Can a Roman Catholic attend 'Anglican Catholic' mass?

[malphono]

Actually there are many Latin Rite Catholics who are registered members in some of the Anglican Use parishes.

Anyone can register at any parish, but that doesn’t automatically mean the person is canonically considered a parishioner. With the exception of “personal parishes” (and I don’t believe the AU parishes are currently considered such), parishes are territorial.

Once the Ordinariate is established I believe you will see more of them joining these parishes.

At this point I think it depends on the local Bishop whether one can register as a member, but once the Ordinariates are established they will not be under the local Bishop, but an Ordinary.

From what I’ve read, the Ordinariates will have jurisdiction over AU parishes, but I don’t recall anything about non-AU persons being members of said parishes. I suspect that, once the kinks are ironed out and Anglicanorum Coetibus is fully imolemented, AU parishes will be afforded something in the way of a “personal parish” status.

 

[BernadetteM]

Anyone can register at any parish, but that doesn’t automatically mean the person is canonically considered a parishioner. With the exception of “personal parishes” (and I don’t believe the AU parishes are currently considered such), parishes are territorial.

From what I’ve read, the Ordinariates will have jurisdiction over AU parishes, but I don’t recall anything about non-AU persons being members of said parishes. I suspect that, once the kinks are ironed out and Anglicanorum Coetibus is fully imolemented, AU parishes will be afforded something in the way of a “personal parish” status.

As I said we must wait until all the details are worked out. It will be up to the CDF and the Ordinaries to decide. Of course the Ordinary will be conferring with the local Bishop out of respect. They won’t be considered Bishops, but will hold the same esteem and respect as a Bishop. Maybe in the future.

I can say that many Anglicans are waiting patiently for the first Ordianariate to be established. At least we have a Pastoral Delegate now in the US who is taking note of how many parishes, priests, Bishops and laypeople are coming over.

If my former parish decides to become Catholic I will register there, although it is quite a ways from where I live. I will still stay registered at my parish which draws people from all over different dioceses. It is a great parish.

Bernadette

 

[BernadetteM]

Anyone can register at any parish, but that doesn’t automatically mean the person is canonically considered a parishioner. With the exception of “personal parishes” (and I don’t believe the AU parishes are currently considered such), parishes are territorial.

From what I’ve read, the Ordinariates will have jurisdiction over AU parishes, but I don’t recall anything about non-AU persons being members of said parishes. I suspect that, once the kinks are ironed out and Anglicanorum Coetibus is fully imolemented, AU parishes will be afforded something in the way of a “personal parish” status.

I just looked it up and it appears Anglican Use parishes are considered “personal parishes”.

Bernadette

 

[GKC]

You might receive on the tongue, but that is not the typical way Anglicans receive Holy Communion. In some Anglo Catholic parishes it is more the norm, but in most of my former parishes receiving in the hand was the norm.

I noticed you belong to one of the many Continuing Anglican groups and whether they are suggesting this way of reception instead of in the hand I have no idea.

I would say that Anglicans when receiving in the hand have a much more reverent manner of doing so. They lay their right hand over their left and bring up their hands to their mouth so there is little chance that the host will fall.

Also as a former Anglo Catholic, yes we were taught to believe the same as Catholics, but in all my former TEC parishes this was not the case. At one time all TEC parishes had closed communion, now I noticed that even Anglo Catholic parishes say anyone who is baptized can receive.

As one poster pointed out there have been some priests who were ordained in the Old Catholic line so they would have a valid ordination, although considered illicit by the Church. But as of today with women priests and Bishops that is not possible. Also not that many priests were ordained by an Old Catholic Bishop. Most of the parishes I attended until my teens were either very low or broad churches which followed the 39 Articles. Anglo Catholic praishes were few and far between.

Just out of curiosity, is your Anglican group considering women ordinations? I know that there is one group that is, but can’t recall which one.

God Bless

Bernadette

I really should stay out of this, but the issue is not whether an OC bishop ordained an Anglican priest. There might have been such, but I’m not aware it. The point is that OC and PNCC bishops have consecrated a number of Anglican bishops. So (assuming that intent, form and matter were valid), that logically (but not definitively) would infuse valid but illicit episcopal lines into Anglicanism, after 1932 and the Agreement of Bonn. Which would then be propagated as these Anglican bisops consecrated and ordained, in turn. The Dutch Touch is wide-spread, over the past 80 years or so. Assuming valid matter, etc., in each case, of course.

