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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dempsey1919
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
deborahaz said:
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.
Click to expand...
You are correct. The Episcopal Church in America recieved the apostolic succession from the Non-jurors, who were, at the time, based in Scotland and not in communion with Canterbury. How that all came about would take a little history lesson.

I fear that there is unlikely to be a resolution of of the issue of orders. There was a time, back around 40 years ago, when there was some hope, based on the relationship between Michael Ramsey, Archbishop of Canterbury and Pope Paul VI. This was the time of the founding of the Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission, which looked hopeful. Unfortunately, official Anglicanism began to run off the rails about then, and made it a little difficult to maintain that it was a part of the historic Church. It’s far worse today.

GKC
 
tqualey said:
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.

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
Click to expand...
The sad issue of the history of Apostolicae Curae, and the theology, personalities, and politics involved, is a hobby of mine, that I have studied for over 10 years. In brief, it will not surprise you if I say that, as an Anglican, I do not find the process as it occurred to be particularly impressive or thorough. Nor was it a clear cut decision; the 8 commissioners were about evenly split between finding Anglican orders valid or possibly valid, and finding them invalid. And there are other points.

But I certainly never suggest that for RCs, the issue is not really open to discussion. You should affirm that Anglican orders are invalid, and I always point that out. That, of course, is not the same thing as saying that they are objectively invalid, but that’s an Anglican position.

It is a sad, sad story. Do you know, for example, precisely why the commission was formed to addess the issue?

GKC
 
Hi, GKC,
GKC said:
It is a sad, sad story. Do you know, for example, precisely why the commission was formed to addess the issue?
Click to expand...
No, I do not know - and, I would certainly enjoy reading your response…🙂

On a similar matter, I would appreciate it if you also addressed the matter of Henry VIII moving from being awarded the D.F. to totally jumping ship and trying to form his own view of reality by threats, intimidation of the clergy and ultimately murdering those who did not agree with him (e.g., St. Thomas Moore).

It would seem to me that any return home to Rome would need to take the origination by Henry and then move forward.

By the way, I have enjoyed reading your thoughtful and enlightening posts.

God bless
 
Regarding the validity of Anglican orders and AC

Here’s a question I never really get a good answer to:

If AC states that Anglican orders (at the time) are null and void and, granted, that AC cannot be ‘repealed’ or ‘overridden’, if Anglicans consecrated Bishops using proper formularies, with proper intent, and with valid Bishops (PNCC, etc), wouldn’t that make those orders actually Catholic and not ‘Anglican’ per se?

Doesn’t that make sort of an ‘end around’ on AC?

Now, whether certain ‘strains’ of Anglicans have done so is a matter for actual debate (esp. the intent part), but if they had consecrated Bishops per the conditions above, would they not be valid Catholic Bishops? 🤷
 
tqualey said:
Hi, GKC,

No, I do not know - and, I would certainly enjoy reading your response…🙂

On a similar matter, I would appreciate it if you also addressed the matter of Henry VIII moving from being awarded the D.F. to totally jumping ship and trying to form his own view of reality by threats, intimidation of the clergy and ultimately murdering those who did not agree with him (e.g., St. Thomas Moore).

It would seem to me that any return home to Rome would need to take the origination by Henry and then move forward.

By the way, I have enjoyed reading your thoughtful and enlightening posts.

God bless
Click to expand...
I thank you for the kind words. And I realize that in asking the question about AC, I was a little injudicious. I’m about to leave town for a SF con, dragging 45 books to be signed. And I’m, as always, short of time.

Let me make a one sentence statement on the origin of AC, and I’ll try to do more later, when I return. It’ll be a cut and paste then, since I’ve done this a lot. But I’ll have to tweak it a little. As to Hank and the *Defensor Fidei *title, I’l C&P right now the story of that. As to the rest of that sentence/question, I’ll pass for a moment, and ask for a little more specificity, for later.

