Archbishop Announces High-Level Meeting for Possible Restructuring of Anglican Communion

  • Thread starter Thread starter Son_of_Niall
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
7_Sorrows said:
How so? They aren’t Catholic either because they reject the authority of the Pope.
Click to expand...
Anglicans being, as we know, motley, will have a number of ways to think of themselves. Some will think “protestant”. Some will think “Catholic, in the Anglican tradition”. That latter usually are Anglo-Catholics, like myself. Anglicans who think like that don’t think that being in communion with the Pope is the sine qua non of being Catholic. Often the possession of valid orders is the key, in their eyes.Such Anglicans are often very familiar, indeed, with Apostolicae curae.

Most Anglicans who think like that don’t expect other folk to agree with them. Nor do they engage in discussion on the point, except those who do, being motley, as we all know.
 
Faithdancer said:
This may help in understanding: anglicanchurchinamerica.org/about.shtml
I won’t pretend to speak for the US Episcopal Church, which those in my province would probably say has gone completely off the rails. 🙂
Click to expand...
well I was episcopalian and anglican before converting. I also believed I was practicing the Catholic faith in the Anglican tradition, but I did not have the fullness of the faith. I would definitely say Anglicans identify more with Catholics than Protestants, but they still protest the role of the Pope and his authority.
 
GKC said:
Anglicans being, as we know, motley, will have a number of ways to think of themselves. Some will think “protestant”. Some will think “Catholic, in the Anglican tradition”. That latter usually are Anglo-Catholics, like myself. Anglicans who think like that don’t think that being in communion with the Pope is the sine qua non of being Catholic. Often the possession of valid orders is the key, in their eyes.Such Anglicans are often very familiar, indeed, with Apostolicae curae.

Most Anglicans who think like that don’t expect other folk to agree with them. Nor do they engage in discussion on the point, except those who do, being motley, as we all know.
Click to expand...
yes, I used to be one of the motley ones! I had been taught that our priests did have valid orders or so I assumed so I was disappointed to find out they didn’t. The Anglican tradition is beautiful, but once again how many anglican communion groups are there? why can’t there be unity?
 
7_Sorrows said:
yes, I used to be one of the motley ones! I had been taught that our priests did have valid orders or so I assumed so I was disappointed to find out they didn’t. The Anglican tradition is beautiful, but once again how many anglican communion groups are there? why can’t there be unity?
Click to expand...
As to your penultimate question, lots. As to your ultimate question, can’t say.

But I certainly agree that all faithful RCs should affirm the teaching of the RCC, in Apostolicae curae, at the appropriate level of theological certainty. Anglicans, even in their motleydom, usually have a different view of the matter (and the form and the intent), and do not affirm AC.
 
Faithdancer said:
Well theropod, in a sense Pope Leo XIII told him that, so he is required to believe it.
Click to expand...
Well, yeah, but not before becoming a RC. But even though I reject Pope Leo XIII’s declaration in the first place, the consecration of new bishops by the Old Catholics (who’s orders were recognized) should remove any objections. I suspect there has been no ruling on this because Rome knows it has painted itself into a corner with the criteria they made up for “valid orders”.
 
theropod said:
Well, yeah, but not before becoming a RC. But even though I reject Pope Leo XIII’s declaration in the first place, the consecration of new bishops by the Old Catholics (who’s orders were recognized) should remove any objections. I suspect there has been no ruling on this because Rome knows it has painted itself into a corner with the criteria they made up for “valid orders”.
Click to expand...
Maybe. But until there is such a ruling, it remains only an interesting logical question.
 
Just an aside: Anglicans who adhere to a “via media” philosophy take a pounding from both sides, Protestants and Catholics. I think there has to be a certainly humility that goes along with being truly Anglican.😃
 
Faithdancer said:
Just an aside: Anglicans who adhere to a “via media” philosophy take a pounding from both sides, Protestants and Catholics. I think there has to be a certainly humility that goes along with being truly Anglican.😃
Click to expand...
probably
 
Do Anglicans recognize RC orders as valid?

