Any Anglicans / Episcopalians considering switching to RCC?

[Sy_Noe]

We kneel around the altar at my Church. At times, I have taken Communion standing, of course, but generally, TEC keels and receives in hand. Receiving on tongue is accepted, though uncommon.

Some dip; the vast majority drink from the chalice.

I remember the actual Communion wafer as a young girl - such a unique consistency and thing. In my Church today, we bake our own unleavened bread and tear a piece for each one. Much reverence and significance.

I thought kneeling was generally the way in TEC. I think my nearest Episcopal parish just happens to have an unusual variety of services.

 

[7_Sorrows]

When you converted to Catholicism, did you have to be reconfirmed? I know in TEC someone confirmed in the Roman rite of Catholicism, needs only to be received into TEC when the bishop comes.

no I did not have to be reconfirmed. I had to be received into the Catholic church and make a statement about believing in what the Catholic church teaches. most of the time it takes place in front of the congregation, but we had a private ceremony during the week. it was very nice.

 

[GKC]

no I did not have to be reconfirmed. I had to be received into the Catholic church and make a statement about believing in what the Catholic church teaches. most of the time it takes place in front of the congregation, but we had a private ceremony during the week. it was very nice.

I find that fact hard to understand. No confirmation by a RC bishop?

 

[Padres1969]

I find that fact hard to understand. No confirmation by a RC bishop?

Yeah you beat me to it. I’m confused as well. 7 Sorrows, does that mean your Catholic bishop recognized your Anglican confirmation as valid?

I mean going the other way the ECUSA for one recognizes Catholic confirmations as valid, which is why you’re not re-confirmed if you convert from Catholic to Episcopalian. If the bishop who received you into the RCC didn’t confirm you isn’t the implication in that case that he’s recognizing your previous Anglican confirmation as valid and thus you were not in need of being confirmed?

 

[Lenten_ashes]

I believe it’s different for those congregations or sometimes entire dioceses of Anglicans who are accepted into RCC as whole in the Anglican Rite. Much shorter RCIA and everything for them.

But if you are Anglican/Espicopalian and want to convert outside the Anglican rite, they do not recognize your confirmation as valid in the RCC. I had to go through the long haul program like everybody else.

 

[Padres1969]

I believe it’s different for those congregations or sometimes entire dioceses of Anglicans who are accepted into RCC as whole in the Anglican Rite. Much shorter RCIA and everything for them.

But if you are Anglican/Espicopalian and want to convert outside the Anglican rite, they do not recognize your confirmation as valid in the RCC. I had to go through the long haul program like everybody else.

Hopefully 7Sorrows can confirm if he converted from Anglican to Catholic along with an entire congregation converting to the Anglican Rite, or if the conversion was individual.

 

[GKC]

I believe it’s different for those congregations or sometimes entire dioceses of Anglicans who are accepted into RCC as whole in the Anglican Rite. Much shorter RCIA and everything for them.

But if you are Anglican/Espicopalian and want to convert outside the Anglican rite, they do not recognize your confirmation as valid in the RCC. I had to go through the long haul program like everybody else.

I can see no logical reason why congregations (dioceses I’m dubious about, as to any who came over, en masse) would be exempted from a valid (in the RCC view) confirmation, and its seven-fold gifts, requiring a bishop in valid orders, in apostolic succession.

Always willing to learn.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

I can see no logical reason why congregations (dioceses I’m dubious about, as to any who came over, en masse) would be exempted from a valid (in the RCC view) confirmation, and its seven-fold gifts, requiring a bishop in valid orders, in apostolic succession.

Always willing to learn.

I don’t either as I was told in RCIA that only valid Baptism was accepted.

Then again, they make exceptions for aspiring priests form the Anglican faith. They can come over married and remain that way, they also have a much shorter process than say that of a baptist minister looking to be a Catholic priest. Oh, and they can keep their liturgy with just a few tweaks to it.

When i was Anglican, the entire diocese less our parish decided to join the RCC back in, I think, 08. We were told that if we decided to come along, the process would be rather painless.

