Anglican Issues with the Catholic Church

[martinporres]

I have a friend who is very pious. He attends mass with me regularly. He believes in the Real Presence. He has been to confession at his own church. He practices traditional catholic devotions with his young family and his small church.

Only thing that really separates us is his being an Anglican, or Anglo-Catholic, as he usually says.

He’s so devout, that he intends to go to seminary and become an Episcopal/Anglican priest. He’s already picked the seminary (an Episcopal one, but one that’s satisfactory to him) and knows it’ll be either this fall or next fall. He knows the Catholic Church’s position on Anglican orders.

We haven’t yet talked about why he’s not actually a Catholic (we’ve hinted at the conversation, but as you can imagine, it’s probably something neither of us want to bring up). My dark and shamefully un-Christian suspicion is that he really wants to be a priest, and knows that he can’t do that in the Catholic Church unless he has a congregation of faithful to bring to Rome. This is a shameful thought to me because he would have to be a sick sort of person to knowingly subject himself to invalid orders with a predetermined notion to swim the Tiber later; I believe he’s not that type of person, but his adherence and admiration of Tradition and the Magisterium while being an outsider makes me think these things. And I don’t wish to have these thoughts about such a good and pious man.

Leaving aside terminology wars, please (I do understand Anglo-Catholics believe they are part of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church), I wanted to know if anyone here has an understanding of why these particular Anglo-Catholics are not yet Catholics in the fullest sense. I welcome particularly thoughts from our Anglican friends on this board as well as any former Anglicans who are now fully in communion with Rome (either in a typical rite or as Anglican Use Latins).

In Christ,
mp

 

[GKC]

I have a friend who is very pious. He attends mass with me regularly. He believes in the Real Presence. He has been to confession at his own church. He practices traditional catholic devotions with his young family and his small church.

Only thing that really separates us is his being an Anglican, or Anglo-Catholic, as he usually says.

He’s so devout, that he intends to go to seminary and become an Episcopal/Anglican priest. He’s already picked the seminary (an Episcopal one, but one that’s satisfactory to him) and knows it’ll be either this fall or next fall. He knows the Catholic Church’s position on Anglican orders.

We haven’t yet talked about why he’s not actually a Catholic (we’ve hinted at the conversation, but as you can imagine, it’s probably something neither of us want to bring up). My dark and shamefully un-Christian suspicion is that he really wants to be a priest, and knows that he can’t do that in the Catholic Church unless he has a congregation of faithful to bring to Rome. This is a shameful thought to me because he would have to be a sick sort of person to knowingly subject himself to invalid orders with a predetermined notion to swim the Tiber later; I believe he’s not that type of person, but his adherence and admiration of Tradition and the Magisterium while being an outsider makes me think these things. And I don’t wish to have these thoughts about such a good and pious man.

Leaving aside terminology wars, please (I do understand Anglo-Catholics believe they are part of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church), I wanted to know if anyone here has an understanding of why these particular Anglo-Catholics are not yet Catholics in the fullest sense. I welcome particularly thoughts from our Anglican friends on this board as well as any former Anglicans who are now fully in communion with Rome (either in a typical rite or as Anglican Use Latins).

In Christ,
mp

It is often a case of the nature of the understanding of the Papacy.
Anglo-Catholics usually will hold to a belief that the Pope is primus inter pares, and thus does not possess universal ordinary authority. Or a personal charism of infallibility. Of course, if your suspicions were correct, that would not be true of him. Personally, I have never met anyone who had the sort of idea that you suggest.

Given the nature of the official Anglican Communion these days, and the condition of the Episcopal Church in particular, your friend is going to have to walk a tightrope to believe that he remains part of the Catholic faith, when he is part of a communion that places sacerdotal garments of fermales, and declares them priests, among other things .

Did he say which seminary he has selected? Nashotah House, perhaps?

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus

 

[martinporres]

Did he say which seminary he has selected? Nashotah House, perhaps?

Sounds familiar. If that’s a relatively orthodox seminary within TEC then it’s probably the one.

 

[GKC]

Sounds familiar. If that’s a relatively orthodox seminary within TEC then it’s probably the one.

It’s not a good as it was, but, within the Episcopal church, it’s as good as it gets.

GKC

 

[MarkBrown]

Sounds familiar. If that’s a relatively orthodox seminary within TEC then it’s probably the one.

