Anglicans: Why don't you come home to Rome?

[anon52328184]

GKC - do you mean Average Joe?

 

[Mandy31]

To GkC from Mandy31,

When I first posted on this forum I told about my daughter J. leaving Catholicism to join the Episcopal Church I can’t find my post on the forums but am sure I joined this thread.

She was baptized in the Catholic Church and went to CCD when a young girl. I have tried many things to try to get her to even go with me to Church,

It appears to me that she enjoys the community with food served.
I have quit worrying about her and have put my trust in Christ I have learned a lot about her church.

I have prayed and sent her Catholic material to read.

She is grown up now in her 50’s so I will not ask her again. I continue to pray to St. Monica.

I want to thank all the people who have sent posts explaining the
rites of the Episcopal services and their beliefs.

Mandy 31

 

[thirdn6]

Holy Rosary time. Join me in my prayers…

 

[Matariel]

katze;4112327:

The Anglican Church was very careful to preserve Apostolic Succession in its ordained Orders. QUOTE]

If they were that careful, why the change in form by the Convocation of clergy in 1662?
What’s wrong with the older Edwardine Ordinal?
If Anglican clergy were all consecrated using an invalid Edwardine ordinal, what could make them valid even using the newer 1662 Ordinal? They couldn’t give what they didn’t have- the validity of their orders as “sacrificial priests”, long been cut off by the invalid Edwardine ordinal.

Don’t you remember the infusion of Apostolic lines from the Old Catholics and Independent Catholics, which Rome recognizes? This occurred after Apostolica Curae, so this is really less of an issue than some Catholics tend to make it. This is also why Anglican priests, when turned Catholic, are re-ordained conditionally.

 

[GKC]

GKC - do you mean Average Joe?

This Joe is far from average. He knows more about
*Apostolicae Curae *than I do (which is hard). He knows more Latin than my Phi Beta Kappa, summa cum laude, daughter, who taught it for 5 years. And he is a superb artist, calligrapher and maker of illuminated manuscripts. IOW, he’ a stupor mundi.

GKC

 

[anon52328184]

okay, i am thinking of another joe who knows a lot who has a webpage called average joe. he must be from another thread.

i still don’t know who to believe.

 

[GKC]

thirdn6;4112545:

Don’t you remember the infusion of Apostolic lines from the Old Catholics and Independent Catholics, which Rome recognizes? This occurred after Apostolica Curae

, so this is really less of an issue than some Catholics tend to make it. This is also why Anglican priests, when turned Catholic, are re-ordained conditionally.

While I mentioned the Old Catholic/PNCC lines, above, it is not correct that Anglican priests are ordained sub conditione, if they seek to become RC priests. Only two in modern times have been ordained conditionally: Graham Leonard, one time Bishop of London, and (the first such) John J. Hughes, author of the two best books I know of on Apostolicae Curae. Anglican priests who become RC priests are routinely ordained absolutely.

And, of course, it’s not correct to speak of re-ordaining, in any circumstances. Ordination, imprinting an indelible character, is not repeatable.

GKC

 

[anon52328184]

i know they have to go through a lot of testing and they have to wait for two years after they do what is required before they can become a priest.

they just can’t switch from one communion to the other.

they have to live as a catholic for 2 years.

 

[GKC]

okay, i am thinking of another joe who knows a lot who has a webpage called average joe. he must be from another thread.

i still don’t know who to believe.

Sometimes I don’t either.

What’s the question?

GKC

 

[Matariel]

Matariel;4112630:

While I mentioned the Old Catholic/PNCC lines, above, it is not correct that Anglican priests are ordained sub conditione

, if they seek to become RC priests. Only two in modern times have been ordained conditionally: Graham Leonard, one time Bishop of London, and (the first such) John J. Hughes, author of the two best books I know of on Apostolicae Curae. Anglican priests who become RC priests are routinely ordained absolutely.

And, of course, it’s not correct to speak of re-ordaining, in any circumstances. Ordination, imprinting an indelible character, is not repeatable.

GKC

Oh, I must be wrong, sorry. Your expertice in this area is unquestionable. Mea culpa.

Also, yes, technically, “re-ordination” is non-existent.

 

[anon52328184]

Matariel;4112630:

While I mentioned the Old Catholic/PNCC lines, above, it is not correct that Anglican priests are ordained sub conditione

, if they seek to become RC priests. Only two in modern times have been ordained conditionally: Graham Leonard, one time Bishop of London, and (the first such) John J. Hughes, author of the two best books I know of on Apostolicae Curae. Anglican priests who become RC priests are routinely ordained absolutely.

And, of course, it’s not correct to speak of re-ordaining, in any circumstances. Ordination, imprinting an indelible character, is not repeatable.

GKC

what do you mean that re-ordaining is not repeatable? what about confirmation? what about confirmation? why did i have to be reconfirmed in the RCC after already being confirmed in the episcopal church? they did not recognize my confirmation.

 

[jesusluv]

ordination and confirmation are in two different ballparks.

 

[katze]

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.

Actually GAFCON all but declared separation from Canterbury, IE GAFCON and the “Jerusalem Declaration” they issued was a de facto separation from Canterbury and the ECUSA. Just “Google” GAFCON and read what they said in the “Jerusalem Declaration”. GAFCON members ARE forming their own network, a network of Provinces, Diocese, and "Continuing Anglican Churches IE, The Reformed Episcopal Church, The Anglican Province of America etc. into a network of Orthodox Anglican Churches and eventually leading to an Orthodox and faithful “Anglican Communion” separate from the Liberal whack-nuts that make up the Church of England and the ECUSA. Sign me “Catholic, but not Roman”.

