A
anon52328184
Guest
i see this is katze’s first post. i hope you are not spiritmeadow or alexia musing reinventing herself again!! LOL
- Status
K
katze
Guest
I’m new to these forums so I have no idea who anybody is
S
Suegra
Guest
The traditional liturgical and choir music in almost any Anglo-Catholic church I’ve visited or know about, including mine, is *way *better than most of the schlocky (personal opinion) pop music type music settings I’ve encountered in most (but not all) of the RC churches I’ve visited.
Also, my Anglican parish doesn’t have women dispensing the Host or serving at the altar (including no women clergy in my parish/diocese).
(BTW, I’m a woman who has seen the great value of the priesthood of men, including at home, and who has suffered from the innovations introduced by the additionally-heretical Episcopal Church.)
Another reason I haven’t is I don’t want to abandon my parish family - we’ve been through a lot together. We have been well-instructed in catholic (little “c”) Christianity.
In His Mercy
Also, my Anglican parish doesn’t have women dispensing the Host or serving at the altar (including no women clergy in my parish/diocese).
(BTW, I’m a woman who has seen the great value of the priesthood of men, including at home, and who has suffered from the innovations introduced by the additionally-heretical Episcopal Church.)
Another reason I haven’t is I don’t want to abandon my parish family - we’ve been through a lot together. We have been well-instructed in catholic (little “c”) Christianity.
In His Mercy
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, katze,
Looks like we have a lot in common…
In 1521, Pope Leo X honored King Henry VIII by awarding him the medal of “Defender of the Faith” … now, that would be the Catholic Faith… for the fine job he was credited in doing for his defense of the seven sacraments against the Protestants. Up to this time, Henry and the rest of England were in total communion with the Roman Catholic Church.
In the 12 years that followed, Henry had marital problems and his wandering eye did not help matters any. Ultimately, in 1533 with the Act of Succession King Henry decided that he had enough of the Catholic Church and decided to form his own - one that would allow royal bed hopping at will. The rest is a very sad history.
Now, all the mischief can not be laid at Henry’s feet - ultimately there were others who simply decided that this set of ceremonies was simply too much of a reminder of the Roman Catholic faith that Henry once defended. (The Queen still has D.F. in her title - so I guess this honor must still have more significance then irony…
) The decision was made to totally change the ceremonies and - as such - Apostolic Succession simply was abandoned as not important. The rope was willingly cut and the drift became too far to bridge. Basically, there is no traceable line to the Apostles once Elizabeth left the throne.
Swimming the Tiber is not for the faint of heart. it also requires that you unload all those un-necessary weighty prejudices brought from other groups.
God bless,
Looks like we have a lot in common…
Actually, I can take that “Catholic” (with a capital “C”) much farther for you…
In 1521, Pope Leo X honored King Henry VIII by awarding him the medal of “Defender of the Faith” … now, that would be the Catholic Faith… for the fine job he was credited in doing for his defense of the seven sacraments against the Protestants. Up to this time, Henry and the rest of England were in total communion with the Roman Catholic Church.In the 12 years that followed, Henry had marital problems and his wandering eye did not help matters any. Ultimately, in 1533 with the Act of Succession King Henry decided that he had enough of the Catholic Church and decided to form his own - one that would allow royal bed hopping at will. The rest is a very sad history.
The issue of Apostolic Succession is a key item and it is good that your brought it up.
Now, all the mischief can not be laid at Henry’s feet - ultimately there were others who simply decided that this set of ceremonies was simply too much of a reminder of the Roman Catholic faith that Henry once defended. (The Queen still has D.F. in her title - so I guess this honor must still have more significance then irony…
) The decision was made to totally change the ceremonies and - as such - Apostolic Succession simply was abandoned as not important. The rope was willingly cut and the drift became too far to bridge. Basically, there is no traceable line to the Apostles once Elizabeth left the throne.To be brief, I think it prudent that you actually research from a RomanCatholic (again with a capital “C”) site just what it is you are rejecting. From the sounds of it, you are rejecting what your Anglican (Protestant) teachers have told you - in error - what Catholics (yes, that capital “C” again) believe.
