Apostolic Constitution for Anglicans

  • Thread starter Thread starter RevDrNorth
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

RevDrNorth

Guest
If I read the document correctly, former Catholic priests and those in irregular marital situations may not be considered for Holy Orders.

If that is correct, makes you feel sort of sorry for Archbishop Hepworth since as I understand he is a former RC priest and also divorced and remarried. Here is one of the guys who I suppose had major involvement in the request and in some sense bringing this about to past and yet he will loose his position as Archbishop and even his ability to function as a priest. Kind of sad.

The document on the whole seems very generous. There is even a paragraph allowing former Anglican Bishop to attend RC Bishop’s conferences with the rank of a retired Catholic Bishop. They will also allow former Anglican Bishops to petition the Vatican to keep their eccesiastical insignia (don’t recall exact wording).
 
I personally can’t be bothered to read it since it is long, dry, and not of immediate concern to myself, however I am quite interested in it - and specifically what comes out of it, and it seems to have gotten a good reception from those who wanted it.
 
RevDrNorth said:
If I read the document correctly, former Catholic priests and those in irregular marital situations may not be considered for Holy Orders.

If that is correct, makes you feel sort of sorry for Archbishop Hepworth since as I understand he is a former RC priest and also divorced and remarried. Here is one of the guys who I suppose had major involvement in the request and in some sense bringing this about to past and yet he will loose his position as Archbishop and even his ability to function as a priest. Kind of sad.

The document on the whole seems very generous. There is even a paragraph allowing former Anglican Bishop to attend RC Bishop’s conferences with the rank of a retired Catholic Bishop. They will also allow former Anglican Bishops to petition the Vatican to keep their eccesiastical insignia (don’t recall exact wording).
Click to expand...
++Hepworth was the sparkplug of the quest, from the time he took over the TAC, though he did not originate the effort.

GKC
 
I just don’t think people understand the complexities within orthodox Anglicanism. There are Anglo Catholics who would be content within Rome and others who for theological reasons would find that unpalatable. They fit more in the pre Papal infallibility and pre some of the newer Marian doctrines. Then there are those who could take either of the two issues but not both. There are Anglicans who would be happy in Western Orthodoxy and others who would not. There there is a diverse evangelical wing that runs from Arminian to Calvinist.

That is just within conservative orthodox Anglicanism. Plus there are some who appreciate the flexibility within orthodox Anglicanism regardless of where they stand and would find it difficult to give up.

Clearly, those that swim the Tiber will need to conform to all of Roman Catholic doctrine.

I will be interested to see how many Bishops within TAC and elsewhere do indeed step down to become priests. That is quite admirable.
 
RevDrNorth said:
I just don’t think people understand the complexities within orthodox Anglicanism. There are Anglo Catholics who would be content within Rome and others who for theological reasons would find that unpalatable. They fit more in the pre Papal infallibility and pre some of the newer Marian doctrines. Then there are those who could take either of the two issues but not both. There are Anglicans who would be happy in Western Orthodoxy and others who would not. There there is a diverse evangelical wing that runs from Arminian to Calvinist.

That is just within conservative orthodox Anglicanism. Plus there are some who appreciate the flexibility within orthodox Anglicanism regardless of where they stand and would find it difficult to give up.

Clearly, those that swim the Tiber will need to conform to all of Roman Catholic doctrine.

I will be interested to see how many Bishops within TAC and elsewhere do indeed step down to become priests. That is quite admirable.
Click to expand...
I started posting around 10 years ago, to explain Anglicanism. Surprisingly, there still remains confusion, here and there.

GKC
 
GKC said:
I started posting around 10 years ago, to explain Anglicanism. Surprisingly, there still remains confusion, here and there.

GKC
Click to expand...
Nothing is surprising about the two words “Anglican” and “confusion” being lumped into the same sentence!! With everything from soup to nuts, massive contradictions in theology, Calvinists and Tractarian-like high churchmen, people who treat the 39 Articles like the Ten Commandments and some that use them for fire kindling, women bishops, crazy ole’ Duncan with leadership as wild and crazy as his eyebrows, and a worldwide communion about to implode, confusing is a given! :eek:
 
I wonder if in one sense, orthodox Anglicanism under Rome would not quite be orthodox Anglicanism. The diversity of traditional expression is one of the unique aspects of Anglicanism (holding Anglo Catholics, Anglo Papists, Arminians and Calvinists under one roof). There seems some value to the intellectual diversity among traditionalists.
 
