason we just don’t know. So I don’t see that part of the issue.

Also if the PNCC is rather democratic in nature but is still declared valid since they resisted women priests and broke off with churched who have them. What if one day they did decide to ordain women (hypothetically since they’re obviously moving more toward orthodoxy). If Rome had the power to declare Anglican orders null and void than if the PNCC ever made a bad decision can their parishoners ever wake up one morning to find they’re no longer Catholic. Would this mean that all “valid orders” churches not under the Pope are still under the Pope’s control since he can declare them invalid (and therefore fully Protestant) at the stroke of a pen at any time…?

After Apostolic Curae there were talks of some Russian Orthodox recognizing Anglican orders. I don’t think it ever resulted in any type of communion but what if for example, they did decare Anglicans valid independent of Rome yet Rome recognizes Orthodox orders but not Anglican. As an RC I can’t deny what Rome teaches but just trying be be objective in trying to fugure out how all this works. I’d love to hear both RC and non-RC perspectives on this.

 

[LJinPA]

Even if a bishop was gay and non-celebate, or even straight and openly had a live in girlfriend, the other point I was trying to make whether his being in a state of grace affects validity. It may seem like it should at first but would God make the laity suffer for the shortcomings of the clergy. I can understand the lifestyle of a bishop being an issue of example and not wanting to give scandal but not of validity.

I say this because the Catholic and Orthodox churches are about 2000 years old and large in size. I can’t name examples offhand but I’m sure there have been Bishops publically not in a state of grace for many different reasons from heretics to having girlfriends. There have been thousands of Bishops in history there have to have been some winners if you look hard enough therefore if a scandalous BIshop breaks the circuit than anyone’s orders would be uncertain.

 

[GKC]

No, his state of grace would not affect the validity of a sacrament. To think that would be Donatisim, believing that the sacraments function as conveyers of grace, ex opere operantis, by virtue of the worthiness of the confector, rather than functioning ex opere operato, from the work itself. As long as minister, form, matter and intent are valid, as defined, the sacrament is valid.

GKC

Even if a bishop was gay and non-celebate, or even straight and openly had a live in girlfriend, the other point I was trying to make whether his being in a state of grace affects validity. It may seem like it should at first but would God make the laity suffer for the shortcomings of the clergy. I can understand the lifestyle of a bishop being an issue of example and not wanting to give scandal but not of validity.

I say this because the Catholic and Orthodox churches are about 2000 years old and large in size. I can’t name examples offhand but I’m sure there have been Bishops publically not in a state of grace for many different reasons from heretics to having girlfriends. There have been thousands of Bishops in history there have to have been some winners if you look hard enough therefore if a scandalous BIshop breaks the circuit than anyone’s orders would be uncertain.

 

[Peter_J]

“I’m also pretty sure Rome still recognizes Old Catholic orders as valid yet they are in communion with Canturbury.”

AFAIK, being in communion with Canterbury would not cause Rome to make a judgment on the validity of OC orders, which would be based on Apostolic succession, form, intent, matter, and minister, in the transmission. Once Utrecht began placing hands on hairspray

Nice to see that the forum hasn’t changed much.

 

[GKC]

Nice to see that the forum hasn’t changed much.

Much of a muchness.

GKC

 

[olivet]

Dear RevDrNorth,

I’m wondering if you have ESP, a crystal ball, or maybe a mole in the Vatican… I was perusing this very interesting thread, and read your post which included -

"Benedict could create the Prelature and then put one of the current former Anglican Priests (now Roman Catholic priest) in charge of it. Then possibly stream line the process for conversion and reception of Anglican clergy BUT with greater control over how that is done. I imagine it may have to be set up to receive (as the Ant Orthodox Church did) congregations who go through RCIA and stay intact (along with clergy). In this way if TAC wants to become part of it, their congregations and clergy could go through the process of reception without the RCC having to accept the whole TAC communion. "

This is surprisingly close to what has actually happened. Kindly consult whatever it is that you consult, and advise what else is coming down the pike… :bowdown2:

 

[LJinPA]

To those about to swim the Tiber I say “Welcome”. I am hoping however that those who are would be doing it also because they have positive reasons to love the RC faith and not just because they’re angry or embarassed about Female clergy or Gene Robinson. Otherwise what if Rome had a new scandal 5 yrs from now or Pope Benedict many yrs from now got replaced with a moderate pope if something ever happened to him. I know any large church is bound to have a scandal at some point and people today are always switching denominations, political parties, and places to live looking for that greener grass. I feel those who convert to another faith because they’re fed up with something may be gone in a few years, but if they’re coming to something they love than they will be happy.

