Catholic, but not Roman

[curlycool89]

I think that I cannot pass from one side to the other. I think that, as Christ broke the gates of hell, He can take me from one to the other if He wills. And as a loving father, he would not allow anyone to remain in hell forever who did not wish eternally to be apart from him.

If that were the case, then there was no point in Jesus telling the parable at all and there would be no point in including it in sacred scripture. Obviously, Jesus made a point in telling it, and it was latter deemed important enough for Paul to re-tell it (Luke was most likely a disciple of Paul and his Gospel is most likely from that time, with other possible influences being Matthew and Mark, but it is not in either of those). To just throw out a part of Scripture because you “don’t like it” is very revisionist and relativistic and not at all Catholic.

 

[GKC]

I think a case can be made for it.

If we accept that Through Christ all things were made (John 1:3;Nicene Creed) then the command of the Lord at Creation:

“And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it:”

Is the natural institution of matrimony. It became a sacrament at the Eighth Day, when Christ rose again.

One cannot, as I often point out, generalize successfully on Anglicans. But the most common position is that the Dominical sacraments are Baptism and the Eucharist.

GKC

 

[elvisman]

There is a list of essentials, and I can happily produce the list.

Please do so.
If it leaves out any of the Catholic “essentials”, then it’s not a valid list, my friend.

As I said before, and as Dominus Iesus ponts out - There is only ONE Church. The rest are merely "ecclesial communities".**

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Your explanation presupposes that the person with whom you’re debating believes and accepts Dominus Iesus as some kind of authoritative, binding document. Secondly, what you view as the “essentials” is obviously going to be different than the other poster, right? Roman Catholics are going to see the papacy as an “essential” while Orthodoxy and Anglicans, Old Catholics, etc. do not. Anglicanism has a different view of the “essentials” than Orthodoxy and vice versa. And both have different views than Catholicism. You are arguing with this guy as if you’re both working off the same common framework of mutually-established and agreed-upon rules and theological laws. You’re not. So calling people “ecclesiastical communities” and rubbing it in that they’re worthless bible study groups with no grace while yours is true, holy, and superior is an inferior form of witnessing and apologetics. I guarantee you’ll convince no one and you will not bring souls to Christ with that language and approach. It’s a turn off to someone considering and exploring Catholicism. I hear it from seekers all the time in here that attitudes and verbage like this convinced them to stay put rather than convert. The “hardcore Catholic!” approach may edify and make you feel beefed-up and good about yourself but it serves to turn off and offend and put-off many. Something to think about…the insults we hear like “cafeteria Catholic” and the “I’m doing the right thing, pity you’re not, poor slob!” kind of dialogue is precisely the boasting Paul warns us to avoid, to rejoice in the grace of Christ and His love.

Please do so.
If it leaves out any of the Catholic “essentials”, then it’s not a valid list, my friend.

As I said before, and as Dominus Iesus ponts out - There is only ONE Church. The rest are merely* “ecclesial communities*”.

 

[elvisman]

Your explanation presupposes that the person with whom you’re debating believes and accepts Dominus Iesus as some kind of authoritative, binding document. Secondly, what you view as the “essentials” is obviously going to be different than the other poster, right? Roman Catholics are going to see the papacy as an “essential” while Orthodoxy and Anglicans, Old Catholics, etc. do not. Anglicanism has a different view of the “essentials” than Orthodoxy and vice versa. And both have different views than Catholicism. You are arguing with this guy as if you’re both working off the same common framework of mutually-established and agreed-upon rules and theological laws. You’re not. So calling people “ecclesiastical communities” and rubbing it in that they’re worthless bible study groups with no grace while yours is true, holy, and superior is an inferior form of witnessing and apologetics. I guarantee you’ll convince no one and you will not bring souls to Christ with that language and approach. It’s a turn off to someone considering and exploring Catholicism. I hear it from seekers all the time in here that attitudes and verbage like this convinced them to stay put rather than convert. The “hardcore Catholic!” approach may edify and make you feel beefed-up and good about yourself but it serves to turn off and offend and put-off many. Something to think about…the insults we hear like “cafeteria Catholic” and the “I’m doing the right thing, pity you’re not, poor slob!” kind of dialogue is precisely the boasting Paul warns us to avoid, to rejoice in the grace of Christ and His love.

And I’m not operating on a relativist version of the truth. Truth is TRUTH - whether you or he agree with it or not. Christ established ONE Church - ONE authority.