RevDrNorth said:
I wonder if in one sense, orthodox Anglicanism under Rome would not quite be orthodox Anglicanism. The diversity of traditional expression is one of the unique aspects of Anglicanism (holding Anglo Catholics, Anglo Papists, Arminians and Calvinists under one roof).
Click to expand...
It begs the question, though, IS there a such thing as “orthodox” (small o) Anglicanism at all? Was there ever? In a church this ill-defined, not being confessional but more of the lex orandi lex credendi angle, being based on compromises in politics, and never having a real defined form or shape to it, I don’t think Anglicanism has ever had an orthodoxy about it? John Stott, JI Packer, Pusey, Newman, Staley, Hooker, Cranmer, all make some pretty funky beadfellows throughout its history!
 
gurneyhalleck1 said:
Nothing is surprising about the two words “Anglican” and “confusion” being lumped into the same sentence!! With everything from soup to nuts, massive contradictions in theology, Calvinists and Tractarian-like high churchmen, people who treat the 39 Articles like the Ten Commandments and some that use them for fire kindling, women bishops, crazy ole’ Duncan with leadership as wild and crazy as his eyebrows, and a worldwide communion about to implode, confusing is a given! :eek:
Click to expand...
And yet, I’ve been working on explaining it all for 10 years. Why is it not all clear by now?

GKC
 
RevDrNorth said:
I wonder if in one sense, orthodox Anglicanism under Rome would not quite be orthodox Anglicanism. The diversity of traditional expression is one of the unique aspects of Anglicanism (holding Anglo Catholics, Anglo Papists, Arminians and Calvinists under one roof). There seems some value to the intellectual diversity among traditionalists.
Click to expand...
It might look more enticing from the outside.

GKC
 
RevDrNorth said:
I wonder if in one sense, orthodox Anglicanism under Rome would not quite be orthodox Anglicanism. The diversity of traditional expression is one of the unique aspects of Anglicanism (holding Anglo Catholics, Anglo Papists, Arminians and Calvinists under one roof). There seems some value to the intellectual diversity among traditionalists.
Click to expand...
Traditionalist are only a part and I think small part of Anglicanism. More and more Anglicans are throwing away scripture, tradition and reason every year. Traditionalist share the same tent with Robinson, Chane, Bruno, Sprong, the specter of Pike, Williams, and many many more in other jurisdictions. The ACNA does not hold to scripture, tradition and reason on WO. Is diversity of value when it erodes the foundations of the faith? Where is the line to diversity drawn and the orthodox or traditionalist say no more?
Or do we traditionalist continue with the mantra of the Elizabethean settlement, close our eyes and think happy thoughts. Or continue fragmenting into even more jurisdictions.

I can enter a Baptist or Catholic Church and have a very good idea on beliefs and values.
Not so with Anglicanism. Even within the ACNA.

To answer your question, what is Orthodox Anglicanism? Does CANA, AMiA and the REC agree on what is orthodox? Do we keep narrowing what is orthodox to avoid having to admit that more and more Anglicans are accepting what use to be unorthodox as now orthodox? Ok, I answered your question with questions? Guess that makes me a good Anglican!😃

I am not trying to be argumentative etc, that would be uncharacteristically Anglican, but to point out there are some very big problems in Anglicanism and bigger ones coming. Our current leadership seems unwilling or unable to deal with them and I wonder if this is because of the inherited flaws of the “big tent” approach to orthodoxy. Is nothing out of bounds in Anglicanism?

Fr.Mark
 
MarkBrown said:
Traditionalist are only a part and I think small part of Anglicanism. More and more Anglicans are throwing away scripture, tradition and reason every year. Traditionalist share the same tent with Robinson, Chane, Bruno, Sprong, the specter of Pike, Williams, and many many more in other jurisdictions. The ACNA does not hold to scripture, tradition and reason on WO. Is diversity of value when it erodes the foundations of the faith? Where is the line to diversity drawn and the orthodox or traditionalist say no more?
Or do we traditionalist continue with the mantra of the Elizabethean settlement, close our eyes and think happy thoughts. Or continue fragmenting into even more jurisdictions.

I can enter a Baptist or Catholic Church and have a very good idea on beliefs and values.
Not so with Anglicanism. Even within the ACNA.

To answer your question, what is Orthodox Anglicanism? Does CANA, AMiA and the REC agree on what is orthodox? Do we keep narrowing what is orthodox to avoid having to admit that more and more Anglicans are accepting what use to be unorthodox as now orthodox? Ok, I answered your question with questions? Guess that makes me a good Anglican!😃

I am not trying to be argumentative etc, that would be uncharacteristically Anglican, but to point out there are some very big problems in Anglicanism and bigger ones coming. Our current leadership seems unwilling or unable to deal with them and I wonder if this is because of the inherited flaws of the “big tent” approach to orthodoxy. Is nothing out of bounds in Anglicanism?

Fr.Mark
Click to expand...
Great points, Father Mark, as always. And like I said earlier, was there ever really an “orthodoxy” in Anglicanism to begin with? ACNA has sought to return Anglicanism to its orthodox roots when I’m not sure it ever had any to begin with?
 
MarkBrown said:
Traditionalist are only a part and I think small part of Anglicanism. More and more Anglicans are throwing away scripture, tradition and reason every year. Traditionalist share the same tent with Robinson, Chane, Bruno, Sprong, the specter of Pike, Williams, and many many more in other jurisdictions. The ACNA does not hold to scripture, tradition and reason on WO. Is diversity of value when it erodes the foundations of the faith? Where is the line to diversity drawn and the orthodox or traditionalist say no more?
Or do we traditionalist continue with the mantra of the Elizabethean settlement, close our eyes and think happy thoughts. Or continue fragmenting into even more jurisdictions.