Bach to the issue of validity, I hear all the arguments on both sides and I could at least understand Apostolic Curae. But I still don’t get why the pope confirmed it in 1998 without explains and considering the “Dutch touch” issues in the past Century. Either one of 2 things seem to be a possibility.
Either the Anglican orders after the Dutch touch but before the women priests issues may have been valid. If the Church is sure Old Catholic orders are valid than in a sense arent the modern Anglicans also “Old Catholic” in a sense just with a different name… Esp since they are in full communion (Utrecht and Canturbury).

OR considering the form, matter, intent, dogma issues… I know the Anglicans have had they’re controversial positions lately but so have the Old Catholics… If Anglican orders are invalid than it would seem logical that we could wake up one day and find Utrecht orders declared invalid. It might not even make headlines around here since most Catholics I know never heard of Utrecht or Old Catholics and if not for the internet I wouldn’t have either. Nor does this dogma issue explain why the Traditional Anglican groups can’t be considered Valid or at least have a chance of becoming Valid. And what about former RC priests who become Episcopalian? The Episcopal Bishop of Maryland did say something last month about the door swinging both ways.

I also know that the Anglican communion has made moves toward more protestant groups like Methodists and Lutherans but as long as Utrecht has full communion with Anglicans so wouldn’t they all be in the same boat?
Perhaps full communion is a word used to easily and is too strong a term for the way it gets used.

I don’t wish invalidity on anyone, but the most likely scenario here seems that Utrecht (and I heard this speculated before) will one day be invalid. Maybe the only Independent western churches left woulf then be the PNCC or The Brazilian and Mexican Apostolic churches (the Duarte Cosa line)…?

 

[GKC]

It is possible we are not communicating.

It is not because the Anglican Communion and the OCs/Utrecht were in formal communion, after the agreement of Bonn, that the Dutch Touch was a possible factor, with respect to Rome’s judgment of Anglican orders. It was because, at that time, Rome held that the OCs possessed valid Episcopal Orders. And because the OC bishops, using valid form, matter and intent, conveyed those orders into Anglicanism, where they continued to be propagated, that logically there should be some consideration of whether this had an impact on the judgment of Apostolicae Curae. But no comment on this has been made, by Rome. Instead, Cardinal Ratzinger reaffirmed the findings of AC as de fide.

You could certainly awake to find that Rome has now declared OC orders invalid some day. Which would have no effect whatsoever on the orders held by OCs prior to that new declaration, or on the idea of the Dutch Touch conveying valid orders to the Anglicans. It would proceed from the point that the OCs were declared not to possess valid orders, not retrospectively.

Again (and again) if Rome had spoken on the matter, one might know the answer to whether the Dutch Touch had any effect on the Anglican orders, in Rome’s eyes. Since they haven’t, it is only speculation. But one can note that no case involving the concept of the Dutch Touch is known.

If I understand your reference to RC priests who become Anglican, and the mention of the Episcopal bishop of Maryland, Anglicans receive RC priests who convert in their orders. Sometimes there is a period of discernment, but this is not because there is a doubt about the validity of their orders.

GKC

To those about to swim the Tiber I say “Welcome”. I am hoping however that those who are would be doing it also because they have positive reasons to love the RC faith and not just because they’re angry or embarassed about Female clergy or Gene Robinson. Otherwise what if Rome had a new scandal 5 yrs from now or Pope Benedict many yrs from now got replaced with a moderate pope if something ever happened to him. I know any large church is bound to have a scandal at some point and people today are always switching denominations, political parties, and places to live looking for that greener grass. I feel those who convert to another faith because they’re fed up with something may be gone in a few years, but if they’re coming to something they love than they will be happy.

