M
Matthew_Holford
Guest
The Pope and other Catholic clergy do attend non-Catholic liturgies. Why not be guided by their example?
- Status
J
Johnnyduffy
Guest
This is insane
If the Church encouraged paticipation in protestant worship it would be allowing the faithful to partake in the practice of a sect that denies the authority of the pope.
Jesus Christ founded one Church, that Church cannot reasonably recommend another church.
I believe matthewdknight that this is a case of human respect, since you recognize the falsity of the Anglican church, but hesitate to refuse to attend out of respect of your grandmother. Simply put you must not put God over man. Look at this from God’s point of view. He loves the Anglicans as he does all men and wishes them to belong to the Church He founded, the one true Church. Therefore if you attend the protestant services everyone who knows you to be a Catholic, discern, even though it may not be true, that you approve of their religion.
“Pilate therefore said to him, ‘Thou art then a king?’ Jesus answered, ‘Thou sayest it; I am a king. This is why I was born, and why I have come into the world, to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears my voice’” (John 18:37)
Our Lord said MY voice, not the voice of Martin Luther, John Knox, or King Henry VIII
Remember these things, and be firm in your stand with Jesus, and Holy Mother Church
A
anp1215
Guest
I’m sorry, but this is your opinion, and not that of the Church.
A
andrewstx
Guest
Far as I know all Episcopalians think of themselves as reformed catholics.
They define the word “catholic” differently.
They have the creeds, the sacraments, and they think they have apostolic succession. And to them it makes them Catholic.
A
Aidan12
Guest
Re: * (On a separate but not entirely related note, are there any Protestants here who can tell me why you don’t have Jesus Christ on your crosses? It’s a bit of a puzzler to me. My grandmother doesn’t know.) *
During the Reformation, the more extreme elements among Protestants associated any image in the churches with idol worship. A lot of beautiful art, statutes, stained glass, paintings, frescoes, etc., were destroyed. So even the image of the crucified Jesus was seen as idolatrous. (Totally illogical because Jesus is the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, but there it is.)
Nowadays, many Protestants will say the reason the cross in churches is without a corpus is because the Cross has triumphed over sin. Jesus is risen and, therefore, His cross should be displayed as empty. It sounds plausible, although, personally, I have the sneaking suspicion many Protestants are stuck in a rut created by generations of anti-Catholicism and iconoclasm, and can’t get past the crass elements of their own religious history.
During the Reformation, the more extreme elements among Protestants associated any image in the churches with idol worship. A lot of beautiful art, statutes, stained glass, paintings, frescoes, etc., were destroyed. So even the image of the crucified Jesus was seen as idolatrous. (Totally illogical because Jesus is the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, but there it is.)
Nowadays, many Protestants will say the reason the cross in churches is without a corpus is because the Cross has triumphed over sin. Jesus is risen and, therefore, His cross should be displayed as empty. It sounds plausible, although, personally, I have the sneaking suspicion many Protestants are stuck in a rut created by generations of anti-Catholicism and iconoclasm, and can’t get past the crass elements of their own religious history.
T
TaylorXIII
Guest
blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2011/09/23/pope-warns-lutherans-of-new-christian-challengers-to-mainline-churches/
In this article the Pope is attending a Lutheran service, in of all places Martin Luther’s cathedral.
ivarfjeld.wordpress.com/2011/09/02/muslim-prince-to-attend-popes-interreligious-prayer-meeting-in-october/
In this article the Pope is leading an interfaith prayer service with a prince of Jordan, a Muslim or course, at which they will pray together.
If Pope Bennie can do such things, I see no problem with you attending an occasional Anglican service with your Grandmother. Certainly, as others have pointed out, it does not substitute your weekly obligation to attend Catholic Mass. However, most churches offer two or three Masses on Sunday as well as another on Saturday night. Surely there is time to attend a Catholic mass as well as some other non-Catholic service if you are so invited by a friend or family member. As for praying with them, again I see no problem. As the Nostra Aetate points out, even Muslims are worshiping the same god, us Catholics are just doing it the completely right way. The lord knows our intentions and what lies in our heart. We don’t need to walk on eggshells around him. God bless, and best wishes to you and your grandmothers.