The commission that was formed, leading eventually to Leo’s signature over Merry del Val’s word’s in 1896, originated in actions taken by Cardinal Vaughan, Cardinal Archbishop of Westminister, in response to some interesting things which originated in a project of Charles Lindley, Viscount Halifax, England’s leading Anglo-Catholic layman of the day, and a French priest, the Abbe Fernand Portal. Cardinal Vaughan was very perturbed and distressed, not to say angry, by the efforts of these two, aimed trying to bridge the gap between the RCC and the Anglican world. and what he percieved as the reaction to them in Rome, particularly the reaction of Cardinal Rampolla. And he began some actions of his own.

Maybe I got some C&P I can use on the subject. We’ll see.

As to Hank and the DF title, here’s the story. And I’ll be back eventually. But I’ll not have a lot of time to talk. Life is like that, right now.

How it happened:

Henry liked sparklies. Was always on the look-out for a new and nifty title, or gee-gaw to add to his collection. In 1512, he petitioned Julius II to award him the title possessed by Louis XII, “Most Christian King” (you didn’t just call yourself something like that; it was awarded). Not sure if “Most Christian” was a zero sum title, but Julius did award it to Henry, and, for good measure, secretly gave him the French throne. All he had to do to claim it was to defeat Louis in the then on-going unpleasantness between the Holy League and France. That part never happened, though Henry tried, after Ferdinand of Spain finked out on him. But Henry got his “Christianissimus”.

In 1515, Henry wanted something else to pad his resume. Various ideas were passed around: “Protector of the Holy See”, maybe “Defender”, were suggested from the English side. The first was turned down because it already belonged to the Holy Roman Emperor, the second was the property of the Swiss. Some in Rome countered with “King Apostolic” (interesting combination) or “Orthodox”. The Pope vetoed both. In 1516, the title of “Defender of the Faith” was proposed from England. Leo ignored it, and Henry sulked.

Henry gave up until May, 1521, when Wolsey wrote once again to Rome, asking for a pretty for Henry. Leo passed it to a committee of Cardinals. Forthcoming were suggestions for titles:

“Rex Fidelis”, "“Orthodoxus”, “Ecclesiaticus” ,
“Protector”, “Anglicus” (that last was a little weak).

When the Cardinals inquired just why Henry warranted another honor, the part he had played fighting for the Holy See against Louis, 9 years before, was mentioned. And there was the Assertio (that is, the Assertio Septem Sacramentorum), sort of written by Henry, against Luther’s De Captivitate Babylonica). Rome had heard of this work of Hank’s (it was in draft in May 1521, printed in July, sent to Rome in September, after the Cardinals had been considering the matter of a title for a few months). So, even before the *Assertio *was received and presented to Leo, a list of titles for Henry to choose from was shipped over to England.

The Assertio probably tipped the scales for approval. About the time it was presented to Leo, Henry chose the same title that had been suggested by England 6 years before: *Defensor Fidei *. Leo granted it six weeks after he received the book. Doubtless directly inspired by the Assertio, some cardinals then wanted to add a flourish to the title, such as *Gloriosus *or Fidelissimus, but Leo vetoed it. Moderation in all things.

So Henry got his sparklie, partially because of the Assertio, partially because of the Holy League, partially because he was a pain in the neck. It was intended as a title for him personally, though he thought it was hereditary. Parliament thought it looked nice, and attached it to the Throne, in 1543. Mary took it off, Elizabeth put it back, and it’s there now by legislative fiat.

And they lived happily ever after. Again, I crave patience. Sometimes I bite off more than I can chew successfully.

GKC
 
chris_molter said:
Regarding the validity of Anglican orders and AC

Here’s a question I never really get a good answer to:

If AC states that Anglican orders (at the time) are null and void and, granted, that AC cannot be ‘repealed’ or ‘overridden’, if Anglicans consecrated Bishops using proper formularies, with proper intent, and with valid Bishops (PNCC, etc), wouldn’t that make those orders actually Catholic and not ‘Anglican’ per se?

Doesn’t that make sort of an ‘end around’ on AC?

Now, whether certain ‘strains’ of Anglicans have done so is a matter for actual debate (esp. the intent part), but if they had consecrated Bishops per the conditions above, would they not be valid Catholic Bishops? 🤷
Click to expand...
That would assume that they possessed valid bishops to do the consecrating of the other bishops in the first palce. The logic is that the chain of succession was broken. Of course at least one counter argument is that of the Old Catholic/PNCC lines.