As GKC said about as good as it gets. I have Anglican friends and know some retire TEC priests. If your friend is conservative, and it sound as he is, if he holds to the Christian faith and sounds as if he does…he will have an extremely hard time getting ordained in the TEC. The TEC seminary will be a challenge.

If he does not want to go to Rome, he should look at some continuing Anglican juristications such as the ACC or seperated but not in communion with Canterbury Anglicans such as the REC. Or find an Anglican church under oversight from a Bishop from the southern hemisphere. The orthodox in the TEC, if they have not already left are starting to be inhibited by the Bishops and the PB, Mrs Schorri. I think central Flordia’s Bishop just inhibited 22 priest this week alone. If the report from Apostasy.com is correct. This site is run by mostly ACC laity and priests. Also has a list by city and state of orthodox Anglican churches they know about.

You friend will be in my prayers as are all who seek to serve the Lord.

 

[brotherhrolf]

Would I be wrong in saying that perhaps he needs to look at 16th century English history?

 

[GKC]

As GKC said about as good as it gets. I have Anglican friends and know some retire TEC priests. If your friend is conservative, and it sound as he is, if he holds to the Christian faith and sounds as if he does…he will have an extremely hard time getting ordained in the TEC. The TEC seminary will be a challenge.

If he does not want to go to Rome, he should look at some continuing Anglican juristications such as the ACC or seperated but not in communion with Canterbury Anglicans such as the REC. Or find an Anglican church under oversight from a Bishop from the southern hemisphere. The orthodox in the TEC, if they have not already left are starting to be inhibited by the Bishops and the PB, Mrs Schorri. I think central Flordia’s Bishop just inhibited 22 priest this week alone. If the report from Apostasy.com is correct. This site is run by mostly ACC laity and priests. Also has a list by city and state of orthodox Anglican churches they know about.

You friend will be in my prayers as are all who seek to serve the Lord.

I endorse this post.

GKC

 

[GKC]

Would I be wrong in saying that perhaps he needs to look at 16th century English history?

I endorse this post, too.

I think everyone should look into 16th century English history. Helps understand what was going on. In fact, I’d recommend going back to around the 13th century, and moving forward.

GKC

 

[1234]

As GKC said about as good as it gets. I have Anglican friends and know some retire TEC priests. If your friend is conservative, and it sound as he is, if he holds to the Christian faith and sounds as if he does…he will have an extremely hard time getting ordained in the TEC. The TEC seminary will be a challenge.

If he does not want to go to Rome, he should look at some continuing Anglican juristications such as the ACC or seperated but not in communion with Canterbury Anglicans such as the REC. Or find an Anglican church under oversight from a Bishop from the southern hemisphere. The orthodox in the TEC, if they have not already left are starting to be inhibited by the Bishops and the PB, Mrs Schorri. I think central Flordia’s Bishop just inhibited 22 priest this week alone. If the report from Apostasy.com is correct. This site is run by mostly ACC laity and priests. Also has a list by city and state of orthodox Anglican churches they know about.

You friend will be in my prayers as are all who seek to serve the Lord.

 

[1234]

1234:
Presiding Bishop Schori.

Refer to her by her proper title (and spelling).

 

[chris_molter]

I think central Flordia’s Bishop just inhibited 22 priest this week alone.

woah! Are you sure about that? I’m in Central FL and I haven’t heard anything about Bp Howe doing that. I’d believe it instantly if you’d said Bp Howard in the Diocese of Florida, but I have a hard time buying +Howe doing it. Where’d you get the info??

 

[MarkBrown]

Chris,

I said I think…well I now know, as reported by virtueonline and Apostasy it was the Bishop of the Diocese of Florida. Covering N. Florida (Tallahassee and Jacksonville). Bishop Howard, not Howe.

Virtue on line has a copy of the documents. Appears that some of the priest left at least 6 months earlier for oversight by other Bishops, such as CANA etc.

Also from these sites, appears the night of the long knives has started as I see 6 active and retired Bishops have been inhibited by the pb. Active are Duncan, Schofield and Iker. Though Schofield and Diocese have already been under the oversight of ArchBishop of the Southern Cone. The retired are from OK, VA and MA.

Mark

 

[MarkBrown]

Presiding Bishop Schori.

Refer to her by her proper title (and spelling).

HI!

PB is short for Presiding Bishop.
Mrs. is the title of a married woman.
So she was referred to by her titles. Proper is debatable on
the first one.

Sorry for the spelling error, hit the r one too many times.