In this article the Pope is attending a Lutheran service, in of all places Martin Luther’s cathedral.
ivarfjeld.wordpress.com/2011/09/02/muslim-prince-to-attend-popes-interreligious-prayer-meeting-in-october/
In this article the Pope is leading an interfaith prayer service with a prince of Jordan, a Muslim or course, at which they will pray together.
If Pope Bennie can do such things, I see no problem with you attending an occasional Anglican service with your Grandmother. Certainly, as others have pointed out, it does not substitute your weekly obligation to attend Catholic Mass. However, most churches offer two or three Masses on Sunday as well as another on Saturday night. Surely there is time to attend a Catholic mass as well as some other non-Catholic service if you are so invited by a friend or family member. As for praying with them, again I see no problem. As the Nostra Aetate points out, even Muslims are worshiping the same god, us Catholics are just doing it the completely right way. The lord knows our intentions and what lies in our heart. We don’t need to walk on eggshells around him. God bless, and best wishes to you and your grandmothers.
A
andrewstx
Guest
Also there are huge differences between Episcopalians. Such as anglo-catholic and evangelical.
The one thing that holds them together is a common liturgy in the Book of Common Prayer.
The local Episcopal churches would never tolerate pagan and gay altar boys and have no female priests.
The older church has a crucifix, stations of the cross, sanctus bells, and statues. The male priest wears Mass vestments. It would be hard to tell the diffference except the Episcopal church tends to be more traditional. Pipe organ no guitars etc.
But for all the beauty they still have no valid orders, and it’s all face value only.
Better guitars and folk-rock music and the body of Our Lord, than huge pipe organs, si;len vestments, tastefull hand cast statues and plain bread and wine.
The one thing that holds them together is a common liturgy in the Book of Common Prayer.
The local Episcopal churches would never tolerate pagan and gay altar boys and have no female priests.
The older church has a crucifix, stations of the cross, sanctus bells, and statues. The male priest wears Mass vestments. It would be hard to tell the diffference except the Episcopal church tends to be more traditional. Pipe organ no guitars etc.
But for all the beauty they still have no valid orders, and it’s all face value only.
Better guitars and folk-rock music and the body of Our Lord, than huge pipe organs, si;len vestments, tastefull hand cast statues and plain bread and wine.
M
matthewdknight
Guest
Thank you, this is what I tried to do on Sunday. I prayed silently and did not say the Creed or the Book of Common Prayer responses. I really don’t want to say anything against their pastor, but some of the things he says are very disturbing. His sermon this last week, for example, included a thorough “disproval” of Mary’s perpetual virginity and the fact that we should use the season of Advent not to honour our traditions, but to look for the truth in other faiths. This might be authentic Anglican doctrine, but regardless, I don’t much like being subjected to it.
Thanks for researching that for me. In general, I agree with you; I don’t have doubts so much as I’m getting a mixed message of what the Holy Church is actually saying. The reasoning in that particular passage seems a little shaky, though. We should refuse to attend protestant worship immediately so we don’t hurt the protestants’ feelings later on?
Encourage? That seems a bit off to me as well; from what I’ve gathered so far, it seems to be more of an “if you must” situation. Nevertheless, I will certainly look up the paper.
TaylorXII:
Yes, I always attend Sunday Mass at the local parish church. The Episcopalian service is about two hours afterward. I believe you are right that God understands my intent - not to participate fully in the Anglican worship, but to support my family members and perhaps draw them toward the fullness of Christian faith. Thank you for your blessings. Unless the paper above says differently, I will continue to attend once in a while.
Oh yes, I’m well aware. I get kind of a skin-crawl feeling when I see the invalidly ordained Episcopalian pastor attempting to consecrate the Eucharist. I wonder if he really believes in transubstantiation, or if he’s just going through the motions of Catholicism.
B
BernadetteM
Guest
I sometimes attend an Anglican group who are Ordinariate bound on Sunday evenings. There is a mixure of Anglicans, Episcopalians and Catholics who attend.
