G
- Status
K
KathleenGee
Guest
Thanks to you all for clarifying issues with me…it is pretty complex…seeing the name of a religious denomination…then seeing there are a number of branches, conflicting with each other as well…
The Catholic Church certainly has its conflicts within…on the parish level…members of religious congregations can be considered as outsiders.
The Church is more open because we are not at military war with each other over Christ…I would think it would take a number of centuries to move on beyond those unfortunate events.
There is a real stickler in my convictions of apostolic succession. There is a real grace and greater participation in the mystery of Christ within the Church in the liturgy…although I can imagine someone experiencing the same in this Anglican Mass at St. Mark’s…
I look at the history of Judaism, the daily temple sacrifice of atonement and the Passover, Christ sacrificing Himself for us on the Cross, gospel directives to lay down our lives for the other…and the witness of the Christian martyrs…the daily challenge of picking up one’s cross in morning prayer…sacrificing comfort…Christ of the order of Melchizedek who brought offerings of bread and wine, who had no beginning or end…the liturgy being a sacrifice…but also a participation of heaven itself, already among us…Christ said His kingdom was here.
I believe when we enter into the sacrifice of the Mass and draw on all the graces of Christ, we are overcoming evil in the world by just our being.
The Catholic Church certainly has its conflicts within…on the parish level…members of religious congregations can be considered as outsiders.
The Church is more open because we are not at military war with each other over Christ…I would think it would take a number of centuries to move on beyond those unfortunate events.
There is a real stickler in my convictions of apostolic succession. There is a real grace and greater participation in the mystery of Christ within the Church in the liturgy…although I can imagine someone experiencing the same in this Anglican Mass at St. Mark’s…
I look at the history of Judaism, the daily temple sacrifice of atonement and the Passover, Christ sacrificing Himself for us on the Cross, gospel directives to lay down our lives for the other…and the witness of the Christian martyrs…the daily challenge of picking up one’s cross in morning prayer…sacrificing comfort…Christ of the order of Melchizedek who brought offerings of bread and wine, who had no beginning or end…the liturgy being a sacrifice…but also a participation of heaven itself, already among us…Christ said His kingdom was here.
I believe when we enter into the sacrifice of the Mass and draw on all the graces of Christ, we are overcoming evil in the world by just our being.
G
GKC
Guest
As always, to see what can (or, might) counter Clark, I suggest Hughes’ STEWARDS OF THE LORD. In his memoirs, Hughes noted that Clark never engaged his arguments.
++Parker was consecrated by +Barlow, +Scory, +Coverdale and +Hodgkin. +Hodgkin himself had been consecrated with the Pontificale Romanum, +Barlow almost certainly so (he was consecrated in 1536), the other two with the Ordinal
GKC
G
GKC
Guest
I thank you.
BTW, meet Contarini, just above; a scholarly and (mostly) liberal Anglican sort.
GKC
B
belovucic
Guest
Your sister can be a prostitute but she is still your sister.
You believe that your sacraments are valid because they have convinced you. It’s easy to say “We have the apostolic succession”.
You can believe all these things in the Catholic Church.
The Church of England (the mother of other Anglican churches) was created because the King wanted the annulment of his marriage. Someone who wants to divorce simply can’t speak well about the marriage. Someone who breaks the unity with Rome can’t speak well about the unity. Someone who left brother can’t be good brother. Someone who committed an unapostolic act shouldn’t claim that he is an apostle. The first sin gives birth to other sins. That’s what corrupted the apostolic succession. Their Church was created because of sin. Their sacraments can’t be administered purely.
N
nhylan
Guest
Are you out of your head? learn some tact, I’m willing to bet I’m not the only one flagging your post.
C
Contarini
Guest
Yes, liberal by GKC"s standards for sure (and those of most folks on this forum).
Many Episcopalians think I’m next door to a fundamentalist, of course. . . .
My bishop’s name is +Ed Little. I don’t agree with him in everything (mostly insofar as my theology is more Catholic than his and my liturgical tastes considerably more traditional, though I’m also concerned about the fact that he seems to have moved our diocese in a somewhat laxer direction with regard to divorce and remarriage), but generally I strongly approve of his handling of the present crisis within Anglicanism. I also consider him one of the humblest and holiest people I know (insofar as one can judge those things), and am grateful and blessed to have such a bishop. My wife sometimes says to me, “How on earth did someone like that get to be a bishop?” (My wife, who comes from several generations of United Methodist clergy, has a rather jaundiced view of church mucky-mucks generally.)
