Anglican Converts To Catholicism

[RevDrNorth]

The Vatican has said that the orders are invalid because of deficiencies in form and intent. As noted, the problem with form may have been corrected. Truthfully, I’ve never been able to wrap my small brain around the reasoning cited by the Vatican or the counterpoints raised by Canterbury.

papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13curae.htm

ucl.ac.uk/~ucgbmxd/saepius.htm

I agree. The arguments in my opinion made by the Vatican seemed to be tap dacing and I think that other issues played a part as I noted. More politcal and practical consideration of problematic outcomes should Anglican orders be considered valid.
I think in terms of apostolic succession, etc., they are completely valid (not that my opinion counts).

I think though we miss the point if we simply look at a "magical validity because we said the magic words or even just that we can trace the laying on of hands back in time. Fr. Mitch Pacwa if I recall correctly made some statement to that effect on EWTN. He said (forgive me if I misrepresent it) that don’t get too caught up on whether a particular group has Apostolic succession (etc) as there are so many other factors in terms of whether they are faithful to the teachings of the church and aligned with the Holy Father and so on. In other words he was warning people NOT to be fooled by all of these groups out there. Stick with the Roman Catholic faith.

This goes along with statements I have seen chewing people out for wanting to receive communion at one of the Pius the XII (groups) connected to Lefebrve. One Priest I read told the person “Yes it matters and no it is not acceptable!”. I don’t think many would argue that there was not apostolic succession or valid orders. Still not acceptable according to conservative Roman Catholics.

North

 

[jmcrae]

North;

Good point - we Catholics are not permitted to receive Holy Communion from persons who are in schism, regardless of the validity of their Holy Orders.

I guess the question is, though - could they receive from us? This isn’t something I know how to answer, but the beginning of the answer is, “Does your tradition have valid Holy Orders?” In the case of the Anglicans, I don’t know.

But I tend to be scrupulous and careful, anyway - last night I told a member of the Greek Orthodox church to check with Father on this issue. (I’m 99% sure that he can, but actually saying “Yes, you can” seems to me to be several steps above my pay grade - also I don’t know what his own tradition says about it, and obviously he needs to be respectful of both his and ours.)

 

[DianJo]

I’ll preface this by sayin that I don’t know much at all about this subject so my question is not offend to know the true reason.

It was my understanding that the reason the orders are no longer valid is because the change in wording of ordination was such that the main function of the priest was not to offer sacrifice any more. That’s the main function of the preist - to offer sacrifice.

If a preist cannot offer sacrifice then why would anyone think Anglican ordiantions are valid?

 

[RevDrNorth]

I’ll preface this by sayin that I don’t know much at all about this subject so my question is not offend to know the true reason.

It was my understanding that the reason the orders are no longer valid is because the change in wording of ordination was such that the main function of the priest was not to offer sacrifice any more. That’s the main function of the preist - to offer sacrifice.

If a preist cannot offer sacrifice then why would anyone think Anglican ordiantions are valid?

Possibly because they (anglican Church) have the unbroken succession of laying on of hands since the apostles and intent to carry out the biblical faith of the Church?

As an aside, Grudem (Protestant theologian) - calls the sacrifce of the mass one of the most obejectionable Roman Catholic doctrines. He notes from Hebrews 9:25-28 that “Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly as the high Priest enters the Holy Place yearly with blood not his own; for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once and for all at the end of the age to put away sin by the sacrifice of homself…Christ having been offered once to bear the sins of may”. He goes on to quote from Otto’s Fundamentals of Catholic dogma (pro sacrifice of the mass) and then scripture to disprove this notion of the sacrifice of the mass.

The Catholic Catechism states that “As often as the sacrifice of the cross by which Christ our Pasch has been sacrificed is celbrated on the altar, the work of our redemption is carried out”.

North

 

[mercygate]

Possibly because they (anglican Church) have the unbroken succession of laying on of hands since the apostles and intent to carry out the biblical faith of the Church?

As a former Anglican, I once believed that, and I still find the Leo XIII’s Apostolicae Curae somewhat defective in its claims against Anglican Orders. Nevertheless, more than physicial succession is required for Apostolic validity, and the Anglican Church certainly was defective in intent regarding priesthood for about 250 years.