I participate in the Evening Song service, however when the parish has Benediction once a month, I, nor the other Catholics participate.
It is a very odd situation as the church has allowed the group to meet there and the Catholic Bishop is very aware of the group and has given his encouragement. What is so strange is that although it is an Episcopal parish, Anglo Catholic, half of the congregation is part of TEC and the other half is part of one of the Continuing Anglican groups.
Several members of the praish are coming into the Ordinariate and this is why we were given permission to hold services and catechism classes there. We have had visiting Catholic priests giving instructions to those who are converting.
Actually it is a wonderful opportunity to share the Catholic faith with others and hopefully lead them into the Church.
Once the Ordinariate is established the Bishop and the priest who leads the group will be looking for a Catholic parish to celebrate Mass. It is rather exciting to be involved with one of the first groups entering the Church through the Ordinariate. They are like a family and all give thanks for such a caring Bishop and priests who are supportive in bringing others to the true faith.
Yours in the Hearts of Jesus and Mary
Bernadette
I participate in the Evening Song service, however when the parish has Benediction once a month, I, nor the other Catholics participate.
It is a very odd situation as the church has allowed the group to meet there and the Catholic Bishop is very aware of the group and has given his encouragement. What is so strange is that although it is an Episcopal parish, Anglo Catholic, half of the congregation is part of TEC and the other half is part of one of the Continuing Anglican groups.
Several members of the praish are coming into the Ordinariate and this is why we were given permission to hold services and catechism classes there. We have had visiting Catholic priests giving instructions to those who are converting.
Actually it is a wonderful opportunity to share the Catholic faith with others and hopefully lead them into the Church.
Once the Ordinariate is established the Bishop and the priest who leads the group will be looking for a Catholic parish to celebrate Mass. It is rather exciting to be involved with one of the first groups entering the Church through the Ordinariate. They are like a family and all give thanks for such a caring Bishop and priests who are supportive in bringing others to the true faith.
Yours in the Hearts of Jesus and Mary
Bernadette
C
Contarini
Guest
Are you saying that the Principles and Norms are insane, or do you dispute my interpretation? I refer you in particular to sections 108 and 116-18. Section 108 encourages prayer together with non-Catholics; 116 specifically speaks of formal, liturgical (though non-sacramental) worship; 117 clearly allows for Catholics to join in the regular forms of worship used by other Christian communities; and 118 speaks of a situation in which a Catholic is a guest in another worship community and explicitly encourages Catholics to participate actively in such circumstances.
I invite you to proffer an alternative interpretation of these texts. Or are you calling the Vatican’s norms themselves insane? (I recognize, of course, that these norms are not infallible teaching, though calling them insane might be seen as stretching the boundaries of proper respect for ecclesiastical authority.)
Yes. You may be surprised to hear this, but non-Catholic Christians do not gather for worship on the basis of denial of the pope’s authority, but on the basis of our faith in Jesus Christ, which we share with Catholics.
But your way of speaking is itself surely inadequate to express your Church’s claims. There is no “other church.” Nor do Protestants claim to be “another church.” We claim to be part of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. Your Church officially recognizes this to be true to some extent, as in Lumen Gentium 15:
The kind of worship with Protestants recommended in the Principles and Norms is an expression of that real link between non-Catholic Christians and the Catholic Church.
I agree with your principle, that he should not do this solely out of respect for his grandmother. However, the teaching of the Catholic Church appears to be that Anglicanism is not to be regarded as false in its entirety, but only as imperfect. Attending an Anglican service while not receiving the Eucharist cannot possibly be misinterpreted as approval of Anglicanism in its entirety. As an Anglican, I assure you that Anglicans notice this (probably more than we should) and are often offended by it (I frequently have lengthy and acrimonious arguments with my fellow Anglicans in which I attempt vainly to point out that closed communion was the practice of nearly all Christians until fairly recently and that it is petty to be “offended” by it). The great concern felt by conservative Catholics lest we might possibly think that you think we are your equals seems odd to me in the first place (I think it’s predicated on a mistaken understanding of how people are to be brought to Catholicism), but in the second place is entirely misguided as a pragmatic matter. This is not a realistic danger for the most part. The very real danger is that non-Catholics fail to understand how generously your Church speaks of us and how far it goes in acknowledging us as fellow Christians.