I mention this because for those following Episcopal matters, Bishop Little’s paper trail is fairly easy to follow, and in saying that I generally stand with him I can give some indication of the ways in which I am and am not a liberal.
Edwin
C
Cheshangle
Guest
You refer to “the present crisis within Anglicanism”. Hmmmm.
I worked in the UK National Health Service from 1975-80. People were talking about a “crisis” then and still are! But it survives and does OK. I imagine that people have been talking about a crisis is the Anglican church for two hundred years.
In Aus the Murdoch press and others harried the Anglican Church on the subject of, guess what, child abuse and cover-up. They talked of crisis. The same press talks about a crisis in the Church of England now over women bishops and the Ordinariate: “schismatic change, floods to Rome”, etc. Believe me, it isn’t happening.
Now from what I can understand the Episcopal Church in America is possibly having difficulties at the moment, but they are not alone. In Ireland when I was there the RC church was certainly perceived as being “in crisis”: yet again child abuse and cover up, a marked lack of ordinands and priests, and declining congregations. But, please God, our Beloved Sister Church will overcome these problems and prosper. And, please God, so shall we.
M
melbanglican
Guest
I found an interesting article in The Times with respect to His Holiness, Benedict XVI, and this question:
timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article386763.ece
The interesting part is about two-thirds of the way down. Search the article using the word ‘feeding’. Perhaps attitudes ‘at the top’ are changing! I hope that’s the case.
BTW, based on what I’ve read in this forum, I think you’re right about many in the US having little idea of the ‘history’ between the CofE and Rome. There is also quite a lot of difference between the Anglican churches in New Zealand, Australia, Canada & Africa. I suspect that what looks like chaos and ‘schizophrenia’ to those in the highly-organised Catholic Church, with it’s tightly centralised and unified system of beliefs, is often just the Anglican Communion functioning in the way that was intended. (I have to say that I love the Catechism of the RCC and will buy a copy, as soon as I can find one with a sewn binding! Can anyone tell me where I might find such a thing?)
Regards
C
chuckfrmvalyfrg
Guest
In my post #26 you claim I "implied " That the RCC always gets it right . Only 1 problem , that’s not what I said or did . Go look @ post #26 . What I did say was , " Misrepresenting the Truth is always a problem ! " How can you conflate what I wrote with what you said I wrote ?
This is the 2nd time in this thread that you have attributed either false implications or purportations to me . You don’t know me well enough to discern my motives , so why don’t you simply approach my posts literally . When I post something tongue in cheek or sarcastic , you’ll know it .
Tyndale , another “Black Myth” @ the RCC . Translating the bible was not a heresy nor was it illegal .No private individual was permitted to to publish his own thanslation of scripture without Church approval . Tyndale never received permission . He was even tried for heresy in 1522 , 3years BEFORE his translation of the New Testament was even printed .
His translation in 1525 of the NT was rife with textual corruption . Tyndale willfully mistranslated entire passages of scripture to support Lutheran ideas . The bishop of London claimed he could count 2000 errors in this volume , and it was only the NT .
Tyndale was arrested ,tried and sentenced to die in the Court of the Holy Roman Emporer in 1536 . Tyndale translation of the bible was heretical because it contained heretical ideas -----NOT because the act of translation was heretical !!
And let’s not forget , at this point in history , Heresy was Treason and Treason is a Capital Offense !
When Did Cardinal Hume receive the charism of Infallibility ?
In my previous post I addressed your claim & I Laid out what was necessary for thePope to invoke this Charism . I also said the RCC ( in the person of the Pope ) alwys gets it right in matters of faith and morals . I don’t know why you are mounting this straw man arguement . This charism does not apply to economics or music or the weather , stop this nonsense .
Well fidelity is preferable to heresy and/or apostasy , it’s not complicated . They did have free will . At this point in history heresy was treason,afterall . Some people forget this . Most of these " martyrs " were probably , formerly Catholic , so they should have known what the truth was .So. did any of these folks "earn " the death penalty ?
See my 1st response in this post re: faith and morals .
Re: heresy , what would you call Ordaining women as priests and then raising them to bishops ?
What woud you call the Gene Robinson affair ? A married Episcopal priest leaves his wife and family and moves in with his "boyfriend " . And his punishment is to be raised to a bishop ? That’s a church ( ecclesiastical community ) with it’s priorities straight .