The plain fact is that the ONE Christian truth was around for 1500 years before the Protestant Revolt, which, in turn took portions of that Truth and disposed of the rest. It was then attached it to abberrant theologies that gave birth to what we have today:
Tens of thousands of constantly-splintering, competing “truths”.

As for Cafeteria Catholics - I didn’t create them nor do I encourage them. It’s an extremely lazy version of Christianity. Remember - Paul didn’t simply sit back and watch the Cafeteria Catholics he wrote to - he admonished them, and instructed them to do the same (2 Timothy 4:2). Admonishing the unruly is a chief spiritual work of mercy (Matt. 18:15, Luke 17:3). Sometimes you need for someone to call you out on your doctrinal errors. That’s the way the Early Church handled heresies like Arianism, Nestorianism, Donatism and the rest.

If some would rather “stay put”, as you say, in their errors than obey the Church (Luke 10:16, 18:18) - that is simply spiritual pride and arrogance . . .

 

[excubitor]

If you want to see a good line of reasoning, re: the validity of Anglican orders (Apostolicae Curae is a long -standing hobby of mine), try Fr. J. J. Hughes’ two books, ABSOLUTELY NULL AND UTTERLY VOID and STEWARDS OF THE LORD.Fr. Hughes is RC, was an Anglican priest, and was the first (known) one in modern times to be ordained sub conditione. OTOH, if you want a good exposition on the invalidity of Anglican orders, Francis Clark’s ANGLICAN ORDERS AND DEFECT OF INTENTION is a good place to look. Or, as a RC, you can merely affirm what was stated in AC. Anglicans need not do that.

GKC

Anglicanus-Catholicus

Your post is confusing. Why would Anglicans not need to consult AC?

ANGLICANORUM COETIBUS is very clear on the matter.

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_ben-xvi_apc_20091104_anglicanorum-coetibus_en.html
*VI. § 1 Those who ministered as Anglican deacons, priests, or bishops, and who fulfill the requisites established by canon law[13] and are not impeded by irregularities or other impediments[14] may be accepted by the Ordinary as candidates for Holy Orders in the Catholic Church. *

AND HERE
§ 5. Candidates for Holy Orders in an Ordinariate should be prepared alongside other seminarians, especially in the areas of doctrinal and pastoral formation.

So clearly the Anglican priest has as much status in the Roman Catholic church as any other unordained seminarian.

 

[excubitor]

I think that I cannot pass from one side to the other. I think that, as Christ broke the gates of hell, He can take me from one to the other if He wills. And as a loving father, he would not allow anyone to remain in hell forever who did not wish eternally to be apart from him.

Christ did not break the gates of hell. He merely protected the one true holy apostolic catholic church from being destroyed by the gates of hell. Besides if you wish to prove that you do not wish to be eternally apart from him then you need to make the move to pass from one side to the other as you call it. Waiting around for God to act will just not cut it. Besides you are almost conceding that we are on opposing sides. If that is the case then by your own admission we are not in communion but are separated by a gulf. Therefore to prove that you do not wish to be apart from God then you must cross the gulf. The Pope has built a bridge with ANGLICANORUM COETIBUS but you, and those who you are with, must cross it.

I am interested to hear your explanation as to why you are unable to cross over. Can you explain this? Maybe we can help.

 

[GKC]

No, no. AC is not standing for Anglicanorum Coetibus, there. I’m discussing Leo XIII’s Apostolicae Curae/1896. See my post.

GKC

Your post is confusing. Why would Anglicans not need to consult AC?

ANGLICANORUM COETIBUS is very clear on the matter.

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_ben-xvi_apc_20091104_anglicanorum-coetibus_en.html
VI. § 1 Those who ministered as Anglican deacons, priests, or bishops, and who fulfill the requisites established by canon law[13] and are not impeded by irregularities or other impediments[14] may be accepted by the Ordinary as candidates for Holy Orders in the Catholic Church.

AND HERE
§ 5. Candidates for Holy Orders in an Ordinariate should be prepared alongside other seminarians, especially in the areas of doctrinal and pastoral formation.

So clearly the Anglican priest has as much status in the Roman Catholic church as any other unordained seminarian.