As an aside, Grudem (Protestant theologian) - calls the sacrifce of the mass one of the most obejectionable Roman Catholic doctrines. He notes from Hebrews 9:25-28 that “Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly as the high Priest enters the Holy Place yearly with blood not his own; for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once and for all at the end of the age to put away sin by the sacrifice of homself…Christ having been offered once to bear the sins of may”. He goes on to quote from Otto’s Fundamentals of Catholic dogma (pro sacrifice of the mass) and then scripture to disprove this notion of the sacrifice of the mass.

He might have made the attempt to disprove it but he certainly did not succeed. This quotation from Hebrews is frequently waved in the faces of Catholics as “proof” that the Mass is not a Sacrifice (Anglicans, by the way also use the word sacrifice). But to use this passage in this superficial way shows a woeful lack of understanding.

The Catholic Catechism states that “As often as the sacrifice of the cross by which Christ our Pasch has been sacrificed is celbrated on the altar, the work of our redemption is carried out”.

Yes, the Mass is at the heart of redemption because it is Christ himself. But Catholics assuredly do *not *believe that Jesus is sacrificed afresh at every Mass. 'Nother thread.

 

[corvidae]

I feel like I have to say this,

The theological reasoning behind an annullment for Henry and Katherines marriage was that they were closely related (basically cousins). However, Henry had recieved dispensation to marry Katherine, so I am sure the Pope was kinda feeling like Henry was playing him for a fool.

In addition, almost all royalty in Europe is related to eachother in someway. For example in World War 1 (I know much later, but you get the idea) One cousin, (wilhelm), was fighting two others Nicholas and whoever the king of england was (sorry, cerebral flatulence). All of them went to England on the Death of Queen Victoria, because she was all of their’s Grandmother.

So, even with theological reasoning, if you are given special permission to ignore an impediment to marriage, and then claim that impediment later, you don’t get to play both sides.

A lone Raven

 

[jmcrae]

I feel like I have to say this,

The theological reasoning behind an annullment for Henry and Katherines marriage was that they were closely related (basically cousins). However, Henry had recieved dispensation to marry Katherine, so I am sure the Pope was kinda feeling like Henry was playing him for a fool.

Well, either he thought that the Pope was an idiot, or he himself was an idiot - having received a dispensation to marry her meant that the marriage was not only valid in the Church in the ordinary sense, it was known and proven to be valid, already, because of the previous doubts.

If they had convened a Tribunal to check into the validity of the marriage for the purpose of granting a Declaration of Nullity, the trial would have lasted as long as it took to get the dispensation on the table - “Yes,” they would have said, “This marriage is valid, and as long as ye both shall live, you cannot remarry. We’ve even got paperwork to prove it.”

 

[RevDrNorth]

Here is an interesting site (article) about an Anglican Priest who converted to Orthodoxy. He quotes someone who says the RC church is simply the flip side of Protestantism (same coin). I have heard before that many see Orthodoxy as the least “corrupted” of the Churches. He points out here his own concerns with the doctrinal integrity of the RC church and places it in a similiar category to his Episcopal experience.

westernorthodox.com/options

Interesting, Orthodoxy I think was one of the options the Bishop of London had considered at one time. Certainly, there are numbers of Anglican Priests who are now married Catholic Priests thanks to the Papal exception. I met one in the army. At Mass they introduced Fr. So & So’s wife and up stood a Major (nurse).

North

 

[mercygate]

Here is an interesting site (article) about an Anglican Priest who converted to Orthodoxy. He quotes someone who says the RC church is simply the flip side of Protestantism (same coin). I have heard before that many see Orthodoxy as the least “corrupted” of the Churches. He points out here his own concerns with the doctrinal integrity of the RC church and places it in a similiar category to his Episcopal experience.

westernorthodox.com/options

Interesting, Orthodoxy I think was one of the options the Bishop of London had considered at one time. Certainly, there are numbers of Anglican Priests who are now married Catholic Priests thanks to the Papal exception. I met one in the army. At Mass they introduced Fr. So & So’s wife and up stood a Major (nurse).

North

Nearly all Anglicans who leap the Tiber flirt with Orthodoxy. It’s part of the drill. Basically, many of us come from a position where we would rather stick red-hot nails in our eyeballs than submit to the Bishop of Rome.

