- Status
C
Cranmer2010
Guest
G
GKC
Guest
Thank you. The subject is a hobby of mine; that’s a very fast overview.
But don’t read too much into it. as Fr. J. J. Hughes, whose books on the subject I consider the best on the possible approach to a defense of the Anglicans (he is RC) said, it is possible to reach a correct decision for bad reasons. He then goes on to demonstrate why that was probably not what happened in this case. But it might. At any rate, it is absolutely correct to say that the RCC does not accept the validity of Anglican orders.
GKC
J
JohnnyReb
Guest
Yes, I didn’t necessarily mean fundamentalist in a pejorative sense, rather a more practical one. I’ve known many Catholics in my life but none of them have toed the line on every exact thing that the Catholic Church teaches, nor have they felt it necessary to or criticised Catholics who did not.
I have some things that I differ with Rome on, but I am willing to wrestle with them. I’m sort of in a place between Anglican, Catholic and Orthodox at the moment.
C
Contarini
Guest
No. Not as I’m using the term. There certainly are liberal Christians who use “fundamentalist” interchangeably with “orthodox.” But it more often denotes a certain attitude. The basic characteristic of a fundamentalist attitude is an unwillingness to recognize ambiguity or uncertainty. A fundamentalist Catholic, in the sense I use the term, is one who assumes that the teachings of the Church can only possibly be interpreted in one way (the way he or she interprets them), and that those who differ are unfaithful.
Edwin
G
GKC
Guest
No. Trust me on this. That was not what happened, in the development of *Apostolicae Curae. *
History is complicated and, as someone said, on another board, reductionist approaches are rarely correct.
GKC
J
JohnnyReb
Guest
I agree with you about that. I wish more Christians would be more willing to be accepting of uncertainty in certain areas. Christianity requires faith. Without faith, it is impossible to please God.
T
The_Old_Medic
Guest
Sadly, all too many people would much rather argue about the why’s and wherefores of the past, than open their arms and say, “Welcome Home”.
They reject Christ’s approach, in favor of mankinds. Instead of seeking the one lost sheep, they keep counting the 99 and complaining about the lost one.
They fail to see that they are doing Satan’s work for him, not Christ’s.
The fact is, the Pope has set up a means whereby Anglicans can rejoin the Church of Rome, keep many of their traditions, and become one with the Roman Catholic Church again. That shows the Holy Spirit at work.
But some will nitpick this and that, obstruct, call names, and do anything and everything that they can (and that the devil eggs them on to do) to keep this from happening. They will cite history, invalidity, or just about anything else they can possibly raise.
But, most of those that are called by the Holy Spirit will ignore those voices, and to them I say a hearty “Welcome Home Brothers and Sisters”.
They reject Christ’s approach, in favor of mankinds. Instead of seeking the one lost sheep, they keep counting the 99 and complaining about the lost one.
They fail to see that they are doing Satan’s work for him, not Christ’s.
The fact is, the Pope has set up a means whereby Anglicans can rejoin the Church of Rome, keep many of their traditions, and become one with the Roman Catholic Church again. That shows the Holy Spirit at work.
But some will nitpick this and that, obstruct, call names, and do anything and everything that they can (and that the devil eggs them on to do) to keep this from happening. They will cite history, invalidity, or just about anything else they can possibly raise.
But, most of those that are called by the Holy Spirit will ignore those voices, and to them I say a hearty “Welcome Home Brothers and Sisters”.
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
I definitely agree with that characterization. Despite the claims of unity, it seems like the “fundamentalist,” as you call them, Catholics disagree a great deal amongst one another and you’re correct that they have no ambiguity or wiggle room. It’s all narrow in scope to fit their feeling of theology and morality.
Take apostolicae curae, most Catholics in CAF cite it to degrade and reject Anglican orders without bothering to research Anglican co-consecrations and developments SINCE A.C. was proclaimed…it fits the fundamentalist approach to just stick within a papal decree from the late 1800’s and not look further…
Take apostolicae curae, most Catholics in CAF cite it to degrade and reject Anglican orders without bothering to research Anglican co-consecrations and developments SINCE A.C. was proclaimed…it fits the fundamentalist approach to just stick within a papal decree from the late 1800’s and not look further…
G
GKC
Guest
But, in the end, they don’t need to look any further. The historical circumstances would not affect the requirement to affirm the statement. The Universal Ordinary Magisterium takes precedence. You can’t blame RCs for being RCs.I definitely agree with that characterization. Despite the claims of unity, it seems like the “fundamentalist,” as you call them, Catholics disagree a great deal amongst one another and you’re correct that they have no ambiguity or wiggle room. It’s all narrow in scope to fit their feeling of theology and morality.
Take apostolicae curae, most Catholics in CAF cite it to degrade and reject Anglican orders without bothering to research Anglican co-consecrations and developments SINCE A.C. was proclaimed…it fits the fundamentalist approach to just stick within a papal decree from the late 1800’s and not look further…
GKC
P
Paul_Rimmer
Guest
Amen. And I admire them greatly for it. It’s a noble tradition, and a brave one. Part of me wishes I could have continued as a Roman Catholic with a clean conscience. There is much richness, beauty, and a sense of certainty and anchor that Rome has to offer, and that I will sorely miss, for the rest of my life.