Go ahead , explain the biblical basis for women’s ordination and or raising an "out " homosexual man to to a bishop ? Tell me why Robinson should even be allowed to be a priest in good standing ?
Yah , and I’m Dolly Parton ! Were you a history major or a revisionist history major . Denial is an acronym for : Don’t
Even
(k)Now
It’s
A
Lie
The Church in England was the Roman Catholic Church , The RCC in England NEVER reformed itself ( it was persecuted , that’s a fact – 2 can play this game ) . Why aren’t you ashamed of this sophistry ? Could you post your last sentence with a straight face ?
Congratulations , that’s like saying you are going to " enhance revenue " instead of raising taxes .
Succinctly , the Cof E not only stole Catholic Church property , it also burned hundreds of Catholic Church Monasteries and Convents . At this time it also turned thousands of priests , monks , friars , nuns , et al into the street . Your argument does not even rise to the level of specious reasoning
.
C
Contarini
Guest
You’re right that Cheshangle’s statement was unfair. Tyndale was, as you say, executed for heresy and not simply for translating.
It was in England. See Archbishop Arundel’s decree of 1409 as printed in Matthew Boyd Goldie, Middle English Literature: A Historical Sourcebook (Blackwell, 2003), p. 246 (available on Google Books).
Arundel does not distinguish between translating and publishing the translation, but simply speaks of translating; nor does he hold out the possibility of giving Church approval to a translation.
I think you exceed both reason and charity in claiming that his “mistranslations” were willful. He believed that they were the correct translations–and in many cases he had good linguistic reasons for his position. “Presbuteros” does most basically mean something like “elder” and did not originally have any connotation of “priest,” for instance.
But of course, the valid point you’re making is that Tyndale got in trouble because of the Protestant ideas that shaped his translation, not just because of the fact that he was translating.
Are you basing this on Innocent III’s 1199 decree defining heresy as “treason against God”? Heresy was not, per se, treason against the civil authorities, which is what you seem to be implying. It was certainly seen as a threat to society, but it was legally treated quite differently from the civil crime of treason.
An application of orthodox Christology and anthropology to the modern view (shared by practically all opponents of women’s ordination) that women are full bearers of the divine image in every sense and not imperfect males.
I don’t think that an obsession with homosexuality indicates right priorities. And your description of Robinson’s behavior is a bit unfair, since you make it sound as if the second event immediately followed the first, which it didn’t. However, I agree that the understanding of marriage and sexuality expressed by his behavior (and tacitly endorsed by the Episcopal Church) is heretical.
Neither position is “sophistical.” It depends on what you are defining as the essence of the Catholic Church in England. To you, communion with Rome is the essential thing, so a breach in communion with Rome means that the “Church of England” breaking with Rome has become something radically different. To Anglicans, the fact that you have the same people, the same institutions, and most trivially (but still significantly) the same buildings, counts for a lot more.
Code:
The destruction of the monasteries was indeed a horrific act.
M
Muttonchops88
Guest
Well said, Contarini.
C
Cheshangle
Guest
Many thanks.
Well, you really have it in for Anglicanism, don’t you? Do you see us as a threat or something?
I note that you do not answer directly my final question, “do you regard yourself as anti-Anglican?”, but you have certainly answered it implicitly. However, unless I’ve missed it, I don’t think you’ve addressed the point as to whether or not I’m “a heretic”.
S
Stefano1323
Guest
As an Episcopalian Priest (almost 40 years) it is quite interesting to see the ebb & flow of the relationship between Anglicans & Romans. Why would the Pope give an Episcopal Ring or a Pectoral Cross to a layman? Since Archbishop Michael Ramsey, Popes have given these symbols of the Episcopal Office to our Archbishops of Canterbury. Our current Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams wears both Pectoral Cross & Episcopal Ring. What is that really saying? One should always remember, things aren’t done without a purpose by Rome. Another aside…since I am a Priest in the Episcopal Diocese of Albany, NY, it must be known that most of our Bishops were Co-Consecrated, up until 1976 by Bishops of the Polish National Catholic Church, which under JPII, is now in Full Communion with the Roman Church. Since our Bishops are Consecrated in these Apostolic Orders, and since I was Ordained a Deacon & Priest in these Orders, what does that do to the Orders of the Episcopal/Anglican Church. Recently, at a 65th Anniversary Mass at a local PNC Church, I was asked to Concelebrate at the Mass - and was introduced, not only as the Episcopal Rector, but also as a PNC priest in good standing (I was ordained before 1976). You see, things are not as clean and neat on either side of the fence, when it comes to keeping track of pedigree, especially Apostolic Pedigree. I had a dear friend from Rome who, with a sly grin always looked as us in the Diocese of Albany as “Valid, but Irregular.” That proves that God has a sense of humor!