Swimming the Tiber is not for the faint of heart. it also requires that you unload all those un-necessary weighty prejudices brought from other groups.
God bless,
S
Suegra
Guest
tqualey said:
*The decision was made to totally change the ceremonies and - as such - Apostolic Succession simply was abandoned as not important. *
The ceremonies were *not * totally changed, despite what you may believe. I think you have made an error there. Our Mass at our Parish more closely resembles pre-Vatican II and seem “more Catholic” to many visitors than some of the current Roman Catholic Masses. If you attend Mass at most any Anglo-Catholic paris, you can see what I mean. Our general confession comes just before the offertory instead of at the start of the Mass, but we mostly use the exact same words and same order for everything else.
Were this not so, I don’t think Pope John Paul II, of blessed memory, would have allowed Episcopal or Anglican parishes to come into the Catholic Church as “Anglican Use” parishes, under the Pastoral Provision.
Also, when I joined my Episcopal, now Anglican (to distinguish us from the heretical leadership of The Episcopal Organization) parish, I asked about proof of Apostolic Succession. Each bishop has a sort of “family tree” showing that he had hands laid on him by bishops who had had hands laid on them, etc., going all the way back to St. James of Jerusalem.
Of course, TEO exploded all Anglican ecumenical and reconciliation talks with Rome to heck and gone with the irregular and uncanonical ordination of womyn. TEO made things worse with the bishop-ing of women. Things have gotten worse since TEO has decided it can rewrite the Bible and do whatever it wants, like blessing immoral relationships. If I attend another Anglican/ Episcopal parish for some reason, I have to check to see if there will be a male priest present AND who ordained him.
*The decision was made to totally change the ceremonies and - as such - Apostolic Succession simply was abandoned as not important. *
The ceremonies were *not * totally changed, despite what you may believe. I think you have made an error there. Our Mass at our Parish more closely resembles pre-Vatican II and seem “more Catholic” to many visitors than some of the current Roman Catholic Masses. If you attend Mass at most any Anglo-Catholic paris, you can see what I mean. Our general confession comes just before the offertory instead of at the start of the Mass, but we mostly use the exact same words and same order for everything else.
Were this not so, I don’t think Pope John Paul II, of blessed memory, would have allowed Episcopal or Anglican parishes to come into the Catholic Church as “Anglican Use” parishes, under the Pastoral Provision.
Also, when I joined my Episcopal, now Anglican (to distinguish us from the heretical leadership of The Episcopal Organization) parish, I asked about proof of Apostolic Succession. Each bishop has a sort of “family tree” showing that he had hands laid on him by bishops who had had hands laid on them, etc., going all the way back to St. James of Jerusalem.
Of course, TEO exploded all Anglican ecumenical and reconciliation talks with Rome to heck and gone with the irregular and uncanonical ordination of womyn. TEO made things worse with the bishop-ing of women. Things have gotten worse since TEO has decided it can rewrite the Bible and do whatever it wants, like blessing immoral relationships. If I attend another Anglican/ Episcopal parish for some reason, I have to check to see if there will be a male priest present AND who ordained him.
A
anon52328184
Guest
welcome, katze. this thread has many interesting participants and there is always a good discussion.I’m new to these forums so I have no idea who anybody is
A
anon52328184
Guest
i just converted in july to the RCC. i was an episcopal/anglican for 54 years.
what exactly does TEO stand for? i wish i knew who to believe about the apostolic succession issue. growing up in the episcopal church i was made to believe that we were still part of it, but, yet, when i went to be confirmed this summer in the RCC, i was told that the episcopal is not part of the apostolic succession. where do i go to find the truth on this matter?
i seem to learn more things about anglican each time i come here and the history of christianity in england. henry viii was given the title of defender of faith. i also heard that even though ann boleyn was a supporter of the reformers, henry still leaned toward catholicism. if he wouldn’t have needed an annulment, he might never have pulled england away from Rome in other words.