As to "proper formualries, you rasie an interesting point. A comparision of the formualries used by traditional Anglcians, that of the Edwardine Ordinal as modified in 1662, the
Pontificale Romanum as used from 1596 to 1968, and the 1968 revised *Pontificale Romanum * is quite …ah…illuminating. The Anglican Ordinal as now used ressembles the older Pontificale far more closely than does the current edition of the PR. Most curious. Guess which one has the porrection of the insrtuments, for example.

I can provide a link to a site that considers this, and that addresses other Apostolicae Curae issues. From a traditional RC perspective.

GKC
 
chris_molter said:
I’d like to see that link.
Click to expand...
accipepotestatem.com/

It’s owned by a friend of mine, a RC traditionalist who is the most knowledgable person I know of on the sad story of Apostolicae Curae, and its implications, esp. for current traditionalist Angllo-Catholics.

I contributed a little material to the site, but, as I said, the owner is the true expert. He routinely would pound me through the floor in our discussions. Which is not easy to do.

All the site is interesting, but I spoke particularly of the two sections on comparing the Ordinals.

GKC
 
GKC said:
He routinely would pound me through the floor in our discussions. Which is not easy to do.

GKC
Click to expand...
What are friends for? 🙂

I’ll get back to you in a few weeks after I’ve read it all. 😃

Seriously, though… at first glance it looks like a fantastic resource and exactly the kind of thing I was looking for. Thank you!
 
My husband did make that journey, one of the main reasons being
how liberal the church had become in thier views. It was one of the best days of my life that year at Easter Vigil! 🙂
 
i am enjoying the posts by everyone, but especially GKC and tqualey.

can someone please tell me what the latin words apostolicae curae actually mean in english.

i assume the first is apostolic, but i cannot figure out what curae means.

thank you.

this question of valid orders and apostolic succession is something i definitely want an answer to as i have been told one thing by one church and another thing by another church.

i seek the truth. LOL
 
deborahaz said:
i am enjoying the posts by everyone, but especially GKC and tqualey.

can someone please tell me what the latin words apostolicae curae actually mean in english.

i assume the first is apostolic, but i cannot figure out what curae means.

thank you.

this question of valid orders and apostolic succession is something i definitely want an answer to as i have been told one thing by one church and another thing by another church.

i seek the truth. LOL
Click to expand...
It means “care”.

As to the issue of orders and apostolic succession, if you’re RC the point is decided, the answer is given; Anglican orders are invalid. If you’re Anglican, maybe not. But in that case, you should be RC, anyway, if it is important to you (and it should be).

GKC
 
yes, it is important. why do the anglicans refuse to see it like Rome does?

i sort of feel like is was misled all of the years i was episcopalian believing that we were part of the apostolic succession.
 
deborahaz said:
yes, it is important. why do the anglicans refuse to see it like Rome does?

i sort of feel like is was misled all of the years i was episcopalian believing that we were part of the apostolic succession.
Click to expand...
They refuse to see it as Rome does because they think Rome is wrong. Anglicans get to do that, you know.

It’s a complicated subject, but if you are RC now, you need not worry anymore over it. Just follow what Rome teachs.

GKC
 
deborahaz said:
ah, the mystery is solved!! very good detective work Janet S!!! you have a good memory. unless she denies that was her.
Click to expand...
She refers to a poster who converted to Anglicanism and claims its me, and she has solved some mystery? OH this is one very strange group of people indeed.! Perhaps her psychiatrist should make an appointment for you too!
 
deborahaz said:
i see this is katze’s first post. i hope you are not spiritmeadow or alexia musing reinventing herself again!! LOL
Click to expand...
paranoia is usually the first sign that something is amiss. I’d not dally about getting that appointment. I’ve really had enough of you people. Mostly just a bunch of nut cases who have somehow been given access to computers. Geesh, you folks need help. I’m out of here. There are precious few Christians here, but a lot of pretenders using religion as a means to release pent up hatred and venom to the world. Enjoy your little self-created h e l l .
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top