G
GKC
Guest
I’ve had mine misfire, too.I’m not sure what you mean. But perhaps it doesn’t matter: my quip (“I think they prefer to be called “women”.”) wasn’t terribly funny, so …
GKC
- Status
GKC
G
GKC
Guest
7
7_Sorrows
Guest
Liturgical communion, communal confession, apostle and nicene creeds, baptism, confirmation, saints, guardian angels, priests who we called father. ~ these are most of the reasons I considered myself more catholic than the average baptist, methodist, presbyterian or nondenominational.
G
GKC
Guest
V
Vouthon
Guest
That is interesting since I recently listened to a BBC radio program here in the UK, in which an academic said that the ‘Catholic Revival’ of the mid 19th century essentially ‘won’ against the more Protestant minded faction, and that the fruits of this ‘victory’ (his words not mine) are still seen in many English Churches today, in the manner of their services, their altars, clerical robes, the Walsingham and Marian traditions etc. His viewpoint was that while the Church of England is broad like the rest of Anglicanism, it was pretty much overall at least semantically and visually more along the Anglo-Catholic lines rather than say Reformed lines.
Also, might I ask, what kind of Anglican would you describe yourself as being?
G
GKC
Guest
I think roughly the same, though won would be more in the sense of surviving, than of overcoming. The Anglo-Catholic/Ritualist movements essentially achieved parity, after the ecclesiastical trials in the latter part of the 1800s, and the relative influence of the ACs/Ritualists against the more reformed evangelicals was something of a seesaw through the late middle of the 1900s. And residue of the ACs/Ritualists is still a visible face of the CoE, semantically and visually.That is interesting since I recently listened to a BBC radio program here in the UK, in which an academic said that the ‘Catholic Revival’ of the mid 19th century essentially ‘won’ against the more Protestant minded faction, and that the fruits of this ‘victory’ (his words not mine) are still seen in many English Churches today, in the manner of their services, their altars, clerical robes, the Walsingham and Marian traditions etc. His viewpoint was that while the Church of England is broad like the rest of Anglicanism, it was pretty much overall at least semantically and visually more along the Anglo-Catholic lines rather than say Reformed lines.
Also, might I ask, what kind of Anglican would you describe yourself as being?
But that is more on the Ritualist side (churchmanship), and less on the AC side (doctrine) and, in a sense, is a shell of the movement, over the first 150 years of its existence. Affirming ACs, with their preoccupation on all possible gender implications for doctrine and polity, while somewhat reminiscent of historical ACs, are not the same. And the RCC (in an historically complicated maneuver), gave more principled ACs an exit strategy. My opinion is that such are fewer on the ground now than years back.
Your ob’t servant is an Anglican of the Anglo-Catholic, Continuing variety.
GKC
posterus traditus Anglicanus, Anglicanus Catholicus
G
guanophore
Guest
Not entirely empty. All Protestant ecclesial communities are defined by the nature and extent of their departure from Catholcism. Some, like traditional confessional Lutherans, much less, but for those contaminated by Calvanism, much more.
G
guanophore
Guest
If Jesus really did give Peter the responsibility to care for and feed His One Flock, and if indeed this responsibility was passed on to his successor, then all Protestants are still under the authority of the Pope. You are just rebellious subjects of the Roman Pontiff.
M
Mystophilus
Guest
Am I the only one who is tempted to think, “Every Protestant is a distinctive branch of Christianity”?
T
Tomdstone
Guest
Anglicans are Protestants, but of all Protestants they are the closest IMHO to the Roman Catholic Church. Some of their priests have been ordained by Old Catholic bishops, which might be a problem to being labelled strictly Protestant because some of the Old Catholic bishops may have valid orders. One barrier that I see with Anglicans uniting with Roman Catholics is the issue of female ordination.
P
Peter_J
Guest
I’m a fairly loyal reader of your posts. But having said that, I can’t help noticing that you can be pretty unecumenical at times.
(Not saying there’s anything wrong with that. )
G
GKC
Guest
The OC relationship with Anglicans does not involve OC bishops ordaining Anglican priests, but joint episcopal consecrations between Anglicans and OCs/Utrecht, following the Agreement of Bonn, beginning in 1932.