Only rule broken was spelling, thanks for pointing it out.

 

[1234]

HI!

PB is short for Presiding Bishop.
Mrs. is the title of a married woman.
So she was referred to by her titles. Proper is debatable on
the first one.

Sorry for the spelling error, hit the r one too many times.

Only rule broken was spelling, thanks for pointing it out.

Bishops are usually referred to as ‘bishop’ or some sort of honorific.

A male married bishop isn’t referred to as “Mr.”, so a female married bishop shouldn’t be referred to as “Mrs.”

Male married physicians are referred to as “Dr.”

Female married physicians are referred to as “Dr.”

etc…

 

[chris_molter]

Chris,

I said I think…well I now know, as reported by virtueonline and Apostasy it was the Bishop of the Diocese of Florida. Covering N. Florida (Tallahassee and Jacksonville). Bishop Howard, not Howe.

whew… ok… that makes sense. That just didn’t seem like something Bp Howe would have done. Bp Howard OTOH… Let’s just say I’m not at all surprised.

 

[mchale]

Bishops are usually referred to as ‘bishop’ or some sort of honorific.

A male married bishop isn’t referred to as “Mr.”, so a female married bishop shouldn’t be referred to as “Mrs.”

Male married physicians are referred to as “Dr.”

Female married physicians are referred to as “Dr.”

etc…

Actually, a lot has to do with social context. I have seen priests referred to as both Father (or Reverend) and Doctor (if they have a doctorate). Likewise, I have seen M.D.s referred to as Mr. and Mrs. in some social settings.

That being said, this is probably not one of the contexts where that would be an issue.

–
Bill

 

[GKC]

Actually, a lot has to do with social context. I have seen priests referred to as both Father (or Reverend) and Doctor (if they have a doctorate). Likewise, I have seen M.D.s referred to as Mr. and Mrs. in some social settings.

That being said, this is probably not one of the contexts where that would be an issue.

–
Bill

The context in which it does occur is with respect to whether the gracious Katherine is proper matter to receive the sacrament of consecration. Many Anglicans say “nay”. All other issues aside, all properly instructed RCs agree on that.

GKC.

 

[The_Dweller]

Presiding Bishop Schori.

Refer to her by her proper title (and spelling).

I don’t mean for this to sound harsh, but why should anyone refer to a heretic by a “proper” title? On second thought, I did mean for it to sound harsh.:bible1:

 

[flameburns623]

I don’t mean for this to sound harsh, but why should anyone refer to a heretic by a “proper” title? On second thought, I did mean for it to sound harsh.:bible1:

In general it is considered polite to refer to someone by their proper title. Refusing to do so generally implies that at a minimum, one is unwilling to have polite discourse with the person professing the title.

In the case of Katherine Schori, the one issue that comes up is that for many people, myself included, there is a reasonable case to be made for conscientious objection to do so. The ordination of women in the Episcopal Church was widely understood to be illegal to begin with and the elevation of the same to the episcopacy was doubly so. People who feel strongly about this should not be expected to use such titles. However they should recognize that such a refusal may largely preclude any dialogue about such issues.

For myself, I would sooner walk out of a service than be in the same room with any woman who professes to have received ordination to the Episcopal priesthood or elevation to the Episcopacy. I would not greet nor knowingly grant obeisance to any male bishop who had ordained women to any such role. This necessarily places me at the extreme fringes of the continuing Church movement within the Episcopal Church.

 

[chris_molter]

In the case of Katherine Schori, the one issue that comes up is that for many people, myself included, there is a reasonable case to be made for conscientious objection to do so. The ordination of women in the Episcopal Church was widely understood to be illegal to begin with and the elevation of the same to the episcopacy was doubly so. People who feel strongly about this should not be expected to use such titles. However they should recognize that such a refusal may largely preclude any dialogue about such issues.

From a Catholic pov, it really shouldn’t matter if we call +KJS “Bishop” or “Presiding Bishop” since we technically don’t recognize the orders of any Anglican Bishop. That makes it merely a polite contrivance to refer to them by their ‘official’ titles. For that matter, when I was an Episcopalian, I had a hard time thinking that Methodist Bishops were real Bishops. I still called them “Bishop”, though.

I can certainly see as a conservative Anglican how the case could be made to refuse to refer to the Presiding Bishop as a Bishop (or ordained minister, PERIOD). I felt the same way prior to my trek across the Tiber.