Are Anglicans protestants?

[7_Sorrows]

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

Who wrote No Ordinary Fool and could you give a brief summary?

 

[GKC]

Who wrote No Ordinary Fool and could you give a brief summary?

It’s Fr. John Jay Hughes’ autobiography. It covers his life, his being an Anglican priest, his conversion, his work on the question of Apostolicae curae, as reflected in those two books of his that I so often mention, and gives his account of his ordination to the RC priesthood, sub conditione.

GKC

 

[7_Sorrows]

It’s Fr. John Jay Hughes’ autobiography. It covers his life, his being an Anglican priest, his conversion, his work on the question of Apostolicae curae, as reflected in those two books of his that I so often mention, and gives his account of his ordination to the RC priesthood, sub conditione.

GKC

Did he argue in favor of the orders being valid or invalid and did that play a part in his conversion? Why did he title the book the way he did?
If you could answer in laymen’s terms. I know what an intellect you have and a fondness for this, but my intellect is not as great as yours and I often find myself scratching my head after I read your posts because I was not able to follow the point you were making.

 

[GKC]

Did he argue in favor of the orders being valid or invalid and did that play a part in his conversion? Why did he title the book the way he did?
If you could answer in laymen’s terms. I know what an intellect you have and a fondness for this, but my intellect is not as great as yours and I often find myself scratching my head after I read your posts because I was not able to follow the point you were making.

It would be more appropriate to look at his books on Apostolicae curae, for his opinions on that. He had been drawn toward Rome from before the point at which he started studying Apostolicae curae in depth. He discusses in them, in more detail than any other writer on the subject that I know of, the long and sad history of* Apostolicae curae*, and outlines the best case I have read which could maintain both the judgement rendered in it, and also explicate a sense in which that judgement might have been reached by a misreading of that history.

The title comes from a family anecdote, related near the end of chap. 2. Fr. Hughes’ father (and paternal grandfather) were Anglican priests. As a child, John would occasionally hear his father refer to some clerical superior, or other priest, as “a fool”. It seemed that he had a habit of doing so, often in the form of saying “He’s no ordinary fool”. Which led the young John to observe to his maternal grandfather that “All Daddy’s friends are fools”. I would suppose Fr. Hughes was referring to himself as no ordinary fool, in some sense.

Subtitle is A TESTIMONY TO GRACE.

GKC

 

[KjetilK]

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.

But that is like saying someone is an European. It might be accurate, but it doesn’t tell you anything besides the fact that he lives somewhere in Europe.

The major reason I do not like the term is that it is often used by people, on both sides, as a kind of meaningful term that tells you exactly what the so-called person is. I have often, for instance, been asked to answer for what has been said or done by Zwinglians, Calvinists, Presbyterians, Pentacostals, etc.

 

[KjetilK]

I think the Eastern Churches would take exception to that.

Which is a point I made already. At which point do you become ‘Protestant’? Rejecting the supremacy of the Pope is OK?

 

[7_Sorrows]

It would be more appropriate to look at his books on Apostolicae curae, for his opinions on that. He had been drawn toward Rome from before the point at which he started studying Apostolicae curae in depth. He discusses in them, in more detail than any other writer on the subject that I know of, the long and sad history of* Apostolicae curae*, and outlines the best case I have read which could maintain both the judgement rendered in it, and also explicate a sense in which that judgement might have been reached by a misreading of that history.

The title comes from a family anecdote, related near the end of chap. 2. Fr. Hughes’ father (and paternal grandfather) were Anglican priests. As a child, John would occasionally hear his father refer to some clerical superior, or other priest, as “a fool”. It seemed that he had a habit of doing so, often in the form of saying “He’s no ordinary fool”. Which led the young John to observe to his maternal grandfather that “All Daddy’s friends are fools”. I would suppose Fr. Hughes was referring to himself as no ordinary fool, in some sense.

Subtitle is A TESTIMONY TO GRACE.

GKC

Thanks GKC. It sounds like a worthwhile book to read.
I liked the anecdote. Very cute! It does sound like a sad history.
I am glad you are hear to answer questions.

 

[GKC]

Thanks GKC. It sounds like a worthwhile book to read.
I liked the anecdote. Very cute! It does sound like a sad history.
I am glad you are hear to answer questions.

I’m an opinion, at least.

GKC

 

[7_Sorrows]

Thanks GKC. It sounds like a worthwhile book to read.
I liked the anecdote. Very cute! It does sound like a sad history.
I am glad you are hear to answer questions.

Oops! Spelling error. hear was meant to be here.

 

[guanophore]

I think they prefer to be called “women”.

I am not sure about Anglicans, but for Catholics there are plenty of sacramentallly invalid subjects besides women.

 

[7_Sorrows]

I am not sure about Anglicans, but for Catholics there are plenty of sacramentallly invalid subjects besides women.

such as…?

 

[guanophore]

RE: sentence 2. Some Anglicans consider themselves Catholic.

Re; sentence 3. The faith did not change greatly, under Henry.

GKC

I often wonder what it must have been like, for the average Catholic in the pew, in the first few decades.

 

[GKC]

I often wonder what it must have been like, for the average Catholic in the pew, in the first few decades.

Confusing, I’d guess.

GKC

 

[GKC]

such as…?

For the sacrament of Orders, any thing other than a human male, of a certain age, and without certain other limitations, mental, spiritual, and physical.

GKC

 

[guanophore]

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. )

Thank you for saying that. I know that I have some very immoveable ideas, and though I do try to work on my ecumenism, and think about how I would feel if someone wrote that about me, there are times when the cogs just slip.

So what is unecumenical about my statement? I feel sure that the original Reformers were very invested in shedding what they considered unneeded baggage and false ideas from the Roman Communion.