G
GKC
Guest
A couple of points.Hi, katze,
Looks like we have a lot in common…
Actually, I can take that “Catholic” (with a capital “C”) much farther for you…
In the 12 years that followed, Henry had marital problems and his wandering eye did not help matters any. Ultimately, in 1533 with the Act of Succession King Henry decided that he had enough of the Catholic Church and decided to form his own - one that would allow royal bed hopping at will. The rest is a very sad history.
The issue of Apostolic Succession is a key item and it is good that your brought it up.
Now, all the mischief can not be laid at Henry’s feet - ultimately there were others who simply decided that this set of ceremonies was simply too much of a reminder of the Roman Catholic faith that Henry once defended. (The Queen still has D.F. in her title - so I guess this honor must still have more significance then irony…
To be brief, I think it prudent that you actually research from a RomanCatholic (again with a capital “C”) site just what it is you are rejecting. From the sounds of it, you are rejecting what your Anglican (Protestant) teachers have told you - in error - what Catholics (yes, that capital “C” again) believe.
Swimming the Tiber is not for the faint of heart. it also requires that you unload all those un-necessary weighty prejudices brought from other groups.
God bless,
Henry’s receiving the Defensor Fidei title is a little more complicated than just the issue of the Assertio Spetem Sacramentorum. Its more fun, too. Every time I’m asked, I post it.
Hnery not only had marital problems, he had dynastic problems. And sure, hormones, too. But he really tried hard to play the decree of nullity game.
The Act of Succession was March, 1534.
The judgement reflected in *Apostalicae Curae *is certainly the one that any RC should affirm. It is, of course, understandable if Anglicans do otherwise. The argument offered, that the Edwardine Ordinal was defective in form and the users/drafters of it possessed of defective intent is arguable. And has been argued since, oh, 1896 or so. It is a sad story, that I’ve studied for years.
GKC
Anglicanus Catholicus
G
GKC
Guest
I suspect that the reference to changing the ceremonies is to the charge made in Apostolice Curae, in 1896, Monsignor Raphael Merry del Val’s words over Pope Leo XIII’s signature. The accusation was that in the Edwardine Ordinal, used for the consecrating of bishops and priests, the wording had been changed by Cranmer to eliminate the concept of the sacerdotal priesthood. Hence, the ritual was defective in form, and the drafters/users of it defective in intent, thus rendering a break in apostolic succession from that point on in Anglicanism.
The issue can be argued. But all RCs should certainly affirm it.
GKC
Anglicanus Catholicus
K
katze
Guest
I concur. Apostolicae Curae IS NOT an “infallible” statement of Dogma, it is merely the OPINION of ONE Pope. The Anglican Church was very careful to preserve Apostolic Succession in its ordained Orders. If the same standard used by Leo in Apostolicae Curae to determine Anglican Orders as invalid were applied to Roman Orders and Apostolic Succession then Roman Bishops, Priests and Deacons would have NO VALIDITY either. Sign me “Catholic, but not Roman”.
A
anon52328184
Guest
i am confused by what GKC and katze just posted.
i still don’t know who to believe or which side to believe. i am not even sure which side GKC is on that is how confused i am! LOL
i still don’t know who to believe or which side to believe. i am not even sure which side GKC is on that is how confused i am! LOL
S
Suegra
Guest
deborahaz -
TEO stands for The Episcopal Organization as many of us consevative Anglicans/Episcopalians call it now, because, if you judge by looking the leadership and it’s un-canonical, unChristian actions, it sure ain’t a *Christian * church anymore.
In many places, TEO is more of a social club these days, but there are many persecuted pockets of orthodox faith, belief, and practice within it. Ditto for the Anglican “Church” in Canada.