Indeed. But if you think that people go to a Protestant church to hear the voice of Luther or Knox, you are seriously misinformed. And if you think Anglicans have any interest in hearing the voice of Henry VIII, you are in a completely different galaxy altogether
.We come together in worship to hear the voice of Jesus–to hear Scripture read and expounded, to sing hymns of praise to the Most Holy Trinity, to celebrate the work of Christ in our lives, to pray for one another. And yes, we celebrate sacraments whose validity you frequently do not acknowledge (i.e., you recognize our baptisms and marriages but not Eucharist or confirmation or ordination).
Edwin
C
Contarini
Guest
So you’re more interested in what Catholics on this forum say than in what the Vatican says? Section 118 of the Principles and Norms explicitly encourages Catholics to participate in such things. Obviously you should not participate in anything contrary to Catholic teaching–but clearly the Creed is not contrary to Catholic teaching
. The idea that refusal to say the Nicene Creed is somehow a mark of faithfulness to Catholic teaching is, to quote Johnnyduffy, insane.Anglicans do not have a formal teaching on the perpetual virginity. Some believe in it, others don’t. We certainly do not teach that Advent is not a time to honor our own traditions
.I think you should consider telling your grandmother that you are unwilling to attend a church whose pastor continually attacks the Catholic Faith.
If you are brave enough to do so, walking out whenever he does something of the sort might also be an appropriate action.
According to your Church’s norms, you are encouraged to worship with other Christians as an expression of what we have in common, not just out of respect to your grandmother. If the priest is teaching things contrary to Catholicism and really bothering you, I would encourage you to stand up to your grandmother on this point. But it’s easy for me to say, I know
.I had a very ferocious grandmother, myself (though also wonderful, as ferocious grandmothers often are
), and probably failed to stand up to her as much as I should have done
. She isn’t solely responsible for my failure to become Catholic, but I probably was too ready to doubt what I believed God was calling me to do in the face of her vehement opposition, since I had been brought up to regard her as a very wise and holy woman.Do two priests trump the Vatican’s own norms?
It’s not an either/or. Most Anglicans believe in the Real Presence even if they don’t specifically endorse transubstantiation. Some, however, do believe in transubstantiation.Oh yes, I’m well aware. I get kind of a skin-crawl feeling when I see the invalidly ordained Episcopalian pastor attempting to consecrate the Eucharist. I wonder if he really believes in transubstantiation, or if he’s just going through the motions of Catholicism.
And if he’s actually an Old Catholic of some sort, he probably is validly ordained by your Church’s standards.
Edwin
A
anp1215
Guest
Yes, Anglican churches do run the gamut. I attended an ACNA (Anglican Church in North America, a Continuing Anglican) church a few times, and to the casual observer, there would have been no observable difference between it and a traditional Catholic parish-vestments, altar rail with kneeling, hymns, stations of the cross, genuflection, sign of the cross, holy water fonts, etc.
J
Johnnyduffy
Guest
The kind of worship with Protestants recommended in the Principles and Norms is an expression of that real link between non-Catholic Christians and the Catholic Church.
I agree with your principle, that he should not do this solely out of respect for his grandmother. However, the teaching of the Catholic Church appears to be that Anglicanism is not to be regarded as false in its entirety, but only as imperfect. Attending an Anglican service while not receiving the Eucharist cannot possibly be misinterpreted as approval of Anglicanism in its entirety. As an Anglican, I assure you that Anglicans notice this (probably more than we should) and are often offended by it (I frequently have lengthy and acrimonious arguments with my fellow Anglicans in which I attempt vainly to point out that closed communion was the practice of nearly all Christians until fairly recently and that it is petty to be “offended” by it). The great concern felt by conservative Catholics lest we might possibly think that you think we are your equals seems odd to me in the first place (I think it’s predicated on a mistaken understanding of how people are to be brought to Catholicism), but in the second place is entirely misguided as a pragmatic matter. This is not a realistic danger for the most part. The very real danger is that non-Catholics fail to understand how generously your Church speaks of us and how far it goes in acknowledging us as fellow Christians.
