Anglican Issues with the Catholic Church

[1234]

This is were they screwed up:

Moral and Natural Law never go away.

St.Paul CLEARLY condemns homosexuality:

“And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.” - *Romans 1:27

*Condemned in the OT and NT as well as the Early Church and all of Church History.

They are wrong as it gets.

Can you provide me with a modern English translation of this quote, which avoids “meet”, “recompence” and “unseemly”?

The early church fathers hated anyone who wasn’t them, notably the Jews. Tertullian, Origen, Irenaeus and Eusebius were notorious anti-Semites.

pdfdownload.org/pdf2html/pdf2html.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fguweb2.gonzaga.edu%2Fagainsthate%2Fjournal3%2FGHS103.pdf&images=yes

A summary from a scholarly presentation by a prof at the Catholic Theological Union hosted at Gonzaga University.

And here, a summary of Roman Catholic anti-Semitism down the ages,

religioustolerance.org/vat_hol11.htm

–Roman Catholics who hate Jews would also hate homosexuals, who generally were better at hiding their sexual inclinations. In that, they resembled the modern-day Nazis, who murdered populations in both groups.

As for Church History, those folks who hosted the Inquisition, who spread slavery, courtesy of the papal bull, * Dum Diversas,* and the genocide of entire indigenous populations in Central America, these folks could hardly serve as a source of *any *ethical behavior.

And, Jay, cut with the emoticons, already.

We write in English on this forum.

 

[1234]

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

mp, I have to agree with you here. Why isn’t your friend putting on his water wings? And why aren’t the whiners on this thread also doing the same (hold your nose, tho’, the Tiber is very polluted, so I hear).

I have always supported the notion that you fish or cut bait; if you can’t stand the heat (not quite apropos), --but you get the idea.

If you don’t like the way the ECUSA (or whatever it’s called) is going, why don’t you get out?!

One thing though, if these guys think that they are going to take all that valuable land and all those pretty stone churches with them, they have another think coming. I’m not a Christian or RC or Epis or anything, but if anyone tried to do something like *that *to me, I would spend every last cent to prevent them!

 

[GKC]

mp, I have to agree with you here. Why isn’t your friend putting on his water wings? And why aren’t the whiners on this thread also doing the same (hold your nose, tho’, the Tiber is very polluted, so I hear).

I have always supported the notion that you fish or cut bait; if you can’t stand the heat (not quite apropos), --but you get the idea.

If you don’t like the way the ECUSA (or whatever it’s called) is going, why don’t you get out?!

One thing though, if these guys think that they are going to take all that valuable land and all those pretty stone churches with them, they have another think coming. I’m not a Christian or RC or Epis or anything, but if anyone tried to do something like *that *to me, I would spend every last cent to prevent them!

Who built the pretty stone churches? Who paid for them?

GKC

 

[The_Dweller]

Like Aquinas, I’m just a dumb ox, but I find it hard to believe that a man who said that"…everyone who gazes at a woman to lust after her has committed adultery with her already in his heart." would also add “but homosexual sex, that’s just fine”.

 

[mercygate]

I also don’t find particularly inspiring the largely legalistic approach to doctrine and morality that Rome seems to espouse.

When you think about it, much of that “legalism” is actually pastoral – involving the articulation of what constitutes an action/sacrament/point of doctrine/morality in a way that can be clearly understood.

As a former Anglican, who spent a little time in the Anglican “continuum”, I found the running about seeking “valid” Episcopal consecrations at the hands of any vagans they could get hold of to be “legalistic” in the extreme.

Personally, the Orthodox East’s emphasis on apophaticism and mystery are much more enticing. I would be more likely to swim the Bosphorous than the Tiber. But, for the time being, I remain an Anglo-Catholic. Though, compared with some here, perhaps an anomalous one–part of TEC/ECUSA.

