Anglo-Catholics, Holy Orders, AC, and relevence

[BernadetteM]

Since someone brought up the Continuum, my response to that website, it is not too different than many fundamentalist, anti catholic ones.

The only comments on their posts that are printed are ones who are in agreement with the angry and unchristian posts there. These are Anglicans who are showing such disrespect for their former brothers and sisters who are becoming Catholic.

Except for one poster who I assume was associated with the Continuum at one time and appears to be going to Rome, they don’t allow anyone who disagrees with them to post a comment. I have tried posting at least twice and my posts were charitable, but pointing out that the Continuum was not being Christ like in its content towards fellow Anglicans. When I posted, the response said the post would be considered for approval, of couse, this never happened.

It is a one sided website, there are other Anglican websites that are also anti Anglicans swimming the Tiber, but at least you can post your opinions on them. Actually since the offer of the Apostolic Constitution has come out, it appears much anger from Anglicans has also come out. What a shame for such judgemental words and actions. These posters have made themselves look very unattractive if they are after converts to their cause.

Yours in the Hearts of Jesus and Mary

Bernadette

 

[Usbek_de_Perse]

Since someone brought up the Continuum, my response to that website, it is not too different than many fundamentalist, anti catholic ones.

The only comments on their posts that are printed are ones who are in agreement with the angry and unchristian posts there. These are Anglicans who are showing such disrespect for their former brothers and sisters who are becoming Catholic.

Except for one poster who I assume was associated with the Continuum at one time and appears to be going to Rome, they don’t allow anyone who disagrees with them to post a comment. I have tried posting at least twice and my posts were charitable, but pointing out that the Continuum was not being Christ like in its content towards fellow Anglicans. When I posted, the response said the post would be considered for approval, of couse, this never happened.

It is a one sided website, there are other Anglican websites that are also anti Anglicans swimming the Tiber, but at least you can post your opinions on them. Actually since the offer of the Apostolic Constitution has come out, it appears much anger from Anglicans has also come out. What a shame for such judgemental words and actions. These posters have made themselves look very unattractive if they are after converts to their cause.

Yours in the Hearts of Jesus and Mary

Bernadette

Bernadette, I agree with you about the vitriol that is sometimes found on religious websites. I don’t know which one you are referring to.

Personally, I have great good will towards an Anglican who swims the Tiber.

Sadly, those Catholics who swim the Tiber in the opposite direction (and across the Channel so to speak) are not always met with good will from their former fellow Catholics.
I suspect that traffic crossing the Tiber goes in two directions. Love and respect should be accorded all. And prayer.

 

[BernadetteM]

Bernadette, I agree with you about the vitriol that is sometimes found on religious websites. I don’t know which one you are referring to.

Personally, I have great good will towards an Anglican who swims the Tiber.

Sadly, those Catholics who swim the Tiber in the opposite direction (and across the Channel so to speak) are not always met with good will from their former fellow Catholics.
I suspect that traffic crossing the Tiber goes in two directions. Love and respect should be accorded all. And prayer.

As one who did swin the TIber many years ago, I have not come across any Catholic websites who show such anger and actually hatred towards Catholics who leave the Church. Yes I do see posts which usually show concern for their souls, and most just say to pray for them. I am sure that there are Catholics who also say hateful things, but some of them are angry because the person is a family member and they are really hurt that their child has left the faith. But in general I don’t see this type of vitriol by Catholics. Actually as a former Episcopalian I never saw this behavior towards the Catholic Church when I belonged to that church. I question if some of it is fear, fear of what I can’t say.

I personally don’t judge people on their choice of which church they choose. God works in His own way to bring us closer to Him and although I believe the Catholic Church is the Church of Christ, I also believe that not all can grow spiritually in it, I don’t think it is because they couldn’t in the Catholic Church, but something within themselves has been a barrier. Many Anglicans have gone to non denominational churches and other churches for the same reason they could not get whatever they felt was lacking for them in the Catholic Church. I am just the opposite I find such spirituality within the Catholic Church, also a freedom I can’t explain. My prayer is that Anglicans can let go of their brothers and sisters in charity and get back to solving the problems within their own churches, maybe being able to unify all the different continuing Anglican groups into one church.

God Bless

Bernadette

 

[GKC]

As one who did swin the TIber many years ago, I have not come across any Catholic websites who show such anger and actually hatred towards Catholics who leave the Church. Yes I do see posts which usually show concern for their souls, and most just say to pray for them. I am sure that there are Catholics who also say hateful things, but some of them are angry because the person is a family member and they are really hurt that their child has left the faith. But in general I don’t see this type of vitriol by Catholics. Actually as a former Episcopalian I never saw this behavior towards the Catholic Church when I belonged to that church. I question if some of it is fear, fear of what I can’t say.

I personally don’t judge people on their choice of which church they choose. God works in His own way to bring us closer to Him and although I believe the Catholic Church is the Church of Christ, I also believe that not all can grow spiritually in it, I don’t think it is because they couldn’t in the Catholic Church, but something within themselves has been a barrier. Many Anglicans have gone to non denominational churches and other churches for the same reason they could not get whatever they felt was lacking for them in the Catholic Church. I am just the opposite I find such spirituality within the Catholic Church, also a freedom I can’t explain. My prayer is that Anglicans can let go of their brothers and sisters in charity and get back to solving the problems within their own churches, maybe being able to unify all the different continuing Anglican groups into one church.

God Bless

Bernadette

I like that prayer. Amen.