The majority of TEO bishops have no notion anymore of what “being in communion” means, as demonstrated by their unilateral action in consecrating a unrepentant sinner as the bishop of New Hampshire.
That said, there are many in the Anglican Communion who believe the same creeds (and pray and celebrate the Eucharist much the same way) as Catholics.
TEO stands for The Episcopal Organization as many of us consevative Anglicans/Episcopalians call it now, because, if you judge by looking the leadership and it’s un-canonical, unChristian actions, it sure ain’t a *Christian * church anymore.
In many places, TEO is more of a social club these days, but there are many persecuted pockets of orthodox faith, belief, and practice within it. Ditto for the Anglican “Church” in Canada.
The majority of TEO bishops have no notion anymore of what “being in communion” means, as demonstrated by their unilateral action in consecrating a unrepentant sinner as the bishop of New Hampshire.
That said, there are many in the Anglican Communion who believe the same creeds (and pray and celebrate the Eucharist much the same way) as Catholics.
A
anon52328184
Guest
okay, i agree with calling it an organization. i just made the comment the other day that belonging to the episcopal church was like joining a country club. very social and fellowship is a good thing as long as there is no gossip,
which is hard for church communities i think. yes, i was part of an anglican church for 6 months before i joined the RCC. i was disappointed this summer when GAFCON met in jerusalem and decided to stay within the anglican communion and specifically with the archbishop of canterbury. i was hoping those anglican churches who pray and celebrate the Eucharist much like the Catholics would have formed their own network. after being in the RCC for almost 2 months, there are many differences between the RCC and the anglican communions.
G
GKC
Guest
A
anon52328184
Guest
GKC - you are an anglican convert to roman catholicism?
if so, you argue that those in the anglican communion who believe they are in full apostolic succession with rome have been misled or misinformed?
if so, you argue that those in the anglican communion who believe they are in full apostolic succession with rome have been misled or misinformed?
G
GKC
Guest
That’s certainly one of the arguments Anglicans have made against it; indeed the Anglican Archbishops reply to AC, Saepius Officio, said precisely that. I think there are stronger aarguments. But the logic of the position in AC is sound. If the form, intent, minister or matter of a sacrament is found invalid, the sacrament is not confected. The point is whether the argument of defective form/intent is valid. Certainly, there are many rites which Rome recognises as conveying valid orders, which have the same supposed “defect” as the Edwardine Ordinal. That’s why the defect of form must always be matched to a defective intention, in making the judgement AC did.
The best exposition of the RC position on this is found in Clark’s ANGLICAN ORDERS AND DEFECT OF INTENTENTION. The best argument for the Anglican case is made by a RC priest, (former Anglican priest) Fr. John J. Hughes, in two books: ABSOLUTELY NULL AND UTTERLY VOID and STEWARDS OF THE LORD. I recommend all of them.
However, AC is to be treated by RCs as infallible, as then Cardinal Ratzinger stated in discussing another point, a few years ago. There is no comfort there.
GKC
Added:It’s too late to correct them, but a post of mine just up the board is full of typos. No fair pointing them out.
GKC
E
emeraldcoast
Guest
G
GKC
Guest
Nope. I’m a traditionalist Anglo-Catholic type of Anglican, with a whole lot of books. Which support a lot of hobbies, like the issue of Anglican orders. I know more about the subject than the next 3 people you meet on the street, randomly, I’ll wager. Unless you happen to meet Joe. Joe knows more than I do about it.
But Anglicans who think as I do, or as Anglicans generally do, don’t believe they are in full apostolic succession with Rome. They believe that Anglicans (certain recent exceptions involving invalid matter noted) possess full apostolic succession, in a manner similar to Rome. IOW, they reject Apostolicae Curae.
GKC
Anglicanus Catholicus
T
thirdn6
Guest
G
GKC
Guest
- Status