Re: women’s ordination, I would be curious to read responses to the legend of St. Brigit. I once shared the opinion of a priest friend of mine that women were invalid matter for the sacrament, but the legend of St. Brigit of Kildare who, it is said, received episcopal consecration at the hands of St. Mel, convinced me otherwise. Granted, it’s a legend and not official teaching, but it seems to indicate that the popular mind of the church as expressed in her legendarium understood women to be worthy of episcopal dignity, that is, the church could conceive of a woman as valid matter.

An ordination/consecration by ONE bishop acting sui juris outside the jurisdiction of the Church, contrary to the teaching of the Church, using “matter” considered to be invalid by the Church is no consecration at all. Intention, matter, and form are all required in addition to the consensus of the legitimate ecclesial authority.

When I was 7, I took white Necco wafers and Welsh’s grape juice and said Mass. It was no more the Eucharist than St. Bridgit was a bishop. Hilda of Whitby, Catherine of Siena, Teresa of Avila, and many other great women have had the theological, spiritual and moral qualities of good bishops. That does not mean that they ever could have BEEN bishops.

 

[wjdukes]

Another facet on the property disputes in Virginia that I think is important is that the parishes were willing to negotiate a fair price for their property. Before they left, the standing committee of the diocese gave them a procedure to follow to leave: how many votes were necessary, how many weeks notice, take a separate vote on whether you want your property. After they all voted overwhelmingly to leave and keep their property, the diocese started the previously agreed to negotiations on a price until the presiding bishop told the bishop to break off negotiations and sue them. It’s also significant, I think, that the presiding bishop had the volunteer leaders of the parishes joined in the lawsuit, even though Virginia law was clear they couldn’t be held liable. So it’s not like these parishes absconded in the night with the family jewelry. They followed the rules they were given and tried to pay for their property and then their former church hierarchy sued them.

 

[wjdukes]

Getting back to the original question on this thread (why don’t Anglo-Catholics just swim the tiber?) I can only speak to some of my hang-ups, but here are a few.

1. The Episcopal Church and Anglicanism in particular are in trouble. While I’m not prepared to sacrifice my immortal soul for the church that raised me, something just doesn’t feel right about abandoning ship if I think there’s any way that I can be a voice for catholicity within the church I’m in. Now, honestly, being a legitimate voice for catholicity within any episcopal church near me is becoming increasingly unlikely, so this is likely a weak argument.
2. I have a very deep love for the Anglican spiritual and liturgical tradition and I don’t want to see it die. I’m glad there is such a thing as the Anglican Use, but I’d be much more encouraged if I saw any activity going on to strengthen and make sure that it’s a way to keep alive a legitimate and beautiful tradition within the Western Church and not just a way to let one generation of former Episcopalians be a little more comfortable in their new denomination.
3. This is probably my most conflicted point, but it probably cuts the deepest too. Nobody in my church quite used the words transubstantiation, but I was always taught to believe that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Jesus in the Eucharist. I was always taught that this is the way in which we can be closest to Jesus. I was taught that to have a valid Eucharist you have to have a valid priesthood ordained by bishops with a valid line of apostolic succession. So, for the whole part of my life I’ve been old enough to receive the Eucharist, I’ve believed I have been receiving the body and blood of Christ. I can accept transubstantiation, so the only difference between all that I’ve believed and what I’d have to believe as a Catholic is on the one question of fact: Do Anglican bishops have apostolic succession? But to change that would be to say that my faith in the Eucharist all these years has been a kind of lie, because after all, if Anglican bishops don’t have apostolic succession, then haven’t I just been deluding myself into thinking I was receiving the body and blood of Christ when I’ve only been eating bread and wine?

So all of that is to at the least demonstrate that even for some Anglicans who could be convinced that everything the RCC teaches about faith and morals is true, there could still be some pretty deeply personal reasons why conversion is not so easy.

 

[GKC]

Getting back to the original question on this thread (why don’t Anglo-Catholics just swim the tiber?) I can only speak to some of my hang-ups, but here are a few.