Bach to the issue of validity, I hear all the arguments on both sides and I could at least understand Apostolic Curae. But I still don’t get why the pope confirmed it in 1998 without explains and considering the “Dutch touch” issues in the past Century. Either one of 2 things seem to be a possibility.
Either the Anglican orders after the Dutch touch but before the women priests issues may have been valid. If the Church is sure Old Catholic orders are valid than in a sense arent the modern Anglicans also “Old Catholic” in a sense just with a different name… Esp since they are in full communion (Utrecht and Canturbury).

OR considering the form, matter, intent, dogma issues… I know the Anglicans have had they’re controversial positions lately but so have the Old Catholics… If Anglican orders are invalid than it would seem logical that we could wake up one day and find Utrecht orders declared invalid. It might not even make headlines around here since most Catholics I know never heard of Utrecht or Old Catholics and if not for the internet I wouldn’t have either. Nor does this dogma issue explain why the Traditional Anglican groups can’t be considered Valid or at least have a chance of becoming Valid. And what about former RC priests who become Episcopalian? The Episcopal Bishop of Maryland did say something last month about the door swinging both ways.

I also know that the Anglican communion has made moves toward more protestant groups like Methodists and Lutherans but as long as Utrecht has full communion with Anglicans so wouldn’t they all be in the same boat?
Perhaps full communion is a word used to easily and is too strong a term for the way it gets used.

I don’t wish invalidity on anyone, but the most likely scenario here seems that Utrecht (and I heard this speculated before) will one day be invalid. Maybe the only Independent western churches left woulf then be the PNCC or The Brazilian and Mexican Apostolic churches (the Duarte Cosa line)…?

 

[LJinPA]

I actually looked up the 1998 document. It confirms that Apostolic Curae is dogma, non-negotiable, but I didn’t see anything referring to Anglicans ordained after Apostolic Curae. So I guess your saying that there was no comment from Rome except to declare AC as dogma it leaves open the possibility that some dutch touched Anglicans may be valid. I think I might understand what your saying.

One reason I was asking all that putting myself in the shoes of a Continuing Anglican group which has held the orthodox faith if it means breaking away from Canturbury as well as seek to get Apostolic Succession. For Rome to say Old Catholic orders are valid while they do things considered unorthodox, but then say that a Continuing Anglican priest is not valid does that seem to bother a lot of Anglicans?

 

[RevDrNorth]

I actually looked up the 1998 document. It confirms that Apostolic Curae is dogma, non-negotiable, but I didn’t see anything referring to Anglicans ordained after Apostolic Curae. So I guess your saying that there was no comment from Rome except to declare AC as dogma it leaves open the possibility that some dutch touched Anglicans may be valid. I think I might understand what your saying.

One reason I was asking all that putting myself in the shoes of a Continuing Anglican group which has held the orthodox faith if it means breaking away from Canturbury as well as seek to get Apostolic Succession. For Rome to say Old Catholic orders are valid while they do things considered unorthodox, but then say that a Continuing Anglican priest is not valid does that seem to bother a lot of Anglicans?

I would say most Anglicans are not bothered because they neither give it much consideration or care. I think when you look at it objectively (logically) there is really not much to hold Pope Leo’s position together but even less because of the march of history (dutch touch) that occurred long after Leo’s time. The RC essentially ignores that historical reality when it continues to adhere to Leo’s position. For the RC to hold that Old Catholic orders and PNCC orders are valid but not Anglican that have the same succession and little to object to in terms of form it does not make sense.

Most lay Catholics are clueless about what apostolic succession really means and that is demonstrated time and time again when they try to assert why Anglican orders are invalid and they are not even pointing out correct issues from a Catholic point of view. GKC usually assists them in understanding their own position.

Plus we all understand that regardless of whether the RC position is objectively correct it MUST be correct for a loyal Catholic. No heartburn with that from most Anglicans in that we understand you must adhere to official pronouncements. Anglicans may consider it poppycock but respect the RC’s right to belief.