GKC

 

[CB_Catholic]

and where did you get that from? as far as i know watching a priest the other on EWTN, they themselves said that Catholics may not go to their services. they can come to the CC but Catholics are not pass on to their churches. that is what i heard from Anglicans priests making their way to Rome.

Read what I wrote again. Anglican Use parishes are ROMAN CATHOLIC parishes. They were Anglican parishes that came into full communion with the Catholic Church. Their priests have been ordained into the RCC. Their Liturgy, however, is not the OF or the EF of the Latin Church. It is an Anglican Liturgy approved for their use. That is why they are called “Anglican Use” parishes. Any Catholic can attend their Liturgy and receive the Eucharist, because they are part of the Catholic Church. But they are few and far between-someone posted recently that there were only 9 in the US and they are small parishes. And they are only in the US.

 

[BernadetteM]

Read what I wrote again. Anglican Use parishes are ROMAN CATHOLIC parishes. They were Anglican parishes that came into full communion with the Catholic Church. Their priests have been ordained into the RCC. Their Liturgy, however, is not the OF or the EF of the Latin Church. It is an Anglican Liturgy approved for their use. That is why they are called “Anglican Use” parishes. Any Catholic can attend their Liturgy and receive the Eucharist, because they are part of the Catholic Church. But they are few and far between-someone posted recently that there were only 9 in the US and they are small parishes. And they are only in the US.

You will be seeing more and more of them once the Ordinariate is established. It might take some time, but as TEC and the Continuing Anglican groups break down more Anglicans will be joining. There is one parish from TEC who has taken the offer and I don’t believe that it is even an Anglo Catholic parish.

As I mentioned, yes most all small, but Our Lady of the Atonement has 2000 members and that is hugh for Anglican/TEC parishes.

Please pray for them all, as Satan is really at work against the Ordinariate, although he won’t win, it causes problems when others on the outside are trashing it. The Anglicans coming in are a strong bunch and very devoted to becoming Catholic.

God Bless

Bernadette

 

[FrDavid96]

Part of the confusion here is caused by the term “Anglo Catholic” or similar.

There is no such thing as “Anglo Catholic” as the term has been used on this thread.

Episcopaleans or Anglicans (in the conventional sense of the word) are not Catholic–they’re Anglican and do not have the Catholic faith (the whole faith). When “Anglo Catholic” is used to describe Anglicans who are “high church” for lack of a better or more descriptive term, first of all it causes confusion, and more importantly it is an untruth. If a person is an Anglican, that person is not a Catholic (see next paragraph).

The only way the term Anglo/Anglican Catholic can legitimately be used would be to describe a person (or community) who is actually Catholic–in complete communion with the local bishop, and the Successor of Peter, yet a member of one of the rare (less than 10) Catholic parishes who use the Anglican form. Yes, they are both fully-Catholic and Anglican at the same time.

 

[MarkThompson]

The only way the term Anglo/Anglican Catholic can legitimately be used would be to describe a person (or community) who is actually Catholic–in complete communion with the local bishop, and the Successor of Peter, yet a member of one of the rare (less than 10) Catholic parishes who use the Anglican form. Yes, they are both fully-Catholic and Anglican at the same time.

The rest of your post was spot on, FrDavid, but is it actually true that Pastoral Provision parishes can legitimately be said to be Anglican (or Episcopalian)? Assuming that that has the usual meaning of being in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury, that strikes me as hard to imagine.

 

[FrDavid96]

The rest of your post was spot on, FrDavid, but is it actually true that Pastoral Provision parishes can legitimately be said to be Anglican (or Episcopalian)? Assuming that that has the usual meaning of being in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury, that strikes me as hard to imagine.

They are Anglican in the sense that they follow the Anglican liturgical tradition. So I would say “yes” we can say that they are/will be truly Anglican. I say this because the word itself is a much broader term than the word Catholic which has a very specific meaning.

