Anglican Holy Orders

[grandfather]

grandfather,

While I tend to agree about the issue of the Episcopal Church and the Cof E dying, Anglicanism is actually vibrant and growing. It is growing by leaps and bounds among conservative Anglicans in the global south. There they are orthodox, on fire for Christ and on the move. This is why they sponsored Anglican Communion groups in the US and Canada.

Anglicanism will not likely die by a long short but the days of being centered in Canterbury are likely coming to an end. Anglicanism will be centered in Africa and elsewhere in the southern hemisphere.

Let’s think about this. The Anglican Church is the Church of the Angles, the English. It separated from the Universal Church to become a national church and so King Henry could rid himself of Catherine of Aragon and change wives several times, and do some of them in, under the ruse of wanting a male heir. The pope said no, so we have Anglicanism. That is the long and short of it.

England built an empire that dominated large portions of the globe for the glory of the queen or king, God save them, and spread its church around the world. Now the Church of England has gone as crazy as Henry and there are some vestiges or a semblance of sanity remaining in places like Africa. So Anglicanism is no longer a national church, the Church of England, but continues outside of England while calling itself Anglican, of the English.

The center or trunk of Anglicanism is not Rome. It is Canterbury, God save the queen, and the bishop residing there. He is the guy in the hotseat. His photo, eyebrows and deer in the headlights gaze is in the press almost daily. He is trying to hold the lid on the fragmenting disintegrating mess by marrying irreconcilable contradictions within his flock.

All the while these people claim to be Catholic with a big C. At the birth of their cleaving from Rome they martyred saints and divorced themselves from the Catholic Church, abhoring all that is Catholic, insisting they were English and their Church was theirs.

In case there is some confusion about who is Cathoilic, me or you, start with the one person we know is Catholic, the Pope of Rome. Like him or not he defines who and what is Catholic.

He says Anglican orders are invalid. English bishops of any age, the ones who stood by as their queen head of their church sent Catholic priests to be drawn and quartered while her hedge priests looked benignly on, can claim otherwise, but the pope makes the rules for Catholics and defines what is Catholic, not English royalty or their appointed high churchmen, henchmen, posing as bishops of the realm.

King Henry who declared himself head of the Church in England could change wives numerous times, but he and his progeny have no claim on ecclesial legitimacy. They can only make believe and pose. Their successors are nothing more than that. Their fathers were posers and that is their fate, all they can rise to become. Their ecclesial communion unravels before their eyes and they persist in their sham.

At least some of them are now headed home to Rome. Thank God for that.

Look at you profile. You wrote it. You say you are a Protestant. That is your definition of yourself. That means you are not Catholic. That is your choice. Be as liturgical as you wish.

The door is always open.

Saint Edmund Campion, pray for us.

 

[RevDrNorth]

I put Protestant so as not to cause confusion.

What you said does nothing to change the fact that Anglicanism is growing in the global south where it is conservative. Anglicans are NOT going away but growing whether you enjoy the fact or not. The CofE may diminish as may the TEC.

Frankly, I once saw a statistic that what has kept the Roman Catholic church growing in the US is immigration. Probably stands to reason as I have met many…many…many ex Roman Catholics who now go to non Roman Catholic Churches.

Finally, I would be careful about judging “Protestants”. To some Orthodox, the RCC is the first Protestant Church and the pope the first Protestant since the EO consider the RCC to be schismatics who invented new dogmas. Protestants who stand solidly on the word of God for authority do not have anything to be ashamed of if it is done in charity.

 

[Justy90]

The deficiency of intention and of form of the Anglican ordination rites. They changed the sacrament.

Read about the ***Apostolicae Curae.

http://mgwriters.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/episcopal-bishop-katharine-jefferts.jpg***

Oh gosh. How ignorant are you to paint all Anglicans as Episcopalian? Better go back to religion class my freind. You obviously failed miserably!

 

[jay29]

Oh gosh. How ignorant are you to paint all Anglicans as Episcopalian? Better go back to religion class my freind. You obviously failed miserably!

Proves how divided the Anglican communion is.

Ummm…what church just voted to allow female bishops? The Anglican church is slightly slower than the episcopal. After all the episcopal church is the child of the anglican church.

 

[grandfather]

I put Protestant so as not to cause confusion.

Exactly!

 

[imkingdad]

.

Is anyone disputing this?

Or indeed this! But, thank you!