 

[AngloCatholic1]

Dear Paul,

I’ve looked over the discourse on this thread, and my heart goes out to you. I’ve been pretty much where you are right now, so here’s my two-penny worth. Don’t burn yourself out, brother! It all boils down to this: Do you accept the Church that Christ established on this earth IN IT’S ENTIRETY, or do you NOT? To be “Catholic” means to hold to this faith in its ENTIRETY. Once you pick and chose doctrines, you are NO LONGER Catholic, because you are adhering to a “particular” rather than a “universal” understanding. If you are struggling with any particular doctrine, just look it up in the Catechism of the Catholic Church where you will find THE CATHOLIC ANSWER. You don’t need to reinvent the wheel. Christ NEVER expected you, or any one individual, to do that. That’s WHY He gave us a CHURCH. One CHURCH. That’s where I am now, inside His ONE Church…learning, discovering, living and LOVING…and I can honestly say I have never been happier in all my life! My sincerest prayers are with you.

 

[excubitor]

A few of you assert that the unity I speak of is not real unity, because there is no identical belief.

My perspective flows from the fact that there is no such thing as unity of all belief.
No one on earth believes the same as Pope Benedict, except Pope Benedict.

The unity of belief is found in the creeds of the church and the Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church. This is a vast body of doctrine perfectly suitable to illustrate the unity of belief in the Catholic church.
The Pope may have additional private opinions which he may or may not articulate. These are not required beliefs and do not breach the unity of the Church.

Christ prayed that we may all be one. How else can this unity be demonstrated and visible to the world if not by communion with the Pope and unity of belief with him.

There are broader groups than mine, such as, for example, the Episcopal Church or even the Anglican Communion. I have removed myself, and Catholics in general have removed themselves, from communion with these groups, by virtue of our narrower essential beliefs. Other groups, the Orthodox, Oneness Pentecostals, Catholics UAR, either by having contradictory essential beliefs, or by having even narrower essential beliefs, have removed themselves, or have been removed from communion.

The problem of course is to answer who has the authority to define what those essential beliefs are? If it is not the Pope then who is it? Unfortunately as we have been shown with painful certainty by recent protestant history, the dogmas of these protestant churches are continually watered down and lost in order to maintain the illusion of unity. Disputes about what should or should not be removed from the list of “essential beliefs” frequently result in groups splitting off and forming new denominations. Clearly this system breeds division and not unity.

The system of Catholic governance creates unity. As a result we have a coherent body of doctrine which is unchanging since the times of the apostles and has been enriched continually throughout all the ages of the church. Have you read the Roman Catholic Catechism? It is an incredible, incredible document. I was utterly amazed and shocked when I read it for the first time as a protestant.

I agree that the Catholic Church UAR is not in perfect communion with the wider Catholic Church, just like the Orthodox Church is not in perfect communion with the wider Catholic Church. This is the choice of the Catholic Church UAR, and it is possible that this is the right choice.

Catholics NUAR as you call them are not Catholics but are dissidents and schismatics. Every true Catholic is UAR and believes all that he is commanded to believe. I will not argue that disobedience and disbelief is rife in the church as are many other sins, however the failings of men in no way prove or disprove the veracity of the doctrines of the church or the governance of the Pope.

After all, broader is not necessarily better, and my essential beliefs are, compared to many, exceedingly narrow. But isn’t the path to salvation, the path I hope all will eventually take one way or another, narrow?

The problem is that you have defined your own set of essential beliefs. You have rejected the authority of the Pope and have decided to not believe things which he says are de fide, required for the faith. An essential christian and Catholic faith is belief and obedience to the higher authority. Belief is not just a mood that moves your heart. You don’t just wake up one morning and decide will I believe this or that today or not? Belief is an assent of the will and of the intellect to the higher power. In my case I wanted to believe the same as the Pope, I had a desire for a church to be united in one belief system. So I did the hard work and studied the scriptures and the traditions of the church with a sincere heart to believe what the church taught. I found that when I approached it this way that the Scriptures opened up and literally gushed out support for the Catholic teaching. And if not the Scriptures then the Sacred Tradition of the Church gushed out support for the Catholic teaching. Therefore I was required to submit my preconceived ideas, prejudices and old beliefs to the higher authority of the church and come into communion with the Pope and to renounce my former errors.

Naturally those who are determined to find fault with the Pope and are determined to remain separate from him find something completely different when they study the scriptures. They read the scripture passages which support Catholic teaching with a kind of Protestant filter on which kind of screens out what they are reading or excuses it out of consideration. Then they latch upon some distorted presentation of scripture to support their continued separation from God. This is not belief. This is unbelief. A willful determination not to believe in order to maintain our old ways and old life and old belief system. Unbelief that Christ railed against the disciples for because they would not believe the testimony of their friends, the witnesses of the resurrection.