Must an Anglican ordained priest give assent to the 39 articles?
 
theropod said:
Well, yeah, but not before becoming a RC. But even though I reject Pope Leo XIII’s declaration in the first place, the consecration of new bishops by the Old Catholics (who’s orders were recognized) should remove any objections. I suspect there has been no ruling on this because Rome knows it has painted itself into a corner with the criteria they made up for “valid orders”.
Click to expand...
So if we accept Anglican orders as valid, would we have to accept the ordinations of female priests also? If no, why not?
 
GKC said:
But I certainly agree that all faithful RCs should affirm the teaching of the RCC, in Apostolicae curae, at the appropriate level of theological certainty. Anglicans, even in their motleydom, usually have a different view of the matter (and the form and the intent), and do not affirm AC.
Click to expand...
Actually Anglicans in the Southern US overwhelmingly affirm AC. A growing number in the North do, also.

Especially in Summer. On this, there is unity.
 
theropod said:
Well, yeah, but not before becoming a RC. But even though I reject Pope Leo XIII’s declaration in the first place, the consecration of new bishops by the Old Catholics (who’s orders were recognized) should remove any objections. I suspect there has been no ruling on this because Rome knows it has painted itself into a corner with the criteria they made up for “valid orders”.
Click to expand...
I can’t speak for Rome itself, but I think most RCs regard “orders” as potentially valid:
  • in the sacramental sense;
    and…
  • as being “in communion”
From a practical POV, a bishop may be validly ordained, in a technical sense of matter and form, but not necessarily in descent “from the apostles” (plural); in other words, there are no free lance bishops, but the issue is whether Bishop X is, or is not, in communion with the (single) college of bishops. In other words, it is not just relevant as to whether a bishop was ordained with matter and form, but is he currently ministering in the Body of Christ as descending from the (united) Apostles?

Maybe the better question is, Does the RCC regard the Bench of bishops in union with the Anglican Communion as a subset of the overall College of bishops? I suspect, as time goes on, more and more Catholics would say it is not, due to theological reasons.

Are the bishops in the Anglican Continuum - essentially several tiny mini-Benches, with some possible relation among each other - part of the overall College? I am not sure. Theologically orthodox; but I am not sure if they are independent, or if they function as part of a larger body of bishops in unity. If they are only part of an independent “bench” of 3 or so other bishops, it is hard for me to see them as reflecting the apostolic College. But there could be more about their role I don’t know.
 
commenter said:
I can’t speak for Rome itself, but I think most RCs regard “orders” as potentially valid:
  • in the sacramental sense;
    and…
  • as being “in communion”
From a practical POV, a bishop may be validly ordained, in a technical sense of matter and form, but not necessarily in descent “from the apostles” (plural); in other words, there are no free lance bishops, but the issue is whether Bishop X is, or is not, in communion with the (single) college of bishops. In other words, it is not just relevant as to whether a bishop was ordained with matter and form, but is he currently ministering in the Body of Christ as descending from the (united) Apostles?

Maybe the better question is, Does the RCC regard the Bench of bishops in union with the Anglican Communion as a subset of the overall College of bishops? I suspect, as time goes on, more and more Catholics would say it is not, due to theological reasons.

Are the bishops in the Anglican Continuum - essentially several tiny mini-Benches, with some possible relation among each other - part of the overall College? I am not sure. Theologically orthodox; but I am not sure if they are independent, or if they function as part of a larger body of bishops in unity. If they are only part of an independent “bench” of 3 or so other bishops, it is hard for me to see them as reflecting the apostolic College. But there could be more about their role I don’t know.
Click to expand...
As declared in 1896, over Leo XIII’s signature, in the Apostolic Letter Apostolicae Curae, Rome considers Anglican Orders to be absolutely null and utterly void. Long sad story; a hobby of mine for years. Some minor technical details might be applicable, around the edges, but nothing more actually needs to be be said, as to the opening question in this post.
 
GKC said:
As declared in 1896,over Leo XIII’s signature, in the Apostolic Letter Apostolicae Curae, Rome considers Anglican Orders to be absolutely null and utterly void. Long sad story, a hobby of mine for years. Some minor technical details might be applicable, around the edges, but nothing more actually needs to be be said, as to the opening question in this post.
Click to expand...
GKC, can you answer the questions that I posted?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top