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
I don’t see how you can justify that claim though? I understand them accepting A.C. as a papal proclamation, but if history has reinfused apostolic succession into Anglican lines of priesthood, how could one, even trying to be a loyal Catholic, justify A.C. as valid anymore? Why make the argument you make daily about apostolicae curae if your points are going to be blown off in such a cavalier fashion anyway? I think you’re correct in your points about both A.C. and the later historical developments. And I think a Catholic could acknowledge A.C. valid FOR ITS TIME and in those days, but subsequent developments changed that, right? Why can’t a Catholic affirm A.C. as valid in its time but out of date because of the dutch etc.?
G
GKC
Guest
I make my points because what interests me is the history, personalities, politics and theology that lay behind, beneath and on the surface of the process that lead to the Bull. Other RCs share this historical interest, sometime; I may have mentioned my friend Joe. But, in the final analysis, a RC makes a statement of faith, not in the history behind, but in the contents of, the teaching of the Church. I might understand if a RC were to find history such that they could not do so, but then the course is to stop being RC. If this is not the case, one who remains RC should affirm the (what shall I call them ) “particulars” required. And I can’t fault them for doing so, though I can’t follow them. While I respect the Magisterium, in all its definitions, my respect is not the sort of thing a RC is expected to demonstrate. And I can’t get upset about that.
It’s like some other subjects I deal in. As long as the approach is “The RCC teaches this about that”, then the most interest I can have is “Tell me more”. or rarely," I don’t think that’s historically accurate". If the subject does drift into faulty history, in one of my hobby areas, I might get involved, as to facts. Sometimes it’s explosive. But I don’t really post to convert or convince, but to explain.
GKC
J
JohnnyReb
Guest
There is, and I think that is appeal that the RCC has. Rome offers certainty, and offers people the ability to receive truth without having to figure out complicated matters for themselves. It is very comforting when we can say on certain issues “Rome has spoken, that settles it” and its the same thing as “God has spoken, that settles it”
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
Do you think a Catholic could and should remain a Catholic if he/she believes A.C. was faulty and ill-conceived and that history since then has re-shaped the argument? Would you consider that a “particular?” It’s hard to say when a person should stop being a Catholic. Can a person be a Catholic and not believe in infallibility, indulgences, and the treasury of merit, etc.?..Are you saying a ‘good’ Catholic must affirm A.C. or that you think one can be a Catholic in good standing and toss A.C. to the side as ridiculous?
G
GKC
Guest
I think a RC who could not affirm the bottom line of AC, or any other teaching of the Magisterium, should consider strongly if there was something in their attitude toward the teaching authority of the RCC that was not in line with what the RCC teaches about the teaching authority of the RCC. The teaching authority of the RCC, as it teaches it, is one particular.
One might be a bad RC. It is not becoming to be a dishonest one.
GKC
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
But if one’s reasoning is post-A.C. historical developments, in affirming Anglican orders, is that really a blatant disregard for the magisterial teaching or just a realization that, as you have pointed out yourself, the papacy has not addressed orders since A.C. and the Dutch changed the playing field? Is it being obstinate and not respecting the Church authority or just common sense in light of later developments? What you’re saying, correct me if I’m wrong, is that a “good” Catholic should reject Anglican orders as junk to be a good Catholic. Your arguments in favor of Anglican orders and against AC are purely of interest and a hobby and for defense of your own faith but you actually want a Catholic to reject your argument or else they’re “dishonest.” Am I right here or? (no sarcastic tone implied in this post, mind you, it’s hard to ask this question without it possibly be taken wrong!) 
G
GKC
Guest
Note that I added a bit to the original post, above. I’m a slow thinker.But if one’s reasoning is post-A.C. historical developments, in affirming Anglican orders, is that really a blatant disregard for the magisterial teaching or just a realization that, as you have pointed out yourself, the papacy has not addressed orders since A.C. and the Dutch changed the playing field? Is it being obstinate and not respecting the Church authority or just common sense in light of later developments? What you’re saying, correct me if I’m wrong, is that a “good” Catholic should reject Anglican orders as junk to be a good Catholic. Your arguments in favor of Anglican orders and against AC are purely of interest and a hobby and for defense of your own faith but you actually want a Catholic to reject your argument or else they’re “dishonest.” Am I right here or? (no sarcastic tone implied in this post, mind you, it’s hard to ask this question without it possibly be taken wrong!)
In brief, yes. That is what I’m saying. A good RC should affirm that what the RCC teaches as true, is to be accepted as true, on the authority of the RCC. I am not saying that the arguments on either side, pro or con (on AC, (e.g.) are true or false, though I have my own, Anglican opinion. I’m saying that, if Roma locuta (as is said was said), then *casua finiti *, on that point, unless and until Rome speaks again, to further define something.
There might be things upon which there might be wiggle room, but I don’t see this one as so. The point that the issue of OC/PNCC has not been definitively commented on, it seems to me, might permit some such wiggle room, but I wouldn’t encourage it. I’d discuss, though.
GKC
G
GKC
Guest
I might, yes.On the contrary, if we don’t blame RC’s for being RC’s, who DO we blame for it?
Oh wait…somebody’s gonna say Jesus
GKC
- Status