 

[RevDrNorth]

Here is an interesting site (article) about an Anglican Priest who converted to Orthodoxy. He quotes someone who says the RC church is simply the flip side of Protestantism (same coin). I have heard before that many see Orthodoxy as the least “corrupted” of the Churches. He points out here his own concerns with the doctrinal integrity of the RC church and places it in a similiar category to his Episcopal experience.

westernorthodox.com/options

Interesting, Orthodoxy I think was one of the options the Bishop of London had considered at one time. Certainly, there are numbers of Anglican Priests who are now married Catholic Priests thanks to the Papal exception. I met one in the army. At Mass they introduced Fr. So & So’s wife and up stood a Major (nurse).

North

ctlibrary.com/ch/1997/Issue54/54h002.html

This article also notes that some Orthodox Theologicans consider the Orthodox Church to be the true church and debate the status of the Roman Catholic Church & Protestants, some considering both Catholics and Protestants to be heretics.

North

 

[jmcrae]

What I don’t get, and have never understood (although someone did once try to explain it to me) if it was the Roman Catholic Church who split from “the Orthodox church” then why is there still only one Roman Catholic Church, but so many different independently administered Orthodox churches?

And why is the Roman Catholic Church the one that retained central authority and ecclesial and disciplinary unity, but the Orthodox Church suddenly split into national factions with no central governance and no common set of disciplines?

 

[mercygate]

ctlibrary.com/ch/1997/Issue54/54h002.html

This article also notes that some Orthodox Theologicans consider the Orthodox Church to be the true church and debate the status of the Roman Catholic Church & Protestants, some considering both Catholics and Protestants to be heretics.

North

We are aware. We are not shattered. :yawn:

Connect with some of the frequent posters on the Eastern Christianity forums here. On their better days, some of them can make an anti-Catholic Baptist/Assembly of God/Oneness Pentecostal/Seventh Day Adventist with a dose of Jack T. Chick thrown in look like a pussycat.

 

[BillFL]

This link lists the PARISHES who have left the Episcopal demonination and returned to the fullness of the Catholic Church:

www.pastoralprovision.org/congregations.html

 

[Jeanette_L]

Nearly all Anglicans who leap the Tiber flirt with Orthodoxy. It’s part of the drill. Basically, many of us come from a position where we would rather stick red-hot nails in our eyeballs than submit to the Bishop of Rome.

I was just reading through these posts out of curiosity. Being a convert to the Roman Catholic Church, but from Evangelicalism, I have to say that I too, took a good hard look at the Orthodox, trying to find a way, any reasonable and comfortable way to get around Rome! It would have been much less of trial to go that route, not many from our world tend to get miffed over conversion to Orthodoxy, even though the reasons they give for hating Catholics are present in the Orthodox Church, i.e., Marion devotion, communion of saints, sacramental baptism, Eucharist…,strange huh? I guess the Chair of Peter is the real stumbling block to everyone.

When reading the Early Fathers and seeing this common theme over and over again, that when battling heresies, there was a necessity of being in union with Rome, it was the measure of orthodox Christianity. No matter what other excuses I came up with, I just couldn’t ignore this important link to Rome. It has always been a stumbling block and always the measure of orthodox Christianity.

I know this may not sit well with some outside of Catholicism, but, can’t help that.

 

[RevDrNorth]

We are aware. We are not shattered. :yawn:

Connect with some of the frequent posters on the Eastern Christianity forums here. On their better days, some of them can make an anti-Catholic Baptist/Assembly of God/Oneness Pentecostal/Seventh Day Adventist with a dose of Jack T. Chick thrown in look like a pussycat.

Interesting. I certainly was not expecting you to be shattered (it was a Christianity Today article for goodness sake).

All of these church attacks on one another are funny. I can assure you that the Roman Catholic opinion of Anglican Orders did not cause anyone to lose sleep since we knew we had valid orders (intellectually, spiritually and historically) and considered the Catholics to be somewhat odd and superstitous. Actually that brings up another funny rememberance of the British TV show “Bless me Father”. The wonderful Irish old Catholic Priest used to get fairly regular visits from his Anglican counterpart who was a modern, slightly snotty, upperclass, intellectual Anglican Priest who smoked. Looked at RC Father as a sort of quaint superstitious old fellow and the Priest looked at him as some sort of heretic.

