Alright, that’s fair enough. Even if you did, I don’t believe this thread is an appropriate place for discussing it, especially since I and others have had a number of discussions about it on suitably titled threads on CAF.I’m sorry I have no idea of what you are talking about.
Well, there are 29 females in worldwide Anglicanism who have had hands laid upon them. 23 in North America and the reminder elsewhere, with 77 million Anglicans worldwide. Their Anglican bodies are dying.Ordaining female priests/bishops, actively homosexual bishops, openly atheistic bishops are symptoms of the decisive break with Apostolic Christianity that the Anglican Church has chosen. Their numbers are not at all small. There was a time when Anglicanism and Eastern Orthodoxy were quite close and even re-communion with the Catholic Church might have been possible. However, the Anglicanism of the Apostlicae Curea period no longer exists. The Anglican Church has chosen to reject the Apostolic Churches and embrace the world.
This does not mean that there are not many faithful Christians within the Anglican Church, but they are now in the nature of an underground resistance.
The question would be whether the change in the subject of the sacrament of orders could be taken as an additional determinatio ex adiunctis, in the sense the use of the Edwardine Ordinal was taken, to indicate a sacramental intent not to do what the Church does, in the action of that sacrament. Given that the question, with respect to Anglican Orders, would be moot, for the RCC, it is only an intellectual point, anyway.As far as the female bishop issue, that is so small in number on the grand scheme of things to make it moot
the above statement is not true in the USA -we have many including the Presiding Bishop
There are approximately 29 women who have had hands laid upon them, about 20 in North America. It seems big because KJS and her actions. In the grand scheme of things, meaning 500 or 1500 years from now, they will be a blip on the screen of history. IMO.As far as the female bishop issue, that is so small in number on the grand scheme of things to make it moot
the above statement is not true in the USA -we have many including the Presiding Bishop
I hate to say but that doesn’t make any sense to me at all.As far as the female bishop issue, that is so small in number on the grand scheme of things to make it moot
The RCC would not say that Anglicans had invalidated apostolic succession by changing the subject of the sacrament, sometime in the past 50 years or so. They said, 118 years ago, that Anglicans had lost apostolic succession, years prior to that.I understand why it wouldn’t. The answer needs to be looked at in reference to one of the answers stating the Anglican Communion has invalidated Apostolic Succession because they have laid hands on women and active homosexuals.
In that light, there are 2 points. 1. The church (RC/Anglican/Orthodox) has always ordained homosexuals, it has just been kept under the rug. Therefore that alone could not invalidate the whole Communions validation of ordination. The problem is TEC / CoE have officially sanctioned it and therefore officially walked away from God.
The second, which you reference is somewhat the same. The women who have had hands laid upon them are not Bishops. But to say that laying hands on a few women invalidates the Apostolic Succession of the entire Anglican Communion just is not logical. Of course it is very pertinent to those men who think they’ve been Priested by said women, but in the grand scheme of 70+ million Anglicans and thousands of Bishops, 29 women is statistically insignificant.
Hope it helps clear it up.
Yup. Thanks.The RCC would not say that Anglicans had invalidated apostolic succession by changing the subject of the sacrament, sometime in the past 50 years or so. They said, 118 years ago, that Anglicans had lost apostolic succession, years prior to that.
That a poster might say something along those lines is irrelevant; the sort of thing that I’ve seen said on the subject many times over the years here.
GKC
Well, there are 29 females in worldwide Anglicanism who have had hands laid upon them. 23 in North America and the reminder elsewhere, with 77 million Anglicans worldwide. Their Anglican bodies are dying.
If ordaining a homosexual bishop invalidates the church, then The RCC has invalidated as well. Just listen to Michael Voris on Homosexuality in the clergy. It is just secretive in the RCC. Not that I am for ordaining anyone living a lifestyle openly hostile towards God, just that if the standard you hold is the standardi for Anglicanism, hold the same for Roman Catholicism. Same goes for Priests.]
Saying it is secretive in the RC does not make it so. If a bishop ordains an actively gay candidate than that bishop has went against Church teaching and committed a grave sin.
Please provide a link to where a RC bishop ordained someone he knew was actively gay.
ChurchSoldier;12306629:
m.youtube.com/watch?v=HlaFkxrW5JMWell, there are 29 females in worldwide Anglicanism who have had hands laid upon them. 23 in North America and the reminder elsewhere, with 77 million Anglicans worldwide. Their Anglican bodies are dying.
If ordaining a homosexual bishop invalidates the church, then The RCC has invalidated as well. Just listen to Michael Voris on Homosexuality in the clergy. It is just secretive in the RCC. Not that I am for ordaining anyone living a lifestyle openly hostile towards God, just that if the standard you hold is the standardi for Anglicanism, hold the same for Roman Catholicism. Same goes for Priests.]
Saying it is secretive in the RC does not make it so. If a bishop ordains an actively gay candidate than that bishop has went against Church teaching and committed a grave sin.
Please provide a link to where a RC bishop ordained someone he knew was actively gay.
As stated previously, I didn’t say it was sanctioned by official church teaching, just that it has happened.
Thanks for joining the conversation.
ChurchSoldier;12306629:
m.youtube.com/watch?v=HlaFkxrW5JMWell, there are 29 females in worldwide Anglicanism who have had hands laid upon them. 23 in North America and the reminder elsewhere, with 77 million Anglicans worldwide. Their Anglican bodies are dying.