Indeed. But if you think that people go to a Protestant church to hear the voice of Luther or Knox, you are seriously misinformed. And if you think Anglicans have any interest in hearing the voice of Henry VIII, you are in a completely different galaxy altogether
.We come together in worship to hear the voice of Jesus–to hear Scripture read and expounded, to sing hymns of praise to the Most Holy Trinity, to celebrate the work of Christ in our lives, to pray for one another. And yes, we celebrate sacraments whose validity you frequently do not acknowledge (i.e., you recognize our baptisms and marriages but not Eucharist or confirmation or ordination).
Edwin
No matter what you think the anglicans are another church. And cannot reasonably claim to be part of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, because they do not have these attributes. First of all they are not one, as you said so youself their is not a solid teaching on the perpetual virginity, some believe it some don’t. The anglican church is not is not holy, because as the catechism teaches us it was not founded by Jesus Christ, and because it does not teach according to the will of Christ. It is not universal because it does not teach all the thuths revealed by God. And finally it is not apostolic because it cannot trace its beginnings back to the apostles
C
Contarini
Guest
It isn’t a question, surely, of what I think but of what your Church teaches. I have cited your own Church’s teaching, and I note your failure to respond. If you reject the doctrinal authority of Vatican II and the disciplinary authority of Cardinal Cassidy acting under the authority of Pope John Paul II (in issuing the Principles and Norms), then say so clearly and honestly. Otherwise deal with what I have cited.
You are actually granting us more than your Church does in a way. Your Church does not consider us a “church” at all but an “ecclesial community.”
I repeat: as I understand Catholic teaching, there is no “other church.” There are particular churches, mostly in the East, which are not in communion with Rome, but they are certainly not an “other church” over against the Catholic Church as a whole. And there are “ecclesial communities” which lack apostolic succession, which would (in Rome’s eyes) include us Anglicans.
Why can’t you speak as your Church does? Why do you routinely disregard your own Church’s teaching while claiming to defend it? It’s very odd. . . . .
I expect traditional, conservative folks to be stern and fierce, and that doesn’t offend me. What annoys me immensely is how sloppy and fuzzy you guys often are–you sling around language like “another church” without apparently having given any serious thought as to what it means.
I am not going to defend the claim that Anglicanism is doctrinally unified, but as a matter of fact there are also points on which Catholics differ from each other. It is irrational to define internal “unity” as “agreement with each other on all the points on which we agree with each other, even though there are many other points on which we don’t agree with each other.”
Anglicanism, I repeat, is not and does not claim to be what your Communion claims to be. You’re comparing apples and oranges.
The Church of England was founded by St. Augustine of Canterbury acting on behalf of Pope Gregory. Of course we weren’t founded by Jesus Christ. Neither, for that matter, was the Church of Rome (I am not using the term in the old-fashioned Protestant sense but in the sense you would use it–the particular church found in Rome). As a body led by bishops in apostolic succession, it was founded by Sts. Peter and Paul, according to Irenaeus.
Yes, we can, through St. Augustine of Canterbury who was sent to England by Pope Gregory.
Historically, Rowan Williams can trace his office back to St. Augustine of Canterbury. Your Church claims that we lost apostolic succession because we changed our ordination liturgy in the mid-sixteenth century (not, be it noted, because of our break with Rome, though of course the one wouldn’t have happened without the other!). That theological judgment may be correct, but it’s still true that we can trace our history as an ecclesiastical organization back to St. Augustine of Canterbury, and through him to Pope Gregory and hence to the Apostles!
Edwin
J
Johnnyduffy
Guest
I
Now you say you can trace your. Beginningins to the apostles? That may be true, but if one of those attributes are missing it is a false religion. I will use the term religion from now on.because of the various meanings of the word church.
You say I disregard the teaching of my religion. This is untrue I am offering my oppinion based on the falsity of anglicanism. I am defending my point and the teaching of the catholic religion. I admit that the catholic religion may teach that it is ok to attend anglican aervices, however this is not an infallible teaching.