1. The Episcopal Church and Anglicanism in particular are in trouble. While I’m not prepared to sacrifice my immortal soul for the church that raised me, something just doesn’t feel right about abandoning ship if I think there’s any way that I can be a voice for catholicity within the church I’m in. Now, honestly, being a legitimate voice for catholicity within any episcopal church near me is becoming increasingly unlikely, so this is likely a weak argument.
2. I have a very deep love for the Anglican spiritual and liturgical tradition and I don’t want to see it die. I’m glad there is such a thing as the Anglican Use, but I’d be much more encouraged if I saw any activity going on to strengthen and make sure that it’s a way to keep alive a legitimate and beautiful tradition within the Western Church and not just a way to let one generation of former Episcopalians be a little more comfortable in their new denomination.
3. This is probably my most conflicted point, but it probably cuts the deepest too. Nobody in my church quite used the words transubstantiation, but I was always taught to believe that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Jesus in the Eucharist. I was always taught that this is the way in which we can be closest to Jesus. I was taught that to have a valid Eucharist you have to have a valid priesthood ordained by bishops with a valid line of apostolic succession. So, for the whole part of my life I’ve been old enough to receive the Eucharist, I’ve believed I have been receiving the body and blood of Christ. I can accept transubstantiation, so the only difference between all that I’ve believed and what I’d have to believe as a Catholic is on the one question of fact: Do Anglican bishops have apostolic succession? But to change that would be to say that my faith in the Eucharist all these years has been a kind of lie, because after all, if Anglican bishops don’t have apostolic succession, then haven’t I just been deluding myself into thinking I was receiving the body and blood of Christ when I’ve only been eating bread and wine?

So all of that is to at the least demonstrate that even for some Anglicans who could be convinced that everything the RCC teaches about faith and morals is true, there could still be some pretty deeply personal reasons why conversion is not so easy.

*Apostolicae Curae *declares that Anglican orders have been considered invalid by Rome, ab initio, and that there was nothing at that time (1896) to require a change in that attitude; ergo, Anglican orders are invalid.

Anglicans believe otherwise. If you are knowledgeable in the issue, and have any doubts about the matter, I’d suggest that you might be better in Rome. Certainly, they have valid orders.

Of course, Anglicans do too, with the necessary caveats.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus

 

[wjdukes]

GKC, that’s exactly my point. Not that I’m terribly happy with the direction Anglicanism is going in, but to become Catholic it seems like I’d have to believe Anglican churches aren’t even churches, and I just don’t know how ready I am to do that.

 

[jay29]

No he didn’t.

Jesus deliberately broke the Sabbath, one of the most inviolate laws of Judaism. He walked through a field, harvesting grain, in a deliberate gesture. And his followers didn’t follow Judaism, they broke with it, in allowing uncircumcised Gentiles to be baptized.

as an aside, there are many apocryphal gospels–is homosexuality mentioned in any of these?–Thomas, etc. Does anybody know?

What isn’t recorded of Jesus’ sayings isn’t binding. It would be same to assume that, as a Jew, he despised homosexuality, but we don’t know that he did, and there were a lot of other things that he (apparently) despised even worse, that we do know about.

Are you telling me St. Paul’s words are not BINDING? I wouldn’t go there…

Secondly, has everyone forgotten about natural law? Male and Male/female and female DON’T WORK. If everyone just turned gay, the human race would die out…I know this is simplistic, but it is reality. God did not set up our bodies to be used in a homosexual manner…

 

[jay29]

What isn’t recorded of Jesus’ sayings isn’t binding. It would be same to assume that, as a Jew, he despised homosexuality, but we don’t know that he did, and there were a lot of other things that he (apparently) despised even worse, that we do know about.

Are you saying this isn’t binding?

Galatians 5:19-21

19The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.

So we can just brush these off???

 

[GKC]

GKC, that’s exactly my point. Not that I’m terribly happy with the direction Anglicanism is going in, but to become Catholic it seems like I’d have to believe Anglican churches aren’t even churches, and I just don’t know how ready I am to do that.