 

[LJinPA]

Well to be honest I’m 32, have been Catholic all my life, raised in a mostly Catholic area and went to Catholic school all my life. Until a few years ago because of my researching on the internet and being raised in an EWTN watching family that I even knew what Apostolic Sucession was, or even heard of Old Catholics, or that Anglicans-Episcopalians-and the Church of England were the same church. I knew of the PNCC because I live near “The Polish Vatican” and there are a lot of Russian Orthodox and Ruthenian Catholics where I live. Episcopalians were thought of as old money families that were something like a lukewarm Catholic.
I don’t remember this stuff from chatechism, I was too busy pasting paper
chalices onto felt banners and rote-memorizing soundbites to pass tests.

What does the TAC normally teach regarding birth control, auricular confession, purgatory, novenas, sacramentals, relics…? From what I read they seem to be more Catholic in belief and knowledge than 90% of Catholics that I know…nd my area is hardly San Francisco.

 

[GKC]

I actually looked up the 1998 document. It confirms that Apostolic Curae is dogma, non-negotiable, but I didn’t see anything referring to Anglicans ordained after Apostolic Curae. So I guess your saying that there was no comment from Rome except to declare AC as dogma it leaves open the possibility that some dutch touched Anglicans may be valid. I think I might understand what your saying.

One reason I was asking all that putting myself in the shoes of a Continuing Anglican group which has held the orthodox faith if it means breaking away from Canturbury as well as seek to get Apostolic Succession. For Rome to say Old Catholic orders are valid while they do things considered unorthodox, but then say that a Continuing Anglican priest is not valid does that seem to bother a lot of Anglicans?

I’m precisely that sort of Anglican (Continuing) and it doesn’t bother me. But, as I said, I’m not sure we are communicating. What I am repeatedly saying is that logically, the Dutch Touch should infuse, valid but illicit orders into Anglicanism, by the logic by which Rome judges what constitutes a valid sacrament. But that Rome has not made a ruling on that issue, nor commented officially on it. I’m saying nothing more than that. Since I personally don’t accept the logic of Apostolicae Curae, the matter is only of academic and intellectual interest to me.

And, once again, the difference between Rome saying Anglican orders are invalid, and saying that the OC orders are valid, lies in the issues spelled put in Apostolicae Curae. And nothing analogous to the defects of intention and of form suggested there has been alleged about the practice of the OCs. Hence, their orders are said to be valid, unless and until something like that is determined against them.

GKC

 

[LJinPA]

GKC I didn’t realize you were still Anglican but now I have a better idea of where you’re coming from.
One thing I like about Anglicanism is its history of logical thinking, enen though today in some circles the pragmatism may have gone too far and nudged themselves off track. I do appreciate the way they combine faith with reason. It would be nice to see Anglicanism, RC, and Orthodoxy come together to combine their theological virtues.
I think one advantage with the Pope’s new provisions may be symbolic to show that there is an “English Catholicism”. Catholicism, like Orthodoxy still seems to have a stigma of being an ethnic religion while Anglicanism still has a stigma of being for WASPS. Even though many Anglicans have Catholic beliefs and many Cultural Catholics believe like mainline Protestants. I say this as a lifelong rustbelt resident, They’re just observations. Things are changing now, you can go to a Polish VFW and find just as many Irish and Italians having a beer.
I also think there are slight traces of “Anglophobia” here and there in people’s subconscious minds which affect things. Some older Catholics still associate Mainline Protestents with elites, country clubs, Masons, or as those who oppressed their ancestors. I have observed many Mainline Churches as being stately, magnificent, well maintained buildings, yet I almost never see anyone going in and out of them.

An example I could give of the opposite situation is a woman I met who was raised Catholic and still considers herself Catholic, but because of her sexuality she joined an Episcopal Church where she felt welcome but does not consider herself Protestant or Anglican.

One other issue I asked about birth control before. I don’t know where the TAC stands and this could be better explored on another thread, but if Catholic priests were allowed to marry given their strict attitude toward contraception. And they were having 8-10 kids as was common years ago before contraception, If the Church is the main source of income they would need to suport the kids and pay benefits. I wonder if that is an issue.