Hopefully 7sorrows can confirm what happened as im interested now

 

[GKC]

I don’t either as I was told in RCIA that only valid Baptism was accepted.

Then again, they make exceptions for aspiring priests form the Anglican faith. They can come over married and remain that way, they also have a much shorter process than say that of a baptist minister looking to be a Catholic priest. Oh, and they can keep their liturgy with just a few tweaks to it.r

When i was Anglican, the entire diocese less our parish decided to join the RCC back in, I think, 08. We were told that if we decided to come along, the process would be rather painless.

Hopefully 7sorrows can confirm what happened as im interested now

Was that the ACA?

I remain a doubter, that the RCC would choose to elide the sacrament of confirmation, given the requirement for a valid bishop, and their view of Anglican orders. Neither baptism, in the (let us say) general method accepted in Anglicanism (form/substance/subject/minister/intent), nor the discipline of priestly celibacy, are comparable.

I’ve long watched the unwashed motleydom of Anglicanism (accompanied by a Morricone score). Anything is possible, there, as we know. I am not ready to accept the same looseness in Rome.

But, learning things is good. I wait and watch.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Was that the ACA?

I remain a doubter, that the RCC would choose to elide the sacrament of confirmation, given the requirement for a valid bishop, and their view of Anglican orders. Neither baptism, in the (let us say) general method accepted in Anglicanism (form/substance/subject/minister/intent), nor the discipline of priestly celibacy, are comparable.

I’ve long watched the unwashed motleydom of Anglicanism (accompanied by a Morricone score). Anything is possible, there, as we know. I am not ready to accept the same looseness in Rome.

But, learning things is good. I wait and watch.

Yeah, ACA.

Then when they felt pressure to follow the rest of them to Rome, broke off and went to CANA. Not even sure if the diocese went through with their intentions, but I do know a Anglican Rite Catholic church emerged here in town right around that same time.

I know what you mean about the looseness in Rome. I’m a new Catholic and I don’t understand the implementation of Eucharistic minsters. And the older Catholics I talk to aren’t crazy about it either, even all these years later.

 

[DeusExMachina]

As for my story: I’ve always been episcopalian. I grew up in a “broad church” parish, so needless to say I wasn’t exposed to more extreme forms of Protestantism; in fact, I thought ALL Protestant churches were like mine. Even as a little kid, I accepted things like Transubstantiation (though I didn’t know the word) because that was what the priest said, that the bread and wine were Jesus’ body and blood, and the canonicity of the Deuterocannon-because it was in the bible my parents read at home. And even later, when I learned how different sects li,e baptists and Presbyterians were from my church, I felt pride that Anglicans were " more Catholic" ( even though I’d been taught to despise the Roman church). I began reading the works of the church fathers; they more or less confirmed my intuitively Catholic beliefs. But then, in 8th grade, I read, in a history book, the section on the English reformation; in that section was a brief summary of the 39 articles. Needless to say, I was shocked, that anyone in the same Church I grew up in could come up with doctrines that plainly contradicted apostolic teaching; far from the “Catholic and reformed” self-designation, these articles seemed almost… Puritanical. I became even more dismayed when I learned not only were they imposed on all of England by queen Elizabeth, they were accompanied by bans on altars, icons, distribution of ashes, bowing to the sacrament, and even incense, all of which was technically illegal before the 1890s.
I was, however, very comforted when I discovered the writings of Lancelot Andrewes, William Laud, John Bramhall, William Forbes, and the Tractarians. They held many of the same beliefs I did, felt that worship should be beautiful, and still considered themselves Anglicans; however, this was short-lived, as I soon realised they had faced persecution and hostility from the evangelical mainstream of the church.
I’ve decided that I find historical, reformed Anglican worship distasteful, and that if the only parishes near me were evangelical, and didn’t allow me to practice what I believe to be ancient Christian worship, I would be unhappy. At least in a Catholic Church I know my preferred style of worship would be not only accepted but encouraged, I have begun to consider crossing the Tiber

 

[Padres1969]

Yeah, ACA.