Why do you bring Lutherans in to the argument? Character assassination?
Lutherans were the first protestants, or so I’m told, but when I read literature from the patriarchate of Jerusalem, the Oldest Christian Diocese, the Birth Place of Christendom, they refer to Rome as either papists or the protestants!

Anglican orders go back in to the beginning of Church history, Queen Eliza, in a letter to the apostate bishops you mentioned above, said they came from S.Joseph of Arimathea. I do not know and I do not know that you have any more information! It is simply wishful thinking.
Now the interesting thing is who condemned them, why the pope who had an axe to grind, can he be trusted? Certainly some of his officials were of doubtful honesty!

Well it is certainly a ghastly and unedifying tale. How-and-ever, coming from a sect whose leadership includes a pope who slept with his own mother, I should have thought that you would, if not hide the mishap, at least let it lie.

Is it a question then of paedophiles in Boston for Romans or homosexuals for Anglicans?
There’s non so blind as them as cannot see, my old neighbour used to say. He could have been talking about you friends!

---

Your overwhelming Ignorance of what the Catholic Church teaches has been made
manifestly clear through your diatribes in here.

Your lack of historical insights are directly devolved from your inculcation of the Anglican perspectives. Please take you platitudes & derisive commentary back to an Anglican Blog where they will certainly be better received. They’ll still be just as wrong but at least you’ll have someone that will side with your insipid rantings.

 

[luckyfredsdad]

Between 1533 and 1534. It was a little thing called the “English Reformation,” which resulted in great upheaval at the time. Ever wonder why John Paul II didn’t appoint Rowan Williams upon George Carey’s retirement.

Why is it the English Reformation 1533/34?
The English Reformtion is still going on, what do you think is the trouble today? Rome had a splendidly Catholic attitude towards her opponents, real or imagined! The Auto-Da-Fe, the whip, the galleys and just plain downright murder such as the S. Bartholomew Massacre in 1570. It took the best of 200 yrs to bring the French reformers to boot. All with mental and physical cruelty, or chiefly!
But in England, the Church that you jeer at so easily used the tactics of the Cross, they took their opponents in to the Church and sought to teach them the faith! It didn’t work, we had Roman seperatists on one side and protestant ones on the other!
You should drop thee fantasies and read up your history!

 

[luckyfredsdad]

=imkingdad;599564Your overwhelming Ignorance of what the Catholic Church teaches has been made
manifestly clear through your diatribes in here.

Friend, what do you know about the Catholic Church?

You are a member of the biggest religious sect on earth, a catholic one,perhaps, but never-the-less, a sect! It would behove you to study and meditate on the teachings of the early church and the fathers ,then perhaps you would,'t be in such an embarrassing position!

 

[luckyfredsdad]

Exactly!

You use the term Protestant quite easily friend! Which is alright if you use it in the context it is meant for. Classicly, protestants are lutherans, according to my Funk and Wagner! Later individuals in England used the termin opposition to the Papacy’s political aims and their interference in English politics.
When William of Orange took the throne from a Romanist King, James 11nd, aided by papal money, I might say, he asked the Anglican Synod, to use the term to encourage the Dutch Calvinists. The Anglicans refused, even though Orange had an army of Dutch Soldiers in the Country. A hundred years later the Roman Church in England was writing to Parliament and declaring themselves “Dissenting Protestant Catholics,” or some such term! [St.papers,Lords.1791.]
It always surprises me how easy circumstances alter cases, in Romanist arguments! They have little or no consistency!

 

[luckyfredsdad]

Let’s think about this. The Anglican Church is the Church of the Angles, the English. .

The Anglican Church, is a manifestation of the Catholic Faith in England! Its genesis was in the upper room in Jerusalem! According to Lingard, one of the few honest historians, Rome, can lay claim to, Aristobulous, a friend of S.Pauls,was first Bishop to the Britons. S. Dorotheus, the Bishop of Tyre [AD 303.] also supports this claim and tells us also [Synopsis de Apostol,Synops 9.] that S.Simon Zelotes was martyred here also.
The Church was referred to as the Celtic Church in the beginning, because the majority of the people were,[and still are, as far as I am aware,] of celtic extraction. English didn’t come in for some 700 yrs, when the political ascendency was won by that group. The Anglican Church was first called thus, in 750 AD, by Bede, The Church of the English. In 1215 at Runnymede the term was again used and all through the middle ages it was written, "Sainte Eglise Angleterre’, when the Church was in correspondence with the Church on the continent!
The term Anglican became the norm in 1570 after the schism of the pope’s followers, when the papacy interfered in English politics and was rejected . he thus sulked and called out his followers to join the New Church of Trent, causing a break in the Seamless Robe of Christ!
The schismatics were known as Romanists, or Roman whilst the traditional Catholics were known as Anglicans.