I take it you are concerned about the status of official Anglcainism, given all that’s going on, but are hesitant to cross the river, due to a doubt about the implcations of Apostolicae Curae.

Unless you are able to fully assent, without reservations, to the *de fide *requirements of the RCC, it’s not the thing to do. If you can do so, and it is what can ease your conscience, you should.

Have you considered the Anglican Continuum. or any of the break-away, orthodox portions of ECUSA, now under other episcopal oversight?

GKC

*posterus traditus Anglicanus *

 

[thirdn6]

It’s hard for me to understand why so many non-Catholics (Anglicans included) are so hesitant to accept the truth- that the Catholic church is the only one true church, and choose to live in doubts and confusions.

wjdukes, if ever you decide to swim… you’re not required to bring anything- even your truths! …just put more on obedience and less on (crazy) imaginations… and you will be fine.

---

Be angry, and sin not… Give not place to the devil.

 

[nsper7]

It’s hard for me to understand why so many non-Catholics (Anglicans included) are so hesitant to accept the truth- that the Catholic church is the only one true church, and choose to live in doubts and confusions.

It’s hard for you to understand? This sounds like classic theological pride…

Most non-Catholics find quite a lot of confusion and doubt in Roman Catholic theology. Do you expect us to except your claims blindly?

wjdukes, if ever you decide to swim… you’re not required to bring anything- even your truths! …just put more on obedience and less on (crazy) imaginations… and you will be fine.

Again, I ask: do you expect us to except your claims blindly? Satan himself I’m sure would say don’t worry and just obey me (I am not trying to compare the Roman Catholic Church to Satan, but I am trying to point out the danger of demanding blind obedience).

And your almost obnoxious statements accusing people who disagree of simply being disobedient and rejecting our claims out of hand. Not only does it not draw me to Roman Catholicism, but it causes me to better understand (although I still don’t think it’s good) what pushes Protestants to start screaming the insults and condemnations at Roman Catholicsm.

The way I see it, the main objective thing that Roman Catholicism can claim over the rest of Christianity is its age (the RCC can trace itself back the farthest), but even that is a double-edged sword (I was reading a book about general Christian history and I got to the part where there were three apparents Popes each with their own College of Cardinals and backers and they were all excommunicating each other).

 

[thirdn6]

It’s hard for you to understand? This sounds like classic theological pride…

Most non-Catholics find quite a lot of confusion and doubt in Roman Catholic theology. Do you expect us to except your claims blindly?

wjdukes, if ever you decide to swim… you’re not required to bring anything- even your truths! …just put more on obedience and less on (crazy) imaginations… and you will be fine.

Again, I ask: do you expect us to except your claims blindly? Satan himself I’m sure would say don’t worry and just obey me (I am not trying to compare the Roman Catholic Church to Satan, but I am trying to point out the danger of demanding blind obedience).

And your almost obnoxious statements accusing people who disagree of simply being disobedient and rejecting our claims out of hand. Not only does it not draw me to Roman Catholicism, but it causes me to better understand (although I still don’t think it’s good) what pushes Protestants to start screaming the insults and condemnations at Roman Catholicsm.

The way I see it, the main objective thing that Roman Catholicism can claim over the rest of Christianity is its age (the RCC can trace itself back the farthest), but even that is a double-edged sword (I was reading a book about general Christian history and I got to the part where there were three apparents Popes each with their own College of Cardinals and backers and they were all excommunicating each other).

This is NOT about blind obedience. This is about VALIDITY.
If you believe that our Lord Jesus Christ did not found a church, did not commission His apostles to preach the Gospel, and no apostolic succession- we have nothing to discuss about obedience. Otherwise, you MUST accept the validity of the Catholic Church as the One True Church if you profess to be a Christian. And obey her infallable doctrines, “… he who hears you hears me…”

Remember the faith and obedience of Mary… of Abraham?
I am NOT talking of obedience to certain people! Dig deeper in the Church history- it is good for you.