You have to throw out your old wineskins and get new ones before you can put new wine into them. So I challenge you to put to one side temporarily your old life and old ways of belief and look again at the Catholic teachings that you have put on your NO list. Try to study them wanting to believe them. This at least will help you to examine how much of what you believe is objectively true, and how much of what you believe is motivated by prejudices and biases which you have inherited from the cradle from your protestant heritage.

 

[excubitor]

No, no. AC is not standing for Anglicanorum Coetibus, there. I’m discussing Leo XIII’s Apostolicae Curae/1896. See my post.
GKC

I see. But my question is no different. Why would Anglicans not consult Apostolicae Curae?

Anglicans need to be aware. The matter is even more clearly stated in Apostolicae Curae
we pronounce and declare that ordinations carried out according to the Anglican rite have been, and are, absolutely null and utterly void.

You don’t really need to read great books on the subject, unless you have a particular interest. All that Anglicans need to know is this one sentence from the Bishop of Rome, and then their Catholic sense should kick in and cause them to act.

 

[GKC]

The word “consult” is not germane. What I was saying is that Anglicans need not affirm what Apostolicae Curae states, in the sense that RCs must.

Which doesn’t mean that an Anglican might not be familar with the Bull. As I said, it’s a small scale hobby with me. I’ve been studying it for over 10 years, and collected a small library on it. How about you?

GKC

I see. But my question is no different. Why would Anglicans not consult Apostolicae Curae?

Anglicans need to be aware. The matter is even more clearly stated in Apostolicae Curae
we pronounce and declare that ordinations carried out according to the Anglican rite have been, and are, absolutely null and utterly void.

You don’t really need to read great books on the subject, unless you have a particular interest. All that Anglicans need to know is this one sentence from the Bishop of Rome, and then their Catholic sense should kick in and cause them to act.

 

[AngloCatholic1]

excubitor:

I sincerely believe the problem with the English (and I can say this because it is MY ancestry as well) is that we are quite often blinded by PRIDE. Submission to the Vicar of Christ is unthinkable because…well, simply because it IS “submission”! And so “Anglicans” will go on and on, forever deluding themselves that somehow they are still “Catholic” whilst holding fast to *particulars of faith *(MANY diverging partticulars, in fact!). Libraries of knowledge indeed! Blind guides!

**And the bloody Church of England,
in chains of history…
requests Your earthly presence,
at the vicarage, for tea!

(Jethro Tull, My God 1971)

"Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall." Proverbs 16:18

 

[excubitor]

Please comment on the impact of the Dutch touch and Polish pat on the validity of Anglican orders.

I’m not sure what this is. I assume that it relates to the mixing of the Old Catholics (whose ordinations are valid) and the Anglicans. If these influences validated Anglican Orders then the Pope would not now be calling for Anglicans to be re-ordained.
Besides, this is all just arguments on technicalities when compared to the clear evicence that their Holy Orders are not valid. If they were they would be prevented by the divine Grace from ordaining female, homosexual and lesbian priests and bishops. Its all academic in the face of incontrovertible proof.

Here is an article from a high church Anglican priest that says as much
theanglocatholic.com/2010/02/ordination/

He said. “We have no coherent church”. Such a comment makes pale by comparison the Vatican 2 statements that the separated churches are not churches in the proper sense.

 

[excubitor]

Thank you for your kind wishes, for this presentation of your convictions, for your invitation, and for your prayers. Someone as charitable and irenic as you are is bound at least in some way to exceed my own sinful state, and “the prayers of the righteous availeth much”. Please pray to God the Father, to Our Lord Jesus Christ, to Mary our Mediatrix, to all the Saints, that I come to the Truth, if you do not believe me already to be there.

I believe myself to be part of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, else I would convert. If, however, your arguments touch my mind and heart differently (I do not have faith, cannot have faith at this time, in the doctrine of transubstantiation, for one), I will run back to Rome.

Again, thank you for your prayers and your kind but strong and earnest words.

Thankyou for your kind words of appreciation and I will pray as you have requested.

Can I ask you why you have rejected the Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation? Perhaps we can help explain it to you. Many people reject Catholic doctrines because they have been twisted, distorted and discredited by enemies of the church. This is a technique in debating called a “Straw Man”. The debater erects a false portrayal of his opponents argument which gives it an absurd or ridiculous aspect. He then tears down the straw man which he has erected and the audience falsely believes that he has defeated his opponents argument. In fact he has not even addressed his opponents argument. Actually this is a dishonest technique politicians also use. They put words in their opponents mouths and then ridicule these things that their opponents have never actually even said. In so doing they make their opponent a laughing stock, an object of scorn of derision. This is a great way of winning a debate but it does nothing for the pursuit of truth.