The center or trunk of Anglicanism is not Rome. It is Canterbury, God save the queen, and the bishop residing there. He is the guy in the hotseat. His photo, eyebrows and deer in the headlights gaze is in the press almost daily. He is trying to hold the lid on the fragmenting disintegrating mess by marrying irreconcilable contradictions within his flock.

Anglicanism, being Catholicity with an English Face is that group which holds to the catholic faith, the Deposit, as they do say! Canterbury doesn’t do that, it seems to me! He and others like him are Neo Anglicans!
The centre trunk of Anglicanism is definitly not Rome, we have some belief in common! Rome is simply the Patriarch of the West with a title of honour and place. It is,’ reported,’ that when S.Augustine of Canterbury met the British Bishops, early after his arrival here, they answered him,
" Be it known and declared that we all , individually and collectively, are in all humility prepared to defer to the Church of God and to the Bishop of Rome and to every sincere and godly christian, so far as to love everyone as far as his degree, in perfect charity and to assist them all by word and in deed in becoming the Children of God. But as for any other obedience, we know of none that he , whom you called the pope, or Bishop of Bishops can demand. The deference we have mentioned we are ready to pay to him as to every other Christian, but in all other respects our obedience is due to the Bishop of Caerleon, who alone is under God our ruler to keep us right in the way of salvation". [Spelman.Concilia./Haddan & Stubbs. Vol.1. p122.]

All the while these people claim to be Catholic with a big C. At the birth of their cleaving from Rome they martyred saints and divorced themselves from the Catholic Church, abhoring all that is Catholic, insisting they were English and their Church was theirs.

Tell me, what is the difference in calling yourself a ROMAN CATHOLIC or describing yourself an an Anglican?
Again, it’s circumstancees altering cases.
As for ‘martyring saints’? What about those unfortunates who were martyred under Queen Mary?
By the way, most of those whom you refer to as saints were killed not for any belief they held from the Catholic Church! They died,for the most part, for the Pope’s political policies. He was quite willing they should suffer so he could control the English Government.

In case there is some confusion about who is Cathoilic, me or you, start with the one person we know is Catholic, the Pope of Rome. Like him or not he defines who and what is Catholic.

I like that “The Pope of Rome”?

For the first four centuries the Pope of Rome was no more than the Civil Servant in charge of a dep’t of state for the Roman Emperor!
He says Anglican orders are invalid.? He made a right pigs ear of the matter, standing on his dignity whilst other people prolonged the schism. The Bishop of Sarum, John, who wrote the Anglican Answer, made the pope, his advisors and the Roman Church, look foolish with their lack of knowledge.

English bishops of any age, the ones who stood by as their queen head of their church sent Catholic priests to be drawn and quartered while her hedge priests looked benignly on, can claim otherwise, but the pope makes the rules for Catholics and defines what is Catholic, not English royalty or their appointed high churchmen, henchmen, posing as bishops of the realm.

I have already pointed out that the Roman priests were treated quite well under the circumstances! They were left alone if they were in service under Mary Tudor. It was only the new Continental, followers of Trent, who suffered because the pope issued a fatwa against Elizabeth and told people to withdraw their allegiance, which under the circumstances meant death for Elizabeth. Her mother and cousin, Ann and Jane could have told her quite easily. The new Roman priests were given a fortnight to clear off and a suspension if the weather was inclement. Even then they could stay if they answered some questions,as to their intentions and political attitude!
Those that died were to daft to come in out of the rain.

 

[grandfather]

The Anglican Church, is a manifestation of the Catholic Faith in England! Its genesis was in the upper room in Jerusalem! According to Lingard, one of the few honest historians, Rome, can lay claim to, Aristobulous, a friend of S.Pauls,was first Bishop to the Britons. S. Dorotheus, the Bishop of Tyre [AD 303.] also supports this claim and tells us also [Synopsis de Apostol,Synops 9.] that S.Simon Zelotes was martyred here also.
The Church was referred to as the Celtic Church in the beginning, because the majority of the people were,[and still are, as far as I am aware,] of celtic extraction.