My English grandmother sort of looked at Anglican’s as THE church, the Catholics as interesting but uneducated and superstitious lot, and the rest of these denominations as rather quaint odd groups.

I suppose in the scheme of things it is normal to see one’s own group as somehow superior. I have seen this attitude among Baptists and LCMS Lutherans who look at Catholics as if they were poor deluded supersititious people. Mind you they simply thought Epsicopalians were intellectual, worldly, and almost heretical in their beliefs (take away almost).

I guess we all think we know better or are closer to Christ. Reality is probably that we will all be surprised (unless as the Victorians believed…God really is an Englishman (and Church of England at that)!

North

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I converted from the Episcopal Church (I was one for five years, though I was raised Baptist) simply because I became friends with group of Carmelite monks and nuns in Colorado and just sort of eased over. I got to know more about the Church, became more and more convinced of her claims about herself and Bob’s your uncle…I was a Catholic. At the time, it was not so much an angry rejection as a sad farewell. It’s odd, because when I was a Baptist at Baylor University, they had Thomas Howard, the C.S. Lewis scholar, come and speak at Forum. He was an Anglican who had been raised Evangelical. Because of his talk, in which he mentioned something about catching a vision of the Majesty of God, I started to explore more liturgical worship. When I swam the Tiber, I was delightedly surprised to find that Dr. Howard had done so ahead of me!

Now, of course, I grieve for what’s going on in the Anglican Communion. If there’s a bright star, perhaps it’s that many will find their way home to the old Mother Church. As it is, it’s bound to split. The liberal progressives can’t help, but keep on the path they’re treading. It’s astonishing to me to listen to this woman “bishop” they’ve made Presiding Bishop (she’s the “bishop” of Nevada, where I live. She’s been a bishop for four years in a state, a STATE, mind you, where there’s something less than five thousand Episcopalians, the same number that show up for three-quarters of my parish’s weekend masses…tell me there wasn’t an agenda in HER election). She keeps saying and this is a paraphrase, but not far off,“This stuff about human sexuality is something we shouldn’t allow ourselves to be hung up on at the expense of being about the REAL business of the Gospels” (and the REAL business of the Gospels seems to somehow be wound up in something called “Millenium” goals and the UN, if I recall correctly). I always want to know if it’s so unimportant, then why can’t they simply do what the Bible says and hew to what the Church has historically and traditionally hewed to. I also want to know when doctrine, dogma, truth, the Gospel, became secondary to being “relevant.” And the orthodox Anglicans can’t seem to shake her and Frank Griswold, her predecessor, from that patently absurd stance, that orthodoxy and orthopraxy don’t necessarily go hand-in-hand. The two of them sail blithely on into the morass. One good thing about the coming schism in the Anglican communion. I predict that more and more will see the need for a final authority, an office at which the buck stops.

 

[RevDrNorth]

I converted from the Episcopal Church (I was one for five years, though I was raised Baptist) simply because I became friends with group of Carmelite monks and nuns in Colorado and just sort of eased over. I got to know more about the Church, became more and more convinced of her claims about herself and Bob’s your uncle…I was a Catholic. At the time, it was not so much an angry rejection as a sad farewell. It’s odd, because when I was a Baptist at Baylor University, they had Thomas Howard, the C.S. Lewis scholar, come and speak at Forum. He was an Anglican who had been raised Evangelical. Because of his talk, in which he mentioned something about catching a vision of the Majesty of God, I started to explore more liturgical worship. When I swam the Tiber, I was delightedly surprised to find that Dr. Howard had done so ahead of me!

Now, of course, I grieve for what’s going on in the Anglican Communion. If there’s a bright star, perhaps it’s that many will find their way home to the old Mother Church. As it is, it’s bound to split. The liberal progressives can’t help, but keep on the path they’re treading. It’s astonishing to me to listen to this woman “bishop” they’ve made Presiding Bishop (she’s the “bishop” of Nevada, where I live. She’s been a bishop for four years in a state, a STATE, mind you, where there’s something less than five thousand Episcopalians, the same number that show up for three-quarters of my parish’s weekend masses…tell me there wasn’t an agenda in HER election). She keeps saying and this is a paraphrase, but not far off,“This stuff about human sexuality is something we shouldn’t allow ourselves to be hung up on at the expense of being about the REAL business of the Gospels” (and the REAL business of the Gospels seems to somehow be wound up in something called “Millenium” goals and the UN, if I recall correctly). I always want to know if it’s so unimportant, then why can’t they simply do what the Bible says and hew to what the Church has historically and traditionally hewed to. I also want to know when doctrine, dogma, truth, the Gospel, became secondary to being “relevant.” And the orthodox Anglicans can’t seem to shake her and Frank Griswold, her predecessor, from that patently absurd stance, that orthodoxy and orthopraxy don’t necessarily go hand-in-hand. The two of them sail blithely on into the morass. One good thing about the coming schism in the Anglican communion. I predict that more and more will see the need for a final authority, an office at which the buck stops.