---

Be angry, and sin not… Give not place to the devil.

 

[wjdukes]

I take it you are concerned about the status of official Anglcainism, given all that’s going on, but are hesitant to cross the river, due to a doubt about the implcations of Apostolicae Curae.

Unless you are able to fully assent, without reservations, to the *de fide *requirements of the RCC, it’s not the thing to do. If you can do so, and it is what can ease your conscience, you should.

Have you considered the Anglican Continuum. or any of the break-away, orthodox portions of ECUSA, now under other episcopal oversight?

GKC

*posterus traditus Anglicanus *

I’ve certainly thought about the continuum. I do hope the continuum churches and the breakaways under the global south can find some kind of unity for the sake of some kind of future for Anglicanism. For a few reasons, I’m not sure it would work for me. For a practical matter, I’ve been unable to locate a continuum parish close by. For another thing my wife is RC and once we start having kids I think we’re going to want the stability of the RCC for them. And the last thing is just that I’ve been feeling a strong sense of the importance of Christian unity in these times. It seems like that cause is better advanced by going to Rome than a continuum church, assuming I can do so in good conscience.

Truth is, I’m not as well informed as I should be on church history. I just finished reading the discussion of Apostolicae Curae on another thread - if I have any spare time outside of law school reading I’m going to take some of your reading suggestions from that thread to try to get better informed on the underlying facts. Probably won’t happen until after exams

Thanks for the reply,

wjd

 

[GKC]

I’ve certainly thought about the continuum. I do hope the continuum churches and the breakaways under the global south can find some kind of unity for the sake of some kind of future for Anglicanism. For a few reasons, I’m not sure it would work for me. For a practical matter, I’ve been unable to locate a continuum parish close by. For another thing my wife is RC and once we start having kids I think we’re going to want the stability of the RCC for them. And the last thing is just that I’ve been feeling a strong sense of the importance of Christian unity in these times. It seems like that cause is better advanced by going to Rome than a continuum church, assuming I can do so in good conscience.

Truth is, I’m not as well informed as I should be on church history. I just finished reading the discussion of Apostolicae Curae on another thread - if I have any spare time outside of law school reading I’m going to take some of your reading suggestions from that thread to try to get better informed on the underlying facts. Probably won’t happen until after exams

Thanks for the reply,

wjd

You are welcome. I wish you well on your journey. If I can help further, I promise my reading recommendations are balanced.

GKC

 

[wjdukes]

It’s hard for me to understand why so many non-Catholics (Anglicans included) are so hesitant to accept the truth- that the Catholic church is the only one true church, and choose to live in doubts and confusions.

wjdukes, if ever you decide to swim… you’re not required to bring anything- even your truths! …just put more on obedience and less on (crazy) imaginations… and you will be fine.

---

Be angry, and sin not… Give not place to the devil.

Thanks for the reply and the sentiment. Obedience (and unity) are the biggest draws Romeward for me. You might say my heart’s (mostly) heading in that direction but my head’s got a little work to do to be sure (prudence is still on the list of virtues, right? ).

wjd

 

[thirdn6]

I’ve got to take a break here… now,
Must’ve to finish my tax returns… whew!
wjdukes, ____________________
Be angry, and sin not… Give not place to the devil.
Ephesians 4:26-27 +

 

[martinporres]

GKC, I’m sure you’ve posted it before, but do you have any online resources re. the validity of Anglican orders? I’d be especially interested in any documents, hints, or thoughts from the Catholic Church since Apostolicae curae, but also interesting in reading things from outside Rome’s domain.

Also, I’m gathering from the discussion (apart from the unwelcome tangent in this thread), that liturgy is of paramount importance to Anglicans. What do you think of the possibility ever of there being another Western rite within Catholicism?

It certainly is a shame the break originally happened. Even a Catholic who believes Anglicans are not within the Church would have to admit that the Holy Spirit, as he does all the time, had to have been working outside of the Church to inspire such beautiful means of worship.

In Christ,
mp