Through a lack of proper enquiry many men have rejected Catholic teaching. But they have not actually rejected Catholic teaching, they have rejected an absurd caricature of Catholic teaching, a straw man. So I urge you to properly look at transubstantiation again and be sure that you properly understand it from a Catholic perspective before you reject it out of hand.

 

[excubitor]

The word “consult” is not germane. What I was saying is that Anglicans need not affirm what Apostolicae Curae states, in the sense that RCs must.

Why not? Surely its affect them more than it affects Roman Catholics.

Which doesn’t mean that an Anglican might not be familar with the Bull. As I said, it’s a small scale hobby with me. I’ve been studying it for over 10 years, and collected a small library on it. How about you?

GKC

Are we arguing are we? I am just trying to understand your point. One minute I think you believe that Anglican Orders are valid, and then I think you must believe that they are invalid. Could you please clarify.

 

[excubitor]

excubitor:

I sincerely believe the problem with the English (and I can say this because it is MY ancestry as well) is that we are quite often blinded by PRIDE. Submission to the Vicar of Christ is unthinkable because…well, simply because it IS “submission”! And so “Anglicans” will go on and on, forever deluding themselves that somehow they are still “Catholic” whilst holding fast to *particulars of faith *(MANY diverging partticulars, in fact!). Libraries of knowledge indeed! Blind guides!

And the bloody Church of England,
in chains of history…
requests Your earthly presence,
at the vicarage, for tea!

(Jethro Tull, *My God *1971)

"Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall." Proverbs 16:18

Very sad, but true. I have seen Anglicans puff themselves up and say “Well I don’t believe in all that papal infallibility nonsense”. In other words they are arguing for self infallibility" Of course if you pinned them down they would admit that they do make mistakes, but that is only academic of course, and certainly they do not believe that they are capable of making such a mistake as would rob them of eternal salvation. This heart of pride and self reliance is indeed the diabolic antithesis of the proper humility of Christians which submits to the higher authority.

Loved the Jethro Tull lyric by the way.
Funny, but sadly close to the truth.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Hold on, I’m dialating my eyes with drops after reading your rainbow, multicolored technicolr, psychadelic posts. Try just using one ink color there, King, and ease off on the highlighters. Man, Strawberry Fields!..

Now, to your post. There is no discourse with you and it’s impossible to carry on a conversation. You lack the charity, good will, and hope of a good Catholic reaching out to people who are questioning the Catholic faith. Rather than speak with the love of Christ, you compare yourself to St. Paul and act like you’re the righteous apostle trying to get through to these relativist fools who refuse to see the truth as you see it. Putting yourself in Paul’s league is mistake numero uno. Using too many colors is numero dos!

It’s interesting how you avoid the Orthodox Christians, who also were founded 2,000 years and “1500 years before the Protestant revolt?” Do they also only hold “portions of the truth?” They reject the papacy full throttle as well.

I find it interesting that you say the “Christian truth was around 1500 years before Protestantism.” So you’re saying Transubstantiation, Indulgences, the “Treasury of Merit,” the belief in the Immaculate Conception, the term and useage of Papal Infallibility, Eucharistic Adoration, a celibate priesthood, and all these other things you constitute as “the truth” existed day one? Cardinal Newman might disagree with you as he and many other Catholics are honest about development doctrine. You seem to think the whole truth was there day one?

I’m blown away by your lack of vision or ability to understand human beings. You act as if every single person KNOWS the truth 100% that the Catholic Church is perfection and infallible beauty with no errors and everything it preaches is to be followed. Everyone knows this and it’s just stubborn pride. I’m sure that comforts you to feel that way. It’s empowering for you to think that everyone who disagrees with you is an enemy, an angry and bitter, stubborn soul who refuses to acknowledge what is so obvious. It’s NOT obvious. People read the Catholic teachings and don’t agree, Elvis. Why can’t you get it in your head that people look at the early fathers, history, the Bible, and they try to follow their conscience and they sincerely want to do God’s will.

It strengthens you to feel the truth is on your side and everyone else just flat out rejects the truth KNKOWINGLY and you’re like St. Paul trying to admonish us all.