In Caritas Domini,
G
GKC
Guest
A comment or two.
The ring and (IIRC) the pectoral cross in question were gifts from Paul VI to Archbishop Ramsey, and betoken a personal expression of the relationship between the two; Pontiff and Primate. Like the reference to a sister church, it seems to me these are expressions of personal belief and opinion, and not anything that can be taken as an exercise of the teaching office of the magisterium.
The question of (since 1946) the co-consecration of PNCC and Anglican bishops (as well as the same, since 1932, with the OC-Utrecht, following the Agreement of Bonn) is an interesting one, too . Both episcopal lines are well established in Anglicanism, since roughly 80 years ago. It would be harder to find an Anglican in orders without some traace of the Dutch Touch or Polish Pat, than otherwise. And certainly, by the logic of transmission of valid orders (other points being valid, that is) it would appear that this would yield Anglican orders that Rome would look at as valid but illicit, at best. But no comment has been made on the matter (or minister, or intent, so to speak) by the RCC. So it is an open question, though the fact that J. J. Hughes and Graham Leonard were both received and ordained sub conditione, suggests the point is not unknown. But the attitude is undefined. And the continuing drift, in Anglicanism, legitimately raises issues of intent, at least, more validly perhaps than that raised in Apostolicae Curae. There is nothing going on in contemporary official Anglicanism that would incline Rome to give them the benefit of the doubt.
GKC
Anglicanus-Catholicus, posterus traditus Anglicanus
H
hn160
Guest
So I guess that if Luther would have gone to Rome to face heresy charges, he would have been handed over to the Emperor to be burned at the stake for heresy since the Church didn’t burn people.
K
kylemccloughan
Guest
Nor would I expect it. Pardon me for butting in here, I just couldn’t help it. It seems to me that no matter how much creedence the idea that Anglican lines truly do show validity through the PNC and the Dutch Touch, there has been an active effort on the part of the Roman church to supress and dismiss any and all inquiries into accurate and truthful history on this issue. I have always felt this way about it. Even Apistolicae Curae itself was established in a hasty and careless way overlooking many facts that would be directly contrarian to it.
G
GKC
Guest
Jump in any time.
As I’ve said on other occasions,* Apostolicae Curae* has been a hobby of mine for around 10 years. The conclusion reached and expressed in AC is certainly not intellectually contemptible. I’d be interested in which facts were over-looked, to see if it’s anything I am not aware of. Which would surprise me, but learning is always good.
The process that resulted in the issuing of* AC* reminds me somewhat of that involved in Henry’s Great Matter: a mixture of theology, politics and personality. I would not necessarily characterize it as hasty or careless, though I think the conclusion was foregone, based on my studies. There is a good deal of detail available as to these meetings, (the 12 meetings of the 8 man commission established to consider whether there had been a consistent RC policy toward Anglican orders, ab initio, and if so, whether there was reason to change it, and of the single meeting of Cardinals who formulated a recommendation to Leo XIII.) AC was the answer.
Whether* AC* was objectively justifiable is not the real question. The fact is, it is undeniably true that the RCC holds that Anglican orders are invalid, for the reasons there stated, and that any RC is required to affirm that judgment. And any Anglican is free to reject it. It is possible to present arguments for each side (I always recommend Hughes’ and Clark’s books, as everyone knows, to see it done. And one might also look over the answering letter from the 2 CoE Archbishops, Saepius Officio, for contemporary context, if one were interested).
As to the Dutch Touch/Polish Pat, logic suggests it might be a factor. And it might not, since no official comment has been given; other factors than an infusion of legitimate episcopal lines might affect it, especially in contemporary Anglicanism. I’m patient. And I am unaware of any active effort to supress the subject, just silence. Meanwhile, I have no doubts as to the validity of Anglican orders, at least without considering the impact of women’s ordination. And hence I have no great need for any form of triumphalism with respect to the RCC’s position as expressed in AC.
Like much of history, it’s all complex and interesting. And, in this case, sad, too.
GKC
- Status