But I see what you mean in that they would not be Anglican in the sense of in union with the “archbishop” of Cantebury. That’s why we should (probably) always use both words Catholic and Anglican to describe members of the pastoral provision and the future Ordinariates; or Anglican-Catholic or Anglo-Catholic, etc.

The word “Catholic” has a meaning that cannot change (it is in the Creed, after all, and the word itself is a matter of dogma–we believe in the concept of Catholic). The adjective Anglican though, can mean whatever we want it to mean. As I see it, that’s the difference.

 

[GKC]

Part of the confusion here is caused by the term “Anglo Catholic” or similar.

There is no such thing as “Anglo Catholic” as the term has been used on this thread.

Episcopaleans or Anglicans (in the conventional sense of the word) are not Catholic–they’re Anglican and do not have the Catholic faith (the whole faith). When “Anglo Catholic” is used to describe Anglicans who are “high church” for lack of a better or more descriptive term, first of all it causes confusion, and more importantly it is an untruth. If a person is an Anglican, that person is not a Catholic (see next paragraph).

The only way the term Anglo/Anglican Catholic can legitimately be used would be to describe a person (or community) who is actually Catholic–in complete communion with the local bishop, and the Successor of Peter, yet a member of one of the rare (less than 10) Catholic parishes who use the Anglican form. Yes, they are both fully-Catholic and Anglican at the same time.

You will understand that Anglo-Catholics, in the Anglican sense of the term, have a different view of the matter. But I certainly understand yours.

GKC

Anglicanus-Catholicus

 

[BernadetteM]

They are Anglican in the sense that they follow the Anglican liturgical tradition. So I would say “yes” we can say that they are/will be truly Anglican. I say this because the word itself is a much broader term than the word Catholic which has a very specific meaning.

But I see what you mean in that they would not be Anglican in the sense of in union with the “archbishop” of Cantebury. That’s why we should (probably) always use both words Catholic and Anglican to describe members of the pastoral provision and the future Ordinariates; or Anglican-Catholic or Anglo-Catholic, etc.

The word “Catholic” has a meaning that cannot change (it is in the Creed, after all, and the word itself is a matter of dogma–we believe in the concept of Catholic). The adjective Anglican though, can mean whatever we want it to mean. As I see it, that’s the difference.

The word Anglo Catholic is confusing to Catholics, but it has always been used within the Anglican Communion, actually when really looking at the whole of the Anglican Communion due to the diversity in theology and liturgy the church itself is very confusing. They claim the branch theory, which of course neither the Catholic Church nor the Orthodox accept.

I think that the parishes coming into the Church should call their parishes Catholic and add Anglican Use. I think most of them do. I guess this all will be decided once the Ordinariates are in place. Try explaining to anyone what Anglo Catholic means or Anglican Use and I can assure you that people have no idea what your talking about. Even after the explanation they are more confused than ever. Then to add to this confusion you have all the Continuing Anglican groups.

God Bless

Bernadette

 

[FrDavid96]

You will understand that Anglo-Catholics, in the Anglican sense of the term, have a different view of the matter. But I certainly understand yours.

GKC

Anglicanus-Catholicus

No.

Perspective cannot make a truth out of an untruth.

 

[GKC]

No.

Perspective cannot make a truth out of an untruth.

Ok.

GKC

 

[Aramis]

I really should stay out of this, but the issue is not whether an OC bishop ordained an Anglican priest. There might have been such, but I’m not aware it. The point is that OC and PNCC bishops have consecrated a number of Anglican bishops. So (assuming that intent, form and matter were valid), that logically (but not definitively) would infuse valid but illicit episcopal lines into Anglicanism, after 1932 and the Agreement of Bonn. Which would then be propagated as these Anglican bisops consecrated and ordained, in turn. The Dutch Touch is wide-spread, over the past 80 years or so. Assuming valid matter, etc., in each case, of course.

GKC

An Anglican who accepts the 39 articles, and many who don’t, don’t consider ordination to be a sacrament, but merely a sacramental; that defect alone is good enough to invalidate the sacrament of Ordination.