 

[TriuneUnity]

Actually GAFCON all but declared separation from Canterbury, IE GAFCON and the “Jerusalem Declaration” they issued was a de facto separation from Canterbury and the ECUSA. Just “Google” GAFCON and read what they said in the “Jerusalem Declaration”. GAFCON members ARE forming their own network, a network of Provinces, Diocese, and "Continuing Anglican Churches IE, The Reformed Episcopal Church, The Anglican Province of America etc. into a network of Orthodox Anglican Churches and eventually leading to an Orthodox and faithful “Anglican Communion” separate from the Liberal whack-nuts that make up the Church of England and the ECUSA. Sign me “Catholic, but not Roman”.

Which Anglican Church are you a member of?

 

[anon52328184]

i know they have gone under the archbishops of rwanda and uganda and the southern cone, but i have not heard that they are making a formal separation from the archbishop of canterbury.

i know that many of them did not attend the Lambeth conference this summer.

i am waiting to see what path they decide on.

 

[thirdn6]

thirdn6;4112545:

Don’t you remember the infusion of Apostolic lines from the Old Catholics and Independent Catholics, which Rome recognizes? This occurred after Apostolica Curae

, so this is really less of an issue than some Catholics tend to make it. This is also why Anglican priests, when turned Catholic, are re-ordained conditionally.

To me, that “infusion” meant like “outsmarting” the Holy Spirit, who was only promised to the Apostles and their successors in guiding the holy Catholic Church until the end of time.
If the Catholic Church says that Anglican Orders are not valid, it means “all” not “some”.
Why make it so complicated?
I believe that the validity of the holy Eucharist and the sacraments found in the holy Catholic Church are more important than the very name “Roman Catholic” if Anglicans don’t want to be tagged as such if they convert. But then you must still submit to the primacy of the Bishop of Rome, our beloved Pope, and believe all the teachings of the Church (whether you know them all or not) to be a genuine Catholic. That’s simple obedience.

 

[anon52328184]

okay, i am tending to lean towards thirdn6.

i believe the succession for the episcopal church came through scotland,
samuel seabury, since we weren’t on the best of terms with england.

at least that is where they claim their apostolic succession came through i believe.

however, thirdn6 makes some good points.

will this issue ever be resolved between the RCC and the anglican communion or will it be an obstacle?

obviously, the people from the episcopla church and the anglican communion believe one way and the roman catholic church another.

 

[katze]

Which Anglican Church are you a member of?

Reformed Episcopal Church:thumbsup:

 

[tqualey]

Hi, katze,

I think we need to look at the statement concerning, “… the opinion of one man…” (like this is some fluke item that has no real merit) and go to the heart of the matter.

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.

Pope Leo XIII in 1896, after reviewing the question about Apostolic Succession in the Anglican Church definitively concluded that their orders no longer can be traced to the Apostles. This official pronouncement was not musings of elderly man doodling with a pencil on the back of a brown paper bag. This was a studied issue and a decision was made - and then… reaffirmed by each Pope since 1896. To say it (Apostolicae Curae) is not infallible in the same sense that Catholics believe Holy Communion is the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ, is correct. To say it can be ignored - as apparently is the case - is in error. This is a definitive teaching of the Roman Catholic Church and upheld as late as 1998 Pope John Paul II’s apostolic letter Ad Tuendam Fidem. It just is not easily dismissed.

I fully appreciate the desire to claim Apostolic Succession - but, that really is not the issue. Henry VIII (and all of the successors to the English throne) have attempted to have their break with the Church founded by Jesus Christ seen in the best possible light - or, simply having it both ways at the same time: “I can marry / divorce as often as I want, I can claim to found my own Church, I can do it all because I am the King of England…” or words to that effect. There are realities that transcend the royal secpter - ignoring them does not change any matter. Henry lead the group into error by disregarding (and disrespecting) Christ’s Vican on earth. Just what more do you want? How does one claim affinity with Christ when His Reprsentative is trashed?

Here is an interesting link from the Catholic Encyclopedia: newadvent.org/cathen/01491a.htm

God bless

 

[GKC]

GKC;4112673:

what do you mean that re-ordaining is not repeatable? what about confirmation? what about confirmation? why did i have to be reconfirmed in the RCC after already being confirmed in the episcopal church? they did not recognize my confirmation.

Exactly. They did not recognise your confirmation as valid, since they do not recognise the apostolic succession of Anglican bishops. It requires a valid bishop, in apostolic succession, to validly confirm. Therefore, in their eyes you were not confirmed, so you were not re-confirmed. You were confirmed for the first time.

The same is true when an Anglican priest becomes a RC priest. The normal assumption is that he was never validly ordained as a priest, so he is ordained absolutely. For technical reasons, occasionally some doubt as to certain issues arises, as in the case of Graham Leonard and John J. Hughes (passing over the technical details here). In such a case, the ordination is done conditionally, as is also done, for example, if it is doubtful or unknown if a person has been baptised. This is ordination
sub conditione.

Of course, since the RC recognises any Trinitarian baptisim done with water as valid, that problem only arises if it simply isn’t known if a former baptism was performed. In which case the formula includes a phrase like “If you have not already been baptised, I baptise thee…” .

GKC