I appologize for my brief responses, I am on an android device.It isn’t a question, surely, of what I think but of what your Church teaches. I have cited your own Church’s teaching, and I note your failure to respond. If you reject the doctrinal authority of Vatican II and the disciplinary authority of Cardinal Cassidy acting under the authority of Pope John Paul II (in issuing the Principles and Norms), then say so clearly and honestly. Otherwise deal with what I have cited.
You are actually granting us more than your Church does in a way. Your Church does not consider us a “church” at all but an “ecclesial community.”
I repeat: as I understand Catholic teaching, there is no “other church.” There are particular churches, mostly in the East, which are not in communion with Rome, but they are certainly not an “other church” over against the Catholic Church as a whole. And there are “ecclesial communities” which lack apostolic succession, which would (in Rome’s eyes) include us Anglicans.
Why can’t you speak as your Church does? Why do you routinely disregard your own Church’s teaching while claiming to defend it? It’s very odd. . . . .
I expect traditional, conservative folks to be stern and fierce, and that doesn’t offend me. What annoys me immensely is how sloppy and fuzzy you guys often are–you sling around language like “another church” without apparently having given any serious thought as to what it means.
I am not going to defend the claim that Anglicanism is doctrinally unified, but as a matter of fact there are also points on which Catholics differ from each other. It is irrational to define internal “unity” as “agreement with each other on all the points on which we agree with each other, even though there are many other points on which we don’t agree with each other.”
Anglicanism, I repeat, is not and does not claim to be what your Communion claims to be. You’re comparing apples and oranges.
The Church of England was founded by St. Augustine of Canterbury acting on behalf of Pope Gregory. Of course we weren’t founded by Jesus Christ. Neither, for that matter, was the Church of Rome (I am not using the term in the old-fashioned Protestant sense but in the sense you would use it–the particular church found in Rome). As a body led by bishops in apostolic succession, it was founded by Sts. Peter and Paul, according to Irenaeus.
Yes, we can, through St. Augustine of Canterbury who was sent to England by Pope Gregory.
Historically, Rowan Williams can trace his office back to St. Augustine of Canterbury. Your Church claims that we lost apostolic succession because we changed our ordination liturgy in the mid-sixteenth century (not, be it noted, because of our break with Rome, though of course the one wouldn’t have happened without the other!). That theological judgment may be correct, but it’s still true that we can trace our history as an ecclesiastical organization back to St. Augustine of Canterbury, and through him to Pope Gregory and hence to the Apostles!
Edwin
Now you say you can trace your. Beginningins to the apostles? That may be true, but if one of those attributes are missing it is a false religion. I will use the term religion from now on.because of the various meanings of the word church.
You say I disregard the teaching of my religion. This is untrue I am offering my oppinion based on the falsity of anglicanism. I am defending my point and the teaching of the catholic religion. I admit that the catholic religion may teach that it is ok to attend anglican aervices, however this is not an infallible teaching.
J
Johnnyduffy
Guest
I take back what I just said, your religion is not apostolic and cannot claim to because of a round about track. If you are not currently uder the pope then you cannot be aposstolic. Because only the pope can be traced to the apostles, not St. Augistine of Canturbury. He could not have been acting on behalf of the pope be cause how could the pope authorize the formation of another religion, since he knows that there is only one true religion and that all others are false.
L
liturgyluver
Guest
Thank you Edwin for this very clear reply. On the last point, can I just clarify if my understanding is correct. Pope Leo’s Bull of 1896 declared Anglican orders null and void because of the changes to the ordination of priests made under the Prayer book of Edward VI. This change therefore meant - in the Pope’s eyes - that the Anglican ordination was invalid, and as a result of this the Anglican church lost apostolic succession. Is that correct? Presumably this would have meant, that up until the Bull was promulgated, that Anglican orders and apostolic succession were recognised by the Roman Catholic Church as valid?It isn’t a question, surely, of what I think but of what your Church teaches. I have cited your own Church’s teaching, and I note your failure to respond. If you reject the doctrinal authority of Vatican II and the disciplinary authority of Cardinal Cassidy acting under the authority of Pope John Paul II (in issuing the Principles and Norms), then say so clearly and honestly. Otherwise deal with what I have cited.