 

[GKC]

An Anglican who accepts the 39 articles, and many who don’t, don’t consider ordination to be a sacrament, but merely a sacramental; that defect alone is good enough to invalidate the sacrament of Ordination.

Possibly, but not necessarily,according to the logic in Apostolicae Curae. And it would require an examination of each case. Valid intent is judged in the context of sacramental action. If the form, matter and minister are valid, the assumption is that the intent is facere quod facit ecclesia, absent some external factor which would permit (as Apostolicae Curae alleged) a determinatio ex adiunctis.

The Articles are not normative for Anglicanism. What a bishop might believe of orders might vary. But Leo didn’t hang Apostolicae Curae on an internal state of mind, but on an external action, the choice of the form of the Edwardine Ordinal, in 1559. If intent is stated as positively contrary to what the Church does, that is one thing. If it is not, that is another.

GKC

 

[Aramis]

Possibly, but not necessarily,according to the logic in Apostolicae Curae. And it would require an examination of each case. Valid intent is judged in the context of sacramental action. If the form, matter and minister are valid, the assumption is that the intent is facere quod facit ecclesia, absent some external factor which would permit (as Apostolicae Curae alleged) a determinatio ex adiunctis.

The Articles are not normative for Anglicanism. What a bishop might believe of orders might vary. But Leo didn’t hang Apostolicae Curae on an internal state of mind, but on an external action, the choice of the form of the Edwardine Ordinal, in 1559. If intent is stated as positively contrary to what the Church does, that is one thing. If it is not, that is another.

GKC

Either defect is defect enough.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

If those “people” are “Dutch Touch”-impacted bishops or priests, they have valid consecratory powers and it’s not just a “piece of bread” anymore than your Eucharist is. By your own Catholic rules of the transmission of orders, the Dutch Touch/Utrecht Old Catholics/PNCC co-consecrations re-infused apostolic succession into almost all of the Anglican churches. You can call it illicit, but invalid is a stretch lest you contradict your own rules of engagement for transmission of orders?

You don’t have a problem with being surrounded by people adoring a piece of bread as God since their orders are invalid?

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Jim, try to exercise some brevity in your posts from now on, ok?

Ok.

GKC

 

[Aramis]

If those “people” are “Dutch Touch”-impacted bishops or priests, they have valid consecratory powers and it’s not just a “piece of bread” anymore than your Eucharist is. By your own Catholic rules of the transmission of orders, the Dutch Touch/Utrecht Old Catholics/PNCC co-consecrations re-infused apostolic succession into almost all of the Anglican churches. You can call it illicit, but invalid is a stretch lest you contradict your own rules of engagement for transmission of orders?

Only if the ordinand understood that he was to receive a sacrament. Only four sacraments require no correct understanding by the recipient for validity: Baptism, Confirmation/Chrismation, Eucharist, and Annointing. By contrast, Marriage, Holy Orders, and Reconciliation all do require intent from both the minister and the recipient(s).

For valid holy orders, the valid bishop must have valid intent to perform the sacrament of Ordination, and the ordinand must understand it to be a sacrament, be valid matter for ordination, be validly baptized and chrismated, and a valid form must be used for the ordination.

Since the Anglican Communion teaches that Ordination, confirmation, confession, and anointing are not sacraments but merely sacramentals, the Anglican forms are on their face invalid by lacking proper intent.

And unless the Ordaining Bishop is valid, uses a valid form, and intends valid ordination, his touch is just a touch; any one missing makes the whole invalid.

If the ordinand is not valid matter (unbaptized, invalidly baptized, not a male, does not consent to be ordained, does not believe it a sacrament), then it doesn’t matter what the bishop intended.

 

[GKC]

Either defect is defect enough.

No, both alleged defects had to be taken together, in Apostolicae Curae. The form, considered defective, did not differ from several liturgical rites that the RCC does consider as conveying valid orders. It was only when coupled with the presumed invalid intent, on the part of the consecrators of +Parker in 1559, that the consecration was judged invalid. And intent was judged invalid by the use of a form, itself not exceptional, that was constructed in the circumstances that it was. Both form and intent had to be taken together, to judge either invalid. Clark’s ANGLICAN ORDERS AND DEFECT OF INTENTION is the best explication of the RC side of the subject.

GKC