GKC
G
GKC
Guest
G
guanophore
Guest
I think the Eastern Churches would take exception to that.
We are all suffering from the intrusion of Modernism.
Yes, sadly. We are not what Christ intended for us.
21 that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. John 17
Our lack of unity interferes with our witness to Christ.
T
Tomdstone
Guest
I don’t see how you can say that it does not involve priests because of the book entitled No Ordinary Fool: A Testimony To Grace.by Father John Jay Hughes, an enthusiastic defender of Anglican Orders in the twentieth century.
He says that he had drawn up a document tracing the Table of Consecration of the two Episcopalian bishops who had ordained him deacon and priest respectively. This showed that both could trace their own orders, through co-consecrators, to Old Catholic and Polish National Catholic bishops acknowledged by Rome to be validly ordained. He then submitted this document to the Holy Office (now the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith), requesting a judgment about the validity of his Anglican orders.
He received a reply in French, on the letterhead Suprema Congregatio S. Officii, dated 30 October 1959 and signed “P. Paul Philippe, O.P., Commissaire du Saint-Office.” (He later became a cardinal.) The crucial paragraph stated:
“There can be no question of a simple recognition of the orders received, with subsequent permission to exercise the priesthood. The church can only require a certain period of studies, at the end of which conditional reordination would be granted; but there is no reason why this would be refused, provided the other conditions mentioned [the normal criteria for ordination] were satisfied.”
Yes.
G
GKC
Guest
Perhaps I was not clear in my post. My point was that, except possibly in very isolated cases prior to 1932, after the inter-communion agreement that was reached between the OCs/Utrecht and the Anglicans in the Agreement of Bonn (1931), the question of the relationship of the OCs and PNCC to the possible validity of Anglican orders is not related to OC/PNCC bishops ordaining Anglican priests directly, but of OC/PNCC bishops jointly, with Anglican bishops, consecrating Anglican bishops; raising them to the episcopacy. This, following the logic found in Ott, p. 458, would infuse the valid/illicit episcopal lines possessed by the OC/PNCC into Anglicanism, and those bishops would further propagate their valid/illicit orders as they, in turn, consecrated/ordained other Anglican bishops/priests.
This was the logic in the passage you cite from Fr. Hughes’ autobiography (chap.17, pp.187-188, Tate Publishing, 2008). That letter was crucial, 8 years later, when the decision was made to ordain Fr. Hughes sub conditione, not absolutely. As you may know, much the same logic was involved (though the situation was slightly different) when Fr. Graham Leonard, one time Anglican bishop of London, was ordained a RC priest sub conditione. These are the only two documented sub conditione ordinations of Anglican priests, as RC priests, after Apostolicae curae. And certainly the Dutch Touch/Polish Pat seems to have been a factor. On the subject of what that might mean for Anglican orders generally, however, there has been no formal ruling from Rome, as has often been discussed here.
I would guess that there is only (perhaps) one topic I’ve posted here more often on, and few authors I have mentioned more often than, Fr. Hughes and his two outstanding books on Apostolicae curae: ABSOLUTELY NULL AND UTTERLY VOID, which is focused on the history of the whole affair, and STEWARDS OF THE LORD, which has more of a theological focus and is aimed at engaging Francis Clark’s ANGLICAN ORDERS AND DEFECT OF INTENTION, as you will have read in NO ORDINARY FOOL. And if you are familiar with those two works, you will recall the Appendix II in STEWARDS which lists the joint consecrations by the OCs or the PNCC and Anglican bishops, from 1932 through 1963. This is the genesis of the Dutch Touch issue; not any OC or PNCC bishop ordaining priests, but joint OC/PNCC and Anglican episcopal consecrations infusing valid/illicit episcopal lines into Anglicanism, whence they are further propagated. My own late rector was ordained by an Anglican bishop who bore the episcopal lines of one of the bishops mentioned in that Appendix.
Glad to meet someone familiar with NO ORDINARY FOOL.
GKC
- Status