If ordaining a homosexual bishop invalidates the church, then The RCC has invalidated as well. Just listen to Michael Voris on Homosexuality in the clergy. It is just secretive in the RCC. Not that I am for ordaining anyone living a lifestyle openly hostile towards God, just that if the standard you hold is the standardi for Anglicanism, hold the same for Roman Catholicism. Same goes for Priests.]
Saying it is secretive in the RC does not make it so. If a bishop ordains an actively gay candidate than that bishop has went against Church teaching and committed a grave sin.
Please provide a link to where a RC bishop ordained someone he knew was actively gay.
As stated previously, I didn’t say it was sanctioned by official church teaching, just that it has happened. It seems like you are surprised by this information. I’d be interested in hearing your thoughts.
Thanks for joining the conversation.
I think the only way that would help is if the position of the Roman Communion were something to the tune of “We believe in WO, but we prefer to avoid ordaining women as much as possible in order to keep them down.” But, of course, that isn’t the Catholic position (not to mention the fact that it would be sexist).I understand why it wouldn’t. The answer needs to be looked at in reference to one of the answers stating the Anglican Communion has invalidated Apostolic Succession because they have laid hands on women and active homosexuals.
In that light, there are 2 points. 1. The church (RC/Anglican/Orthodox) has always ordained homosexuals, it has just been kept under the rug. Therefore that alone could not invalidate the whole Communions validation of ordination. The problem is TEC / CoE have officially sanctioned it and therefore officially walked away from God.
The second, which you reference is somewhat the same. The women who have had hands laid upon them are not Bishops. But to say that laying hands on a few women invalidates the Apostolic Succession of the entire Anglican Communion just is not logical. Of course it is very pertinent to those men who think they’ve been Priested by said women, but in the grand scheme of 70+ million Anglicans and thousands of Bishops, 29 women is statistically insignificant.
Hope it helps clear it up.
Duane1966;12321515:
As stated previously, I didn’t say it was sanctioned by official church teaching, just that it has happened. It seems like you are surprised by this information. I’d be interested in hearing your thoughts.
Watched the video, and like he said just an overview. Does he back up anything he has said with concrete facts? I think not. Again I ask you to show me where the RC has appointed a bishop that they KNEW was a practicing homosexual. The video does not show that. That is the key. Have there been gay clergy and bishops? Without a doubt. And more is the pity to them If they are breaking their vows by being a practicing homosexual. But don’t paint the RC clergy by the ones who refuse to do what is taught.
I am afraid this has gone off your original topic.
Thank you.
ChurchSoldier;12322392:
As stated previously, I didn’t say it was sanctioned by official church teaching, just that it has happened. It seems like you are surprised by this information. I’d be interested in hearing your thoughts.Duane1966;12321515:
Watched the video, and like he said just an overview. Does he back up anything he has said with concrete facts? I think not. Again I ask you to show me where the RC has appointed a bishop that they KNEW was a practicing homosexual. The video does not show that. That is the key. Have there been gay clergy and bishops? Without a doubt. And more is the pity to them If they are breaking their vows by being a practicing homosexual. But don’t paint the RC clergy by the ones who refuse to do what is taught.
I am afraid this has gone off your original topic.
Thank you.
I was actually wondering if this would receive a response similar to the one you made defending the Church because there isn’t an actual video whatever it is you think would be appropriate. The video is by a RC about RC’s. If you have a complaint against it email Mr. Voris. As far as I can tell, he seems to do pretty in depth research before he records it.
But your answer is actually an example of the type for which I began this thread. The point of listing the Anglican response was to see if any Catholics on the forum would actually read it and respond as to what it said and address any differences. In the main, the responses have been recitations of the same things which have been spoken of many times.
I know the RC viewpoint on Anglican orders. The point is, to become more well rounded in our beliefs we have to look at the other side than ours. Study a subject not only from the point of view of what we already believe, but what those who disagree with us believe. I have some pretty engaging and beneficial conversations with RC’s because not only do I know my faith, but their’s as well. When faced with somewhat valid opposing views, such as the link I posted and then to reiterate the same ingrained arguments without having read the opposite view, comes across as disingenuous. The way to have dialogue is to…well dialogue
The point of the initial post was frankly to see if anyone was interested enough to expand their knowledge base and engage. So far not so much.
Thanks for posting.
.
Duane1966;12323885:
Without expressing any opinions on Mr. Voris’ assertions (which I have heard, in other venues), I agree with your antepenultimate para.ChurchSoldier;12322392:
I was actually wondering if this would receive a response similar to the one you made defending the Church because there isn’t an actual video whatever it is you think would be appropriate. The video is by a RC about RC’s. If you have a complaint against it email Mr. Voris. As far as I can tell, he seems to do pretty in depth research before he records it.
But your answer is actually an example of the type for which I began this thread. The point of listing the Anglican response was to see if any Catholics on the forum would actually read it and respond as to what it said and address any differences. In the main, the responses have been recitations of the same things which have been spoken of many times.
I know the RC viewpoint on Anglican orders. The point is, to become more well rounded in our beliefs we have to look at the other side than ours. Study a subject not only from the point of view of what we already believe, but what those who disagree with us believe. I have some pretty engaging and beneficial conversations with RC’s because not only do I know my faith, but their’s as well. When faced with somewhat valid opposing views, such as the link I posted and then to reiterate the same ingrained arguments without having read the opposite view, comes across as disingenuous. The way to have dialogue is to…well dialogue
The point of the initial post was frankly to see if anyone was interested enough to expand their knowledge base and engage. So far not so much.
Thanks for posting.
.
GKC
You are right. Hate the redundancy of my last post.At the risk of sounding geeky, I would recommend that everyone “Preview Post” before submitting.