Very good analysis! Your quote is one of her milder. Her view of God (Trinity) is also very… very liberal.

Most conservatives cannot have the divorce soon enough. What they suspect will happen is that at Lambeth (2008) the Episcopal Church will be demoted to “associate status” and the conservative Episcopalians who are already aligning themselves will be come THE Anglican Church in America. The ECUSA with its endowment will continue on dying a slow death of irrelvance. Who knows. Then there is Bishop Akinola who seems to be psotiioning homself to realign the church towards the gloab south andhas bascially threatened Canterbury if it does not tow a conservative line.

No doubt that Schori’s election was political and a strong thumbing of the nose at the Anglican Communion. ECUSA can oftenbe quite intellectually snobby. Bishop Spong (to the left of Liberal) a strong adovcate for racial equality (rightly so) was very demeaning to African’s when they compalined a few years ago about the direction that ECUSA was taking. He implied that the African Bishops were backwards and anti intellectual. He then refused to apologize or be humble. It is that kind of attitude and herectical steps that is angering the rest of the Communion about ECUSA (and the Canadian Anglican Church).

North

 

[chris_molter]

A good resource for Anglicans/Episcopalians wanting to learn about Catholicism from other Anglican converts would be Al Kimel’s “Pontifications” (www.catholica.pontifications.net)). His journey from an Episcopal minister to a Catholic Priest-to-be is documented very well along with a good number of serious discussions between folks of various traditions.

I converted because I became convinced that the Catholic Church (that is, the churches in communion with the See of Peter) is exactly what she claims to be. The Church founded by Christ by the authority given to Peter and the Apostles with authority to teach authoritatively (infallibly) and protected from dogmatic error by the Holy Spirit (the gates of hell shall not prevail, etc).

Once you accept that the Church MIGHT be what she says, and start looking at the scriptures, councils, the writings of the Fathers, and the doctrines and teachings of the Church, it all falls into place.

More specifically, I couldn’t deal with the fact that the Anglican communion, while claiming to be Catholic, did not (could not!) really teach anything authoritatively. Everything was subject to personal interpretation, majority vote, or “cultural context”. The election of Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger as Pope helped cement the deal for me.

While it’s been very difficult adjusting from a reverent high church Anglican liturgy to the more… um… “informal” liturgy in most of my local Catholic parishes, I’ve found the traditional Latin Mass to be very fulfilling, spiritually; and I’m fortunate to have local indult Masses so I don’t have the same temptation to move towards the plethora of Trad splinter groups (I just moved OUT of protestantism, I’m not looking to go back!!). Anyway, the best advice I can give a fellow Anglican looking at Catholic doctrines that are difficult is to read and research WHY the Church teaches that. the Church teaches things for a reason! Keep praying and seeking answers.

 

[jbuck919]

If I remember correctly, Leo XIII actually wanted to find a reason to declare Anglican orders valid. After much study, he just couldn’t see his way around what he considered to be the break in the succession because of a failure of intent. And it was all part of the protestantizing tendency of the (originaly only schismatic) English church because of the influence of clerics who in turn had been influenced by the continental “reformers.”

BTW George V of English was indeed a first cousin of Nicholas the II and Kaiser WIlhlelm, but in two different ways. George and Wilhelm were both grandchildren of Queen Victoria. George and Nicholas were the sons of mother who were sisters. So Nicholas was not a first cousin of Wilhelm, but he was related to Queen Victoria in a more remote way. (Also, Wilhelm, George and Tsaritsa Alexandra were all grandchildren of Victoria.) Hope this doesn’t change the topic, but someone did bring it up and got it slightly wrong.