 

[Thing]

luckyfredsdad:

Those that died were to daft to come in out of the rain.

One of thse daft people was my relative. A Catholic priest. He was arrested, imprisoned. Sentenced to death for no crime. Dragged on the ground behind horses through the streets to Tyburn through mobs of gouls who spat and hit at him, jeering. There he was hanged but cut down before he was dead. While he was still alive they bound him and cut open his abdomen and pulled out his intestines but left them still attached to his body when they trew his intestines into a fire. He could watch them burn and feel them burning. They beheaded him then. And chopped his body into four quarters and boiled eachh quarter in oil. His head they placed on a spike and the quarters of his body they hung up here and there.
But he knew he would die like this if he was caught, he was a Catholic priest and his job was to tend to his Catholic friends wherever he found them. If you mean he was too daft to come in out of the rain he would dissagree with you I think. He would not follow your logic of abandoning his friends nor would he abandon his faith, in the face of danger.
You may keep your Anglican Church.

 

[luckyfredsdad]

luckyfredsdad;5996150:

The majority today are clearly African. Most don’t speak your king’s mother tongue.

What language my co-religionists speak amongst themselves is not my business. I doubt Christ or any of His apostles would have understood the tongues spoken at that time either! Unless aided by the Holy Ghost!
We have people from the sub continent of India, South Africa, and a host of others.personally, I am quite proud to be one of them! They are people of character and conscience

Anglicans are Catohlics and Catholics are something else. Makes perfect sense. The billion members of the Universal Church are not true Catholics. The Anglicans are. Keep drinking the koolaid.

You are accusing me of things I never said or suggested? Typical !

The term Roman Catholic was coined by Anglicans as a perjorative, kind of like Yankee Doodle.

Perhaps you know something I don’t about this question. I shouldn’t think so by your effort up to this moment.

But the difference is one group is part of Henry’s nonsense and the other is the Church. One group’s head is the queen and a royal family, the other is the pope of Rome. I watched Charles take his oath of office as Prince of Wales (if I recall what he was prince of) in some glorious cathedral and in it he said he was the “only proper object of earthly worship”. The place was full of Anglican bishops and one adminsitered the oath, or crowning. Imagine calling this royal buffoon my only proper object of earthly worship. High Church or High Circus, clowns all.

First of all, as I have already explained to you,[It is like having a dialogue with the deaf and blind!] I am not of the Communion of Canterbury and for your further information neither am I a Royalist. Either way, the State had very little (name removed by moderator)ut in to the Church. Regarding Henry! He was given the title of head of the Church, but that was tempered with the caviat,“as far as the Law of Christ allows”. This was completely in line with catholic teaching all through the ages. I refer to the Roman Emperors and their use of the pope as a Civil Servant! It was believed in Rome and the rest of the Christian World, East and West.
Cardinal Pole in his book, [Lib.Con. p.370/371] states the position of the princes at that time 1545, in the catholic World when he says,
**"they too are the Vicars of Christ…The Emperor is in a special sense ,He is the regal head of the Church as the Pontiff is the Sacerdotal Head.Both are Vicars of Christ …The Emperor is indeed like Christ King of Kings and in a general Council he has those parts exactly which Christ as their Lord, Master and King discharged towards His Apostles!"He goes on to say,“He must protect the council as Christ did His Apostles…He must control the disputes of the Council as Christ controlled the contentions of His Apostles…”
**

They were accused of the crime of treason for keeping the Catholic faith alive in a place where today it remains alive and growing while Anglicanism shrivels and dies. If political control over your king means regulating marriage then I guess that justifies the king making himself the head of church in his realm.

You mention marriage, obviously the popes didn’t believe in the sanctity of marriage. At least they didn’t practice it did they, neither did they allow it for their clergy! Though this didn’t prevent various ,‘Holy,’ fathers from procreating and charging the costs to the Church! Obviously that is where your modern bishops get their ideas from!

For the first four centuries popes were martyred by pagan emperors. Go back to your koolaid.

Interestingly, some months ago an Orthodox Bishop claimed that the Roman Church for the first hundred years was Greek Speaking and the papacy was filled by Greeks! Which I can believe!