 

[RevDrNorth]

In terms of contraception, I recall seeing a news commentary years ago noting that contraception is one of those areas where even “good Catholics” nod at the Vatican but then practice it anyway.

Yet, Natural Family Planning is very effective. There are two current methods (one slightly easier than the other) that are based on solid science. It is really quite amazing and needs to be both promoted more and practiced. Highly effective, safe and relationship building. I think avoidance of it amounts to ignorance of the science/methodology and laziness.

 

[LJinPA]

What about auricular confession? Is this an absolute requirement in Continuing Anglicanism? Does it require a complete enumeration of mortal sins (e.g. I was unjustly angry 4 times, I had lustful thoughts 3 times)? Or are they more like the PNCC on this, are they more like Rome? or like the Orthodox w/ penances, temporary excommunications, confession of all sin before communion?

Does “all may, some should, none must” still apply in “traditionalist” Anglicanism? What is the general theory and practice? What about perfect contrition?

I ask this because scrupulosity and fear of mortal sin was an issue for Luther and can be a big hurdle for potential Catholic converts. In practice I doubt many Roman Catholics have perfect confessions (with exhausted priests and a lone line of people they probably know in back of them who can easily overhear.

 

[GKC]

Generally, the only generalization about Anglicanism that can be made is that it is impossible to make an accurate generalization about Anglicanism, in general. “All, some none” is the rule, yes.

Continuing Anglicanism is mainly inclined to the Anglo-Catholic side and is where you are most likely to find those who practice regular auricular confession. The style and manner would vary widely. Penaces are common, I understand; otherwise, I would not generalize. I have no insight as to scrupulosity or perfect contrition.

GKC

What about auricular confession? Is this an absolute requirement in Continuing Anglicanism? Does it require a complete enumeration of mortal sins (e.g. I was unjustly angry 4 times, I had lustful thoughts 3 times)? Or are they more like the PNCC on this, are they more like Rome? or like the Orthodox w/ penances, temporary excommunications, confession of all sin before communion?

Does “all may, some should, none must” still apply in “traditionalist” Anglicanism? What is the general theory and practice? What about perfect contrition?

I ask this because scrupulosity and fear of mortal sin was an issue for Luther and can be a big hurdle for potential Catholic converts. In practice I doubt many Roman Catholics have perfect confessions (with exhausted priests and a lone line of people they probably know in back of them who can easily overhear.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

In terms of contraception, I recall seeing a news commentary years ago noting that contraception is one of those areas where even “good Catholics” nod at the Vatican but then practice it anyway.

Yet, Natural Family Planning is very effective. There are two current methods (one slightly easier than the other) that are based on solid science. It is really quite amazing and needs to be both promoted more and practiced. Highly effective, safe and relationship building. I think avoidance of it amounts to ignorance of the science/methodology and laziness.

It wasn’t effective in our house where we had three pregnancies (thank God for each by the way, we cherish them! ) in three years! My wife was fanatically faithful to it, cautious, and knew NFP inside and out. NFP was a constant source of stress and strain for us as a married couple, the only strain we’ve ever had…I disagree with your view on laziness and ignorance. I have spoken with a heap of people (mostly in PM’s because they don’t want to say it out loud in this forum (!!) who have told me they had child after child using NFP and they were well-versed in it and went through the couple to couple league trainings, read the Kipley book through and through, and were cautious. NFP is more risky than you think and people who don’t want to use it are not all lazy and a bunch of goobers, trust me. Some folks agonize over it and struggle greatly with it to the point of insane stress. Trust me, I’m one of those guys…and it drove my wife crazy for years…

By the way, what protestant denomination are you with? It just says “liturgical?”

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Generally, the only generalization about Anglicanism that can be made is that it is impossible to make an accurate generalization about Anglicanism, in general. “All, some none” is the rule, yes.

Continuing Anglicanism is mainly inclined to the Anglo-Catholic side and is where you are most likely to find those who practice regular auricular confession. The style and manner would vary widely. Penaces are common, I understand; otherwise, I would not generalize. I have no insight as to scrupulosity or perfect contrition.

GKC

Another generalization is that they all have coffee hours and generally have a motley crew of very fascinating people! Remember the court jester guy I told you about?! LOL