Maybe you should do these things to be a better apologist:

Drop the bitter, angry, nasty attitude
Quite emphasizing with rainbow highlighting
Try to be KIND to people—talk to people as if they’re people, not idiots
Prove your points without just quoting Matthew 16:18 with a domino effect mentality
Use history and specific theological arguments, points, and less generalities
Quit acting as if everyone were idiots
Quit putting yourself on the same plane as saints
Win back Catholics with good arguments, good will, saying something POSITIVE just once in a while

And I’m not operating on a relativist version of the truth. Truth is TRUTH - whether you or he agree with it or not. Christ established ONE Church - ONE authority.

The plain fact is that the ONE Christian truth was around for 1500 years before the Protestant Revolt, which, in turn took portions of that Truth and disposed of the rest. It was then attached it to abberrant theologies that gave birth to what we have today:
Tens of thousands of constantly-splintering, competing “truths”.

As for Cafeteria Catholics - I didn’t create them nor do I encourage them. It’s an extremely lazy version of Christianity. Remember - Paul didn’t simply sit back and watch the Cafeteria Catholics he wrote to - he admonished them, and instructed them to do the same (2 Timothy 4:2). Admonishing the unruly is a chief spiritual work of mercy (Matt. 18:15, Luke 17:3). Sometimes you need for someone to call you out on your doctrinal errors. That’s the way the Early Church handled heresies like Arianism, Nestorianism, Donatism and the rest.

If some would rather “stay put”, as you say, in their errors than obey the Church (Luke 10:16, 18:18) -* that* is simply spiritual pride and *arrogance *. . .

 

[GKC]

Why not? Surely its affect them more than it affects Roman Catholics.

Are we arguing are we? I am just trying to understand your point. One minute I think you believe that Anglican Orders are valid, and then I think you must believe that they are invalid. Could you please clarify.

I’ll try. We’re not exactly arguing, but not communicating, either.

I believe Anglican orders are valid, as far as the conclusion in Apostolicae Curae goes. I believe they remain valid, as long as minister, form, matter and intent are valid, in conveying the orders. I do not accept the logic in Apostolicae Curae, nor its stated conclusion. As an Anglican I don’t need to. It is not required of Anglicans. It is required of RCs. You most assuredly should affirm it, and hold it, definively, as (then Cardinal) Ratzinger reminded the faithful, in his Doctrinal Commentary on Ad Tuendam Fidem, in 1998 (while also pointing out that the doctrine was not divinely revealed).

OTOH, since I’m an Anglican and don’t accept it on the authority of Leo’s signature (over Monsignor Raphael Merry del Val’s words), it behooves me to know something about it. And I do; the history, personalities, and politics involved, from Dec, 1890, through the last days of the Malines conversations, in 1927.

Knowing stuff helps one get deeper into history. Which, as we know, is a good thing to do.

GKC

 

[excubitor]

I’ll try. We’re not exactly arguing, but not communicating, either.

I believe Anglican orders are valid, as far as the conclusion in Apostolicae Curae goes. I believe they remain valid, as long as minister, form, matter and intent are valid, in conveying the orders. I do not accept the logic in Apostolicae Curae, nor its stated conclusion. As an Anglican I don’t need to. It is not required of Anglicans. It is required of RCs. You most assuredly should affirm it, and hold it, definively, as (then Cardinal) Ratzinger reminded the faithful, in his Doctrinal Commentary on Ad Tuendam Fidem, in 1998 (while also pointing out that the doctrine was not divinely revealed).

OTOH, since I’m an Anglican and don’t accept it on the authority of Leo’s signature (over Monsignor Raphael Merry del Val’s words), it behooves me to know something about it. And I do; the history, personalities, and politics involved, from Dec, 1890, through the last days of the Malines conversations, in 1927.

Knowing stuff helps one get deeper into history. Which, as we know, is a good thing to do.

GKC

Well in that case we are arguing.

What makes you think that you have a better grasp of history than Rafael Merry del Val and Pope Leo? And do you have greater authority to make a judgment on these matters than do the Popes? Under the Catholic system we trust our shepherds and elders to research these matters properly and make wise judgments. Under your system, every Anglican is expected to buy a library of books and study deep into history to convince themselves that the Popes are wrong and that they do actually have apostolic succession and Holy Orders.

Not every Anglican has the resources that you have to make this determination, let alone the audacity.

It reminds me of the scripture passage
“7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth”

Put away your books. Our eternal salvation is not a hobby. We cannot trust in our hobbies more than we trust the Bishop of the Church.