Then when they felt pressure to follow the rest of them to Rome, broke off and went to CANA. Not even sure if the diocese went through with their intentions, but I do know a Anglican Rite Catholic church emerged here in town right around that same time.

I know what you mean about the looseness in Rome. I’m a new Catholic and I don’t understand the implementation of Eucharistic minsters. And the older Catholics I talk to aren’t crazy about it either, even all these years later.

Ok so which group is CANA again? Is that the Convocation of Anglicans in North America?

So if I’m understanding correctly your parish was part of the one diocese in the ACA that was under the bishop who did want to take the Pope up on the invitation to join the RCC when the bishops of the ACA voted on the issue in 2011? As I understand after the vote where the other bishops decided to remain Continuing Anglican, that the bishop who voted to join with the RCC did move to the RCC’s Anglican Ordinariate along with 15 or so parishes. But you’re saying your parish from that bishop’s diocese, rather than remaining with the ACA or going to the Ordinariate broke off and joined CANA instead?

That’s confusing even for Anglicanism…

 

[GKC]

Ok so which group is CANA again? Is that the Convocation of Anglicans in North America?

So if I’m understanding correctly your parish was part of the diocese in the ACA that was under the bishop who did want to take the pope up on the invitation to join the RCC when the bishops of the ACA voted on the issue in 2011? As I understand it that bishop did move to the RCC’s Anglican Ordinariate along with 15 or so parishes, but you’re saying your parish rather than remaining with the ACA or going to the Ordinariate broke off and joined CANA instead?

That’s confusing even for Anglicanism…

Sounds like SOP, to me.

 

[Padres1969]

As for my story: I’ve always been episcopalian. I grew up in a “broad church” parish, so needless to say I wasn’t exposed to more extreme forms of Protestantism; in fact, I thought ALL Protestant churches were like mine. Even as a little kid, I accepted things like Transubstantiation (though I didn’t know the word) because that was what the priest said, that the bread and wine were Jesus’ body and blood, and the canonicity of the Deuterocannon-because it was in the bible my parents read at home. And even later, when I learned how different sects li,e baptists and Presbyterians were from my church, I felt pride that Anglicans were " more Catholic" ( even though I’d been taught to despise the Roman church). I began reading the works of the church fathers; they more or less confirmed my intuitively Catholic beliefs. But then, in 8th grade, I read, in a history book, the section on the English reformation; in that section was a brief summary of the 39 articles. Needless to say, I was shocked, that anyone in the same Church I grew up in could come up with doctrines that plainly contradicted apostolic teaching; far from the “Catholic and reformed” self-designation, these articles seemed almost… Puritanical. I became even more dismayed when I learned not only were they imposed on all of England by queen Elizabeth, they were accompanied by bans on altars, icons, distribution of ashes, bowing to the sacrament, and even incense, all of which was technically illegal before the 1890s.
I was, however, very comforted when I discovered the writings of Lancelot Andrewes, William Laud, John Bramhall, William Forbes, and the Tractarians. They held many of the same beliefs I did, felt that worship should be beautiful, and still considered themselves Anglicans; however, this was short-lived, as I soon realised they had faced persecution and hostility from the evangelical mainstream of the church.
I’ve decided that I find historical, reformed Anglican worship distasteful, and that if the only parishes near me were evangelical, and didn’t allow me to practice what I believe to be ancient Christian worship, I would be unhappy. At least in a Catholic Church I know my preferred style of worship would be not only accepted but encouraged, I have begun to consider crossing the Tiber

I could definitely understand that. I mean for me personally, my parish is heavily rooted in the more Catholic side of Anglicanism and is High Church Rite II with clear Anglo-Catholic tendencies (pretty much everything other than reserving the sacrament in a tabernacle. Though they do reserve it short term to administer to the sick immediately after mass). I don’t dislike the more reformed Anglican services I’ve attended, but it’s not home either. A big part of the appeal of Anglicanism for me is that it does have that deeply rooted Catholic side compared to pretty much all other Protestant denominations. I definitely worry I’d feel somewhat lost if the Church lost that aspect of itself either formally or simply by virtue of there being no high church churches around.