I can enter a Baptist or Catholic Church and have a very good idea on beliefs and values.
Not so with Anglicanism. Even within the ACNA.

To answer your question, what is Orthodox Anglicanism? Does CANA, AMiA and the REC agree on what is orthodox? Do we keep narrowing what is orthodox to avoid having to admit that more and more Anglicans are accepting what use to be unorthodox as now orthodox? Ok, I answered your question with questions? Guess that makes me a good Anglican!😃

I am not trying to be argumentative etc, that would be uncharacteristically Anglican, but to point out there are some very big problems in Anglicanism and bigger ones coming. Our current leadership seems unwilling or unable to deal with them and I wonder if this is because of the inherited flaws of the “big tent” approach to orthodoxy. Is nothing out of bounds in Anglicanism?

Fr.Mark
Click to expand...
All of which is why, for all its flaws, I can only live somewhere within the hard-core of the Continuum.

GKC

posterus traditus Anglicanus
 
RevDrNorth said:
If I read the document correctly, former Catholic priests and those in irregular marital situations may not be considered for Holy Orders.

If that is correct, makes you feel sort of sorry for Archbishop Hepworth since as I understand he is a former RC priest and also divorced and remarried. Here is one of the guys who I suppose had major involvement in the request and in some sense bringing this about to past and yet he will loose his position as Archbishop and even his ability to function as a priest. Kind of sad.

The document on the whole seems very generous. There is even a paragraph allowing former Anglican Bishop to attend RC Bishop’s conferences with the rank of a retired Catholic Bishop. They will also allow former Anglican Bishops to petition the Vatican to keep their eccesiastical insignia (don’t recall exact wording).
Click to expand...
It is questionable that Hepworth could even receive communion in the Catholic church given his marriage issues. I think a Catholic priest who wants to return could do so, as a priest, as long as he has not married, but he could not join the ordiniarate. He would have to join whatever diocese he left, I suppose. Hepworth deserves the respect of everyone. I expect the church to be very kind to him, whatever the problems of his marriages.
 
MarkBrown said:
Traditionalist are only a part and I think small part of Anglicanism. More and more Anglicans are throwing away scripture, tradition and reason every year. Traditionalist share the same tent with Robinson, Chane, Bruno, Sprong, the specter of Pike, Williams, and many many more in other jurisdictions. The ACNA does not hold to scripture, tradition and reason on WO. Is diversity of value when it erodes the foundations of the faith? Where is the line to diversity drawn and the orthodox or traditionalist say no more?
Or do we traditionalist continue with the mantra of the Elizabethean settlement, close our eyes and think happy thoughts. Or continue fragmenting into even more jurisdictions.

I can enter a Baptist or Catholic Church and have a very good idea on beliefs and values.
Not so with Anglicanism. Even within the ACNA.

To answer your question, what is Orthodox Anglicanism? Does CANA, AMiA and the REC agree on what is orthodox? Do we keep narrowing what is orthodox to avoid having to admit that more and more Anglicans are accepting what use to be unorthodox as now orthodox? Ok, I answered your question with questions? Guess that makes me a good Anglican!😃

I am not trying to be argumentative etc, that would be uncharacteristically Anglican, but to point out there are some very big problems in Anglicanism and bigger ones coming. Our current leadership seems unwilling or unable to deal with them and I wonder if this is because of the inherited flaws of the “big tent” approach to orthodoxy. Is nothing out of bounds in Anglicanism?

Fr.Mark
Click to expand...
Your list of odd bishops suggests that they all see things the same way. I think Sprong is so far removed from Christianity as to be irrevelant. Pike died 40 years ago this fall. I remember going to his memorial at Grace Cathedral in San Francisco. Pike’s issues are not the issues of today. Pike was all about denying the Trinity and the Virgin Birth, a time for “Christian candor”. I doubt that Robinson, Bruno or Chane would be interested in that.
 
Usbek_de_Perse said:
It is questionable that Hepworth could even receive communion in the Catholic church given his marriage issues. I think a Catholic priest who wants to return could do so, as a priest, as long as he has not married, but he could not join the ordiniarate. He would have to join whatever diocese he left, I suppose. Hepworth deserves the respect of everyone. I expect the church to be very kind to him, whatever the problems of his marriages.
Click to expand...
He told the RCC that he would bring the TAC to the door, and fade away.

GKC
 
gurneyhalleck1 said:
Nothing is surprising about the two words “Anglican” and “confusion” being lumped into the same sentence!! With everything from soup to nuts, massive contradictions in theology, Calvinists and Tractarian-like high churchmen, people who treat the 39 Articles like the Ten Commandments and some that use them for fire kindling, women bishops, crazy ole’ Duncan with leadership as wild and crazy as his eyebrows, and a worldwide communion about to implode, confusing is a given! :eek:
Click to expand...
Who keeps bashing who Gurney?
 
GKC said:
Doesn’t sound like bashing to me. Sounds like a description.

GKC
Click to expand...
It’s the same kind of description that is commonly called bashing when Protestants describe Catholics this way.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top