GKC

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Well also didn’t the Edwardine Ordinal have language that the Catholic Church had had a few hundred years previous to the Matthew Parker consecration? The Catholic Church added sacrificial and very pin-point job description language that hadn’t been there in previous centuries. The Anglican argument, if memory serves, is that the Catholic orders would also necessarily be null and void, breaking the chain, because they had previously possessed similar language…words to that effect…Even as a Catholic I never found Apostolicae Curae very compelling…I thought the Anglican Seaepious Oficio (sp?) was very charitable and well-written. I’ve read it a couple of times though, admittedly not in a year or so…

It is also possible, though it is too technical to be practical in this venue (and I’d have to re-read a lot) to oppose the idea of the invalid intent, via consideration of roughly 16th century Eucharistic theology. This is Hughes’ point, in STEWARDS OF THE LORD. If intent is not an issue, form loses its point, in the two judgments in Apostolicae Curae.

GKC

 

[GKC]

Well also didn’t the Edwardine Ordinal have language that the Catholic Church had had a few hundred years previous to the Matthew Parker consecration? The Catholic Church added sacrificial and very pin-point job description language that hadn’t been there in previous centuries. The Anglican argument, if memory serves, is that the Catholic orders would also necessarily be null and void, breaking the chain, because they had previously possessed similar language…words to that effect…Even as a Catholic I never found Apostolicae Curae very compelling…I thought the Anglican Seaepious Oficio (sp?) was very charitable and well-written. I’ve read it a couple of times though, admittedly not in a year or so…

Yes. Some Anglican defenders, James Lula comes to mind, made the point that there were certainly approved Rites which the RCC did recognize as conveying valid orders (had to, in fact; they date from the beginning), which had the same “defect” as it was alleged was present in the Edwardine Ordinal; to wit, the failure to fully specifiy the authority of the priest to confect the Eucharistic sacrifice. Saepius Officio takes this line, and for some it is convincing. But the rejoinder lies in that defect of intention I have mentioned, which must always be considered intertwined (neither works alone). The point that is made by the RCC is that the deliberate use, in that form, in the Edwardine Ordinal, constructed at that particular time, and by those particular people, constituted evidence (determinatio ex adiunctis) of an invalid intent, an intent, by virtue of using a form so constructed, regardless of how it might relate to historical forms, not to do what the Church does, in the sacrament (facere quod facit ecclesia), which is the definition of valid sacramental intent. Thus, if the Church of England had used the Pontificale Romanum, rather than the Ordinal, the logic of Apostolicae Curae would have been overthrown; the intent issue would not have been arguable. And, as I said, the two issues, invalid form, as proven by invalid intent, invalid intent, as proven by use of invalid form, defined by the invalid intent, must work together.

An interesting exercise is to compare the Pontificale Romanum, and the current rite, in the revised version, post 1968, and compare both with the Edwardine Ordinal, post 1662. Very eye-opening.

Got some convoluted sentences in there, I do.

GKC

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I love that last line, very Yoda of you! …Please clarify, Jim, what you mean in that last paragraph about comparing the Edwardine with the Pontificale Romanumand the post 68 rite as being eye-opening? You lost me there…Tough to keep up with the master! By the way, off topic, but did you read about the new F-35 fighter from Lockheed Martin?

Yes. Some Anglican defenders, James Lula comes to mind, made the point that there were certainly approved Rites which the RCC did recognize as conveying valid orders (had to, in fact; they date from the beginning), which had the same “defect” as it was alleged was present in the Edwardine Ordinal; to wit, the failure to fully specifiy the authority of the priest to confect the Eucharistic sacrifice. Saepius Officio takes this line, and for some it is convincing. But the rejoinder lies in that defect of intention I have mentioned, which must always be considered intertwined (neither works alone). The point that is made by the RCC is that the deliberate use, in that form, in the Edwardine Ordinal, constructed at that particular time, and by those particular people, constituted evidence (determinatio ex adiunctis) of an invalid intent, an intent, by virtue of using a form so constructed, regardless of how it might relate to historical forms, not to do what the Church does, in the sacrament (facere quod facit ecclesia), which is the definition of valid sacramental intent. Thus, if the Church of England had used the Pontificale Romanum, rather than the Ordinal, the logic of Apostolicae Curae would have been overthrown; the intent issue would not have been arguable. And, as I said, the two issues, invalid form, as proven by invalid intent, invalid intent, as proven by use of invalid form, defined by the invalid intent, must work together.

An interesting exercise is to compare the Pontificale Romanum, and the current rite, in the revised version, post 1968, and compare both with the Edwardine Ordinal, post 1662. Very eye-opening.

Got some convoluted sentences in there, I do.

GKC

 

[GKC]

I love that last line, very Yoda of you! …Please clarify, Jim, what you mean in that last paragraph about comparing the Edwardine with the Pontificale Romanumand the post 68 rite as being eye-opening? You lost me there…Tough to keep up with the master! By the way, off topic, but did you read about the new F-35 fighter from Lockheed Martin?

I might have worded that a little more succinctly. What I meant was that if one compares the 16th century Pontificale Romanum with both the Edwardine Ordinal, post 1662, and the current, revised Pontificale Romanum, post 1968, with respect to the details of the ordination rite, the Ordinal and the 16th century Pontificale Romanum compare quite closely. The current Pontifical Romanum, is sort of an odd man out.

Yes, I read about the F-35. That program was a little too late for me to have worked on, but what I read last night was not at all surprising. That is how the acquisition process works. And everything I have read of what has happened to it since I retired has made it obvious that the system would only get worse. Gates has major egg on his face, has made the ritual sacrifice of the program manager and will press on, to further egg on his face. Eventually, if it survives, the F-35 will be a fine weapon system. No substitute for the cancelled F-22s, in their primary mission area, but better than flying 40 year old aircraft as the primary ground attack/tac air birds. Generally.

GKC