 

[luckyfredsdad]

One of thse daft people was my relative. A Catholic priest. He was arrested, imprisoned. Sentenced to death for no crime. Dragged on the ground behind horses through the streets to Tyburn through mobs of gouls who spat and hit at him, jeering. There he was hanged but cut down before he was dead. While he was still alive they bound him and cut open his abdomen and pulled out his intestines but left them still attached to his body when they trew his intestines into a fire. He could watch them burn and feel them burning. They beheaded him then. And chopped his body into four quarters and boiled eachh quarter in oil. His head they placed on a spike and the quarters of his body they hung up here and there.
But he knew he would die like this if he was caught, he was a Catholic priest and his job was to tend to his Catholic friends wherever he found them. If you mean he was too daft to come in out of the rain he would dissagree with you I think. He would not follow your logic of abandoning his friends nor would he abandon his faith, in the face of danger.
You may keep your Anglican Church.

He died for the political aspirations of the pope! Blame him!

 

[Thing]

He died for the political aspirations of the pope! Blame him!

He died for his friends and for his Faith. The easy thing would have been to roll over under pressure. I would not follow anyone who has not the courage of his convictions.

 

[luckyfredsdad]

He died for his friends and for his Faith. The easy thing would have been to roll over under pressure. I would not follow anyone who has not the courage of his convictions.

Brave man, you should be proud of him. He could have had a better cause though than the Pope’s political aspirations!

 

[ralphinal]

Wasn’t there also an issue with an oath that was taken later? Not the one that Thomas Moore died because of, but a different one?

 

[Justy90]

Proves how divided the Anglican communion is.

Ummm…what church just voted to allow female bishops? The Anglican church is slightly slower than the episcopal. After all the episcopal church is the child of the anglican church.

You are embarrasing yourself here. Get some knowledge of what you are talking about before speaking please.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Just when and where did this happen? You’re making it up!

Is it not rather arrogant for a member of a catholic sect,to decide what the Catholic and Apostolic Church should either do or not do?

Gabriel of 12;

Need not give you a history lesson here, the reality is where does the Anglican Church stand with the Pope? Is she in full communion with the Pope or not today? If you check reality the Anglican is not in full communion with the Chair of Peter present day Pope, you thank your Anglican King who placed himself above the Church.

There is no need to vent your negative innuendos about the Catholic Church. For example there is no need to introduce new invented accusations about the Catholic church by labeling the body of Jesus Christ as a “sect”. The decisions of the Catholic church are God given authority, from Jesus himself, placed these Keys of authority and the office of binding and loosing upon His Kingdom on earth to Peter and his apostles. King Henry disobeyed the authority of Peter and was given an annulment by his own church and by his own authority.

It needs to be mentioned here that at one time King Henry VIII was a great defender of the Catholic Church when he was in full communion with the Pope. I believe because the Anglican priests were threatened by death, torture, and or confiscation of property if the Bishops and priests disobeyed King Henry, that the Catholic Pope can have leniency and made possible for Anglican Priests and Bishops back into full communion with Peter’s Chair and Apostolic succession. Including the 2000 year old understanding of “universal” term “Catholic” to define the body of Jesus Christ, not a “Sect” which becomes a heretical term if used by catholics.

In summary, I have responded earlier to the OP about valid Anglican Holy Orders, from King Henry’s time, you apparently have many posters here at a disadvantage when you confuse the timeline of the events from history to today’s status of the Anglican Church. Please make the distinction. It may save you alot of needless anxiety.

Peace be with you

 

[Usbek_de_Perse]

I will make one rhetorical observation and then shut up.

Roman Catholics on this forum, by and large, follow the magisterium, and thus defend the position of the RC church on this subject. If the magisterium’s position on this subject were different, they would defend that.

Anglicans of all stripes defend Anglican orders on the basis of continuity of intent, and sometimes by insisting that we don’t really know what early church ordination rites were, and what the intent was at that time, so why be fickle on this point?

So, really, each side is arguing from its own set of data. It is like the many arguments that went on for years between opponents and supporters of evolution. One group argued from the Bible and theology, while the other group argued from the incomplete scientific record. There was no point of reference that they could agree on.

More interesting is the recent gift of a pectoral cross with an amethyst stone (not the first such gift) to the Archbishop of Canterbury. At one point, John Allen, a Catholic journalist, asked Cormac O’Connor, former Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster, what these gifts meant, after all, one of the pectoral crosses was from the same lot as a pectoral cross given by the pope to every bishop in the world. O’Connor responded that it meant “more than nothing”.

So what is that more than nothing?

I have met RC priests and lay leaders who candidly think that the Anglican orders are valid and that the issue was one of inter-church politics.