 

[GKC]

As for my story: I’ve always been episcopalian. I grew up in a “broad church” parish, so needless to say I wasn’t exposed to more extreme forms of Protestantism; in fact, I thought ALL Protestant churches were like mine. Even as a little kid, I accepted things like Transubstantiation (though I didn’t know the word) because that was what the priest said, that the bread and wine were Jesus’ body and blood, and the canonicity of the Deuterocannon-because it was in the bible my parents read at home. And even later, when I learned how different sects li,e baptists and Presbyterians were from my church, I felt pride that Anglicans were " more Catholic" ( even though I’d been taught to despise the Roman church). I began reading the works of the church fathers; they more or less confirmed my intuitively Catholic beliefs. But then, in 8th grade, I read, in a history book, the section on the English reformation; in that section was a brief summary of the 39 articles. Needless to say, I was shocked, that anyone in the same Church I grew up in could come up with doctrines that plainly contradicted apostolic teaching; far from the “Catholic and reformed” self-designation, these articles seemed almost… Puritanical. I became even more dismayed when I learned not only were they imposed on all of England by queen Elizabeth, they were accompanied by bans on altars, icons, distribution of ashes, bowing to the sacrament, and even incense, all of which was technically illegal before the 1890s.
I was, however, very comforted when I discovered the writings of Lancelot Andrewes, William Laud, John Bramhall, William Forbes, and the Tractarians. They held many of the same beliefs I did, felt that worship should be beautiful, and still considered themselves Anglicans; however, this was short-lived, as I soon realised they had faced persecution and hostility from the evangelical mainstream of the church.
I’ve decided that I find historical, reformed Anglican worship distasteful, and that if the only parishes near me were evangelical, and didn’t allow me to practice what I believe to be ancient Christian worship, I would be unhappy. At least in a Catholic Church I know my preferred style of worship would be not only accepted but encouraged, I have begun to consider crossing the Tiber

The Articles were formally imposed on the clergy of the CoE, not the laity, by the 1571 Parliamentary Act of Subscription. As ++Bramhall said,

“We do not hold our Thirty-nine Articles to be such necessary truths, `without which there is no salvation;’ nor enjoin ecclesiastical persons to swear unto them, but only to subscribe them, as theological truths, for the preservation of unity among us. Some of them are the very same that are contained in the Creed; some others of them are practical truths, which come not within the proper lists of points or articles to be believed; lastly, some of them are pious opinions or inferior truths which are proposed by the Church of England as not to be opposed; not as essentials of Faith necessary to be believed.”

They were the first expression of the* via media*, how Elizabeth choose to govern a fractious Church, in a fractious land, in fractious times: religion as statecraft. They are not normative for Anglicans, generally, save, for CoE clergy, in the technical sense of the Act; a sort of job description for the erastian CoE. One can contemplate the recommendations of Lambeth, 1968:

*Lambeth 1968 The Ministry - The Thirty-Nine Articles
"The Conference accepts the main conclusion of the Report of the Archbishops’ Commission on Christian Doctrine entitled ‘Subscription and Assent to the Thirty-nine Articles’ (1968) and in furtherance of its recommendation:

(a) suggests that each Church of our Communion consider whether the Articles need be bound up with its Prayer Book;

(b) suggests to the Churches of the Anglican Communion that assent to the Thirty-nine Articles be no longer required of ordinands;

(c) suggests that, when subscription is required to the Articles or other elements in the Anglican tradition, it should be required, and given, only in the context of a statement which gives the full range of our inheritance of faith and sets the Articles in their historical context."*

This passed. And following this TEC moved them into a new section of the 79 book. Historical documents.

What that recognizes is that there is not a single attitude toward the Articles throughout the Communion, but variable ones. And that should be reflected in how the Articles might be viewed. IOW, Anglicans are a motley crew. And to find out what attitude any take toward them, one needs to inquire of the particular Anglican entity. Anglicans, generally (meaning, without further explication) may interpret, affirm, deny, or partially affirm or deny, the Articles. Or cut them from the Prayer Book and use them to kindle the new fire at Easter.