You are actually granting us more than your Church does in a way. Your Church does not consider us a “church” at all but an “ecclesial community.”
I repeat: as I understand Catholic teaching, there is no “other church.” There are particular churches, mostly in the East, which are not in communion with Rome, but they are certainly not an “other church” over against the Catholic Church as a whole. And there are “ecclesial communities” which lack apostolic succession, which would (in Rome’s eyes) include us Anglicans.
Why can’t you speak as your Church does? Why do you routinely disregard your own Church’s teaching while claiming to defend it? It’s very odd. . . . .
I expect traditional, conservative folks to be stern and fierce, and that doesn’t offend me. What annoys me immensely is how sloppy and fuzzy you guys often are–you sling around language like “another church” without apparently having given any serious thought as to what it means.
I am not going to defend the claim that Anglicanism is doctrinally unified, but as a matter of fact there are also points on which Catholics differ from each other. It is irrational to define internal “unity” as “agreement with each other on all the points on which we agree with each other, even though there are many other points on which we don’t agree with each other.”
Anglicanism, I repeat, is not and does not claim to be what your Communion claims to be. You’re comparing apples and oranges.
The Church of England was founded by St. Augustine of Canterbury acting on behalf of Pope Gregory. Of course we weren’t founded by Jesus Christ. Neither, for that matter, was the Church of Rome (I am not using the term in the old-fashioned Protestant sense but in the sense you would use it–the particular church found in Rome). As a body led by bishops in apostolic succession, it was founded by Sts. Peter and Paul, according to Irenaeus.
Yes, we can, through St. Augustine of Canterbury who was sent to England by Pope Gregory.
Historically, Rowan Williams can trace his office back to St. Augustine of Canterbury. Your Church claims that we lost apostolic succession because we changed our ordination liturgy in the mid-sixteenth century (not, be it noted, because of our break with Rome, though of course the one wouldn’t have happened without the other!). That theological judgment may be correct, but it’s still true that we can trace our history as an ecclesiastical organization back to St. Augustine of Canterbury, and through him to Pope Gregory and hence to the Apostles!
Edwin
L
liturgyluver
Guest
No that is not the reason. The authority of the Pope has nothing to do with apostolic succession. The Catholic church recognises apostolic succession in the Orthodox Church, and they do not recognise the authority of the pope.
C
Contarini
Guest
I have some problems with that too, since it is not generally the usage of your Church to say that we are a separate religion. But I don’t want to quibble over terms unnecessarily.
The term that I would prefer would be “communion”–that is, we are a group of particular churches (or in your Church’s view, “ecclesial communities”) which are in communion with each other. But I certainly have neither the ability nor the desire to force you to use this term if you find it unsatisfactory for some reason.
But the present norms are based on the doctrinal teaching of Vatican II, reaffirmed in the Catechism.
Perhaps this is just my heretical way of thinking, but I’m really less interested in whether something is infallible than in whether it is true. And surely, as one layperson, you should give serious consideration to the possibility that the Pope and bishops of your own Communion are right, even if they don’t speak infallibly. I mean, I do this as an Anglican (I am unwilling to say categorically that women should be ordained, even though the theological arguments for it seem very strong to me, because of my respect for the Pope and the bishops in communion with him), so I’d expect you to respect the authorities of your own Church at least as much as I do.
Edwin
C
Contarini
Guest
Actually I believe not. As far as I know, the default position was not to recognize them, but there had been some debate on the subject. In the 19th century the “Anglo-Catholics” argued passionately that Anglicanism had always been essentially Catholic and simply needed to purify itself of some incidental Protestant corruptions. They wanted Rome and the Orthodox to recognize them as having valid apostolic succession. Pope Leo’s decision was intended to clarify the matter, and it reaffirmed the dominant understanding within the Roman Communion with regard to Anglican Orders.
I would welcome further clarification from the poster “GKC,” who knows a lot more about the details of this than I do.
Edwin
- Status