Anglicans vs The Pope

  • Thread starter Thread starter dallas_r
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
@Don_Ruggero, Father I have caught flak from multiple posters now for referring to you as “Don.”

I was under the impression Don was an honorific title meaning “lord,” and that calling a Priest with that title either “Don first/lastname” or just “Don” was normal and acceptable.

Was I wrong?
 
Last edited:
It is the norm to refer to secular priests by the title Don in some cultures. That being said, I am not sure if you simply use “Don” without a name. I always address my posts to him with the vocative Father to be safe :).
In my wife’s home country, “Don” is used for any elderly gentleman.
 
Spyridon said:
@Don_Ruggero, Father I have caught flak from multiple posters now for referring to you as “Don.”

I was under the impression Don was an honorific title meaning “lord,” and that calling a Priest with that title either “Don first/lastname” or just “Don” was normal and acceptable.

Was I wrong?
Click to expand...
The answer is as nuanced as, in English, with a Benedictine choir nun.

Her title is “Dame”. Normally, one uses it in conjunction with her name…Dame Catherine, Dame Margaret. There are certainly times when you can use it alone. “Yes, Dame” or “Good Morning, Dame”. In most instances, it would cause the person being addressed to regard you a second or third time. Simply saying “Dame!” rather than “Dame Catherine!” or “Speak to Dame.” One would never say, even in a conversation in which the name had been used a number of times, “Tell Dame I said ______” or “Could I speak then to Dame.”

Since most people on this forum are monolingual, I take that into account…they don’t have the ear to begin to know what would instantly strike someone who did have the ear as to whether or not the proposed usage was appropriate. One always does well to take the more conservative approach and use the title with the priest’s first or last name.

However, I have not seen any use by you that raised my eyebrow, at all.
 
Yeah, from what I heard, no actual Anglican is proud of their roots haha.
 
Your statements are completely erroneous – and absurd.

They are not a separate religion.
Henry did not seek a divorce.
He did not divorce the Church.
He did not “set up a counterfeit Catholic Church”
And he certainly did not make himself a Pope.

I suggest you read actual historians who are true academics…not polemicists.
 
Then, average person, with all charity, perhaps you should refrain from saying things that are not within your scope of knowledge or understanding. It tends to make you look rather foolish, and it riles people who know just a tad more about the subject.
 
Father never said that Anglicans have valid orders or a valid Eucharistic. But your uncharitable approach towards Anglicans is not at all consistent with the current mind of the Church. Did you see the photos Father posted of recent popes, including the more “conservative” Pope Benedict, warmly interacting with Anglican prelates?
 
Last edited:
The thing is, going on about Henry VIII and his many sins is no better than when certain Orthodox Christians go on about the Latin Franks who sacked Constantinople. If modern Catholics aren’t responsible for the actions of medieval crusaders, then modern Anglicans aren’t responsible for the actions of Henry VIII.
 
Wait, Anglicans have confession? That can’t be right. That would mean they have Holy Orders which they do not. I’m confused…🤨
 
Technically true… but you’ll catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.
 
Which means they…don’t…have holy orders. Anyone can baptize and the priest is just a witness for marriage. Two folks on a desert island could get married.
 
Yes, I believe there is a confession rite in the 1979 Book of Common Prayer.
 
That really says everything as far as your fidelity to the Vicar of Christ on earth.

Let us be clear: there is no problem with Pope Saint John Paul II, Pope Benedict, and Pope Francis or with the Church of Rome on these issues – the problem is with any Catholic who does not give obsequium to competent ecclesiastical authority.

You are not the judge of the Popes or the Bishops – you are to be their obedient and faithful subject. Period.
 
Entwhistler said:
Wait, Anglicans have confession? That can’t be right. That would mean they have Holy Orders which they do not. I’m confused…🤨
Click to expand...
No. The determination of Rome about the issue of apostolic succession has nothing to do with Anglicans self-understanding. The Book of Common Prayer provides for both Reconciliation of a Penitent and Ministration to the Sick.

Those provisions – and their theology for what they do in those ministrations – allow me to employ canon 844 in favour of both Anglicans and Lutherans…which I have done more times than I can count
§3. Catholic ministers administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick licitly to members of Eastern Churches which do not have full communion with the Catholic Church if they seek such on their own accord and are properly disposed. This is also valid for members of other Churches which in the judgment of the Apostolic See are in the same condition in regard to the sacraments as these Eastern Churches.

§4. If the danger of death is present or if, in the judgment of the diocesan bishop or conference of bishops, some other grave necessity urges it, Catholic ministers administer these same sacraments licitly also to other Christians not having full communion with the Catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and who seek such on their own accord, provided that they manifest Catholic faith in respect to these sacraments and are properly disposed.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
So they don’t have apostolic succession in Catholic eyes. I didn’t think they did since they changed the words of the ordination under King Edward VI. But they can, like anyone of any faith, receive Communion, confession and Extreme Unction under grave circumstances if they actually believe what the Church teaches about the sacraments.

Interesting.
 
Then they are ignorant of what the Magisterium actually teaches.

What is there that is not understandable for Catholic laity in Canon 844?
Can. 844 §1. Catholic ministers administer the sacraments licitly to Catholic members of the Christian faithful alone, who likewise receive them licitly from Catholic ministers alone, without prejudice to the prescripts of §§2, 3, and 4 of this canon, and ⇒ can. 861, §2.

§2. Whenever necessity requires it or true spiritual advantage suggests it, and provided that danger of error or of indifferentism is avoided, the Christian faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister are permitted to receive the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick from non-Catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid.
Click to expand...
The Catholic, however, must be respectful of the discipline of the Orthodox – which varies.
 
You agree now that Catholic faithful can receive penance, Eucharist and anointing of the sick from an Orthodox priest? In accord with Canon 844? Because moments ago, you asserted:
 
Evangelicals often have a very direct approach, so I understand that. Father is more familiar with the more, let’s say intellectual, branches of Protestantism in Europe. It’s important to “recalibrate” for your audience.
 
This is true on so many levels. Christianity is starting to become soft and look mushy due to the horrendous actions of many Protestant branches. Even us Catholics are starting to become more watered down due to poor catechesis and people making heretical statements, simply because they don’t know anything better. To be honest I am attracted to traditional Anglicanism because they focus a lot more on writings of Church Fathers and take them seriously. Even some Catholics who claim to be traditional don’t know the true meaning of tradition, to be part of the apostolic Church and to keep the teachings passed down from Christ, His disciples, and early Church Fathers. While this of course is a minority, it still happens.

I gave an evangelical a 20 minute sermon about the emphasis that needs to be put on tradition, she seemed to understand what I was saying and even agreed, but later told me she disagreed and listened to me go on just so I would give her a hug. She’s a good friend, but gosh just tell me you don’t want to listen before I give you a full on homily. After a week, she proceeds to accuse Catholics for worshiping Mary and saints because we ask for intercession, goes on with her silly protestant defense and doesn’t let me say a word. I know I’m supposed to do my best to evangelize but sometimes these prots make we want to flip over a table.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top