That being said, if you can affirm, at the appropriate degree of theological certainty, what the RCC requires to be affirmed, look to the Tiber.

 

[Padres1969]

Sounds like SOP, to me.

I suppose since the 70’s it has been, but I do find the amount of Continuing bodies (and of course whatever larger grouping title we eventually give the more recent breakaways) interesting. Why form so many small separate groups which have so many seemingly similar issues with mainline AC positions. It seems like several breakaways form for every change the mainline AC churches make. What is keeping them from joining existing breakaways in your opinion rather than forming new ones? Particularly since so many agree on many if not all of the same positions on the issues that drove them out of the mainline AC churches.

 

[GKC]

I suppose since the 70’s it has been, but I do find the amount of Continuing bodies (and of course whatever larger grouping title we eventually give the more recent breakaways) interesting. Why form so many small separate groups which have so many seemingly similar issues with mainline AC positions. It seems like several breakaways form for every change the mainline AC churches make. What is keeping them from joining existing breakaways in your opinion rather than forming new ones? Particularly since so many agree on many if not all of the same positions on the issues that drove them out of the mainline AC churches.

In the years I’ve been watching the Continuum Dance, some folk posit a few reasons for the process:

Personalities.

Purple Passion (every man his own bishop).

A determination not to reinvent the Elizabethan Compromise (this time we get it right).

The dance is iterative. Some groups form up, find the union unsatisfactory, change partners, and dance on.

Of late, as has been mentioned here, somewhere, 4 of the more prominent Continuing entities are deep into hand-holding, with hope for marriage in the near future. We shall see.

 

[Novocastrian]

I can see no logical reason why congregations (dioceses I’m dubious about, as to any who came over, en masse) would be exempted from a valid (in the RCC view) confirmation, and its seven-fold gifts, requiring a bishop in valid orders, in apostolic succession.

Always willing to learn.

I believe that in such circumstances it’s normal for one’s parish priest to administer confirmation to the baptised convert, though a rather quick anointing and laying on of hands. I think the Roman Church sees the bishop as the ordinary minister of the sacrament, but allows for occasional priestly Chrismation as per the usual practice of the Eastern churches.

 

[GKC]

I believe that in such circumstances it’s normal for one’s parish priest to administer confirmation to the baptised convert, though a rather quick anointing and laying on of hands. I think the Roman Church sees the bishop as the ordinary minister of the sacrament, but allows for occasional priestly Chrismation as per the usual practice of the Eastern churches.

Possible point. One wonders if this was what happened. Something, in my understanding, would have to have happened, not merely a passing over of the sacrament.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Ok so which group is CANA again? Is that the Convocation of Anglicans in North America?

So if I’m understanding correctly your parish was part of the one diocese in the ACA that was under the bishop who did want to take the Pope up on the invitation to join the RCC when the bishops of the ACA voted on the issue in 2011? As I understand after the vote where the other bishops decided to remain Continuing Anglican, that the bishop who voted to join with the RCC did move to the RCC’s Anglican Ordinariate along with 15 or so parishes. But you’re saying your parish from that bishop’s diocese, rather than remaining with the ACA or going to the Ordinariate broke off and joined CANA instead?

That’s confusing even for Anglicanism…

Yes, correct, all though I do not know when they actually took the vote. If you say 2011 I take your word for it because we lost touch with them.

I remember them(our church clergy/elders) going to a synod in Dallas in like 07/08 time frame…and they came back fuming because they were supposedly mistreated or shunned for shooting down the idea of joining Rome.

Next thing I know, and it happened in a blur…Father is saying we are now part of Cana (Convocation of Anglicans in North America)

What I am not sure about is precisely why they objected so much to it as it was already very Catholic to me. I think a lot of the parishoners were probably divorced former Catholics and didn’t want the annulment process. But that part is just speculation on my behalf.