Catholic position on Anglo-Catholics?

[GKC]

To be honest all the schisms in the Episcopal church(es) confuse me.

I converted from the Epsicopal church before all of the break-offs, before their were women clergy and admitted Homosexal priests.

I think there are a lot of homosexual priests in both the Episcopal and Catholic churches, and celibate is celibate. It should make no difference. But then they decided to “come out of the closet” and be sexually active. And that, I think is when the schism began.

Orthodox used to mean one who beleives in the creeds, the virgin birth and the
ressurection.

Now it seems to be a code word for those who dislike homosexuals.

The definition of Orthodox seems to have been changed amoung the schismatics.

I have no doubt there are homosexuals in many churches, clergy not excepted. But celibacy, not some from of apostate acceptance, is the key.

The splits in ECUSA/TEC (ignoring what happened with the REC in the 1850s), began after the St. Louis Meeting and statement in 1978/79. This was the beginning of the Continuing movement, and was caused largely by actual changes in the liturgy, as reflected in the 1979 book, and because of clearly visible indications of what was coming next (women’s ordination) and in the mid distance (the sexual issues that now predominate). IOW, in the modern era, beginning back around 30+ years ago, the homosexual issue was not the original motivator, though it is foremost now.

GKC

 

[andrewstx]

I like rite 1 in the new book. At least it puts the Gloria in the right place, and doesn’t call God “you”.

 

[GKC]

I like rite 1 in the new book. At least it puts the Gloria in the right place, and doesn’t call God “you”.

I like one or two points in the 79 book. But not enough to have any use for it.

GKC

 

[Candlepower]

The Holy Father has invited Anglo-Catholic churches and clergy to ‘swim the Tiber’ and come into full communion with Rome.

I would say thank you but no.

 

[grandfather]

“The Anglican Communion has not broken up, not yet at least. Those conservatives who have left TEC still claim that they have not left the Communion and would accept recognition if it was offered. They have come under the authority of Global South Primates”

Not quite accurate. A number of Anglicans left TEC, beginning back in late 1979, to form what are now known as Continuing Anglican Churches, or the Continuum. They are definitely not in the Anglican Communion, nor are they associated with AMiA, or other groups under Global South jurisdictions.

GKC.

posterus traditus Anglicanus.

I was under the impression that a number of Anglican bishops, mainly from Africa went their separate ways. Maybe they just threatened?

 

[Kathryn_Ann]

The Anglican Ordinariate!

Amen and Amen! We hope for full Communion and are working towards it. Great Britain is one example, and there are two or three parishes in the United States that have now “come over.”
Blessings

 

[GKC]

I was under the impression that a number of Anglican bishops, mainly from Africa went their separate ways. Maybe they just threatened?

They just threatened.

GKC

 

[martininthefiel]

I looked at an Episcopalian friend’s service leaflet this afternoon. THEY CHANGED THE CREED!

I cannot even begin to describe my shock at the resultant product. The Filioque is gone. The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father only. Additionally, they have substituted the word ‘human’ for ‘man’ in the incarnatus. I hate to break this to them, but Jesus was a man, not an androgynous human.

I am a Catholic, but I still have deep affection for Anglican tradition. Sadly, I fear their end is very near.

I was going to correct some of the misapprehensions about TEC stated by people in this thread. Now I see no need to do so.TEC is not worth defending. If you value your sanity, and your soul, swim the Tiber at your earliest convenience, before the ship you are sailing founders on the shoal for which it is heading.

I learned to love liturgy and orthodox theology in TEC. It now has neither.

My home, sweet home–
It is in Rome.

 

[andrewstx]

I looked at an Episcopalian friend’s service leaflet this afternoon. THEY CHANGED THE CREED!

I cannot even begin to describe my shock at the resultant product. The Filioque is gone. The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father only. Additionally, they have substituted the word ‘human’ for ‘man’ in the incarnatus. I hate to break this to them, but Jesus was a man, not an androgynous human.

I am a Catholic, but I still have deep affection for Anglican tradition. Sadly, I fear their end is very near.

I was going to correct some of the misapprehensions about TEC stated by people in this thread. Now I see no need to do so.TEC is not worth defending. If you value your sanity, and your soul, swim the Tiber at your earliest convenience, before the ship you are sailing founders on the shoal for which it is heading.

I learned to love liturgy and orthodox theology in TEC. It now has neither.

My home, sweet home–
It is in Rome.

It gets much worse in places like Grace Cathedral in SF CA.

Of course all the pronouns are nueter, but they also include non-Christian “world faiths” in the service.

I have not been their for services, but I did the tourist thing in the Cathedral.

They have an icon of “St Harvey Milk”, not a saint and not Christian, he was Jewish.

In the bottom of the south bell tower they have an “AIDs interfaith chapel” With an altar piece painted by a famous Homosexual who died years ago. The only cross in that chapel is tiny and one of MANY symbols of world faiths. The muslims, buddists, and hindus get eqaul attention with the plain cross.

Apparently they have thier own private version of the BCP.

 

[GKC]

I looked at an Episcopalian friend’s service leaflet this afternoon. THEY CHANGED THE CREED!

I cannot even begin to describe my shock at the resultant product. The Filioque is gone. The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father only. Additionally, they have substituted the word ‘human’ for ‘man’ in the incarnatus. I hate to break this to them, but Jesus was a man, not an androgynous human.

I am a Catholic, but I still have deep affection for Anglican tradition. Sadly, I fear their end is very near.

I was going to correct some of the misapprehensions about TEC stated by people in this thread. Now I see no need to do so.TEC is not worth defending. If you value your sanity, and your soul, swim the Tiber at your earliest convenience, before the ship you are sailing founders on the shoal for which it is heading.

I learned to love liturgy and orthodox theology in TEC. It now has neither.

My home, sweet home–
It is in Rome.

I am not one to make a defense of TEC, as might be evident. But in my copy of the 1979 book, the *filioque * is present and the word in the incarnatus is “man”, both in Rite I and Rite II.

The problem is not so much that TEC changed the Creed (though they changed the prayer book to the point that it led to the first departures of the Continuers, who knew that lex orandi, lex credendi), but that they permit such changes, ad lib, where such revisions are locally desired, as at Grace Cathedral.

GKC

 

[Contarini]

I looked at an Episcopalian friend’s service leaflet this afternoon. THEY CHANGED THE CREED!

I cannot even begin to describe my shock at the resultant product. The Filioque is gone. The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father only.

As GKC said, this is a local adaptation and not the official Creed as found in the 1979 BCP. There is discussion in the Episcopal Church about dropping the Filioque. This is actually a return to the Creed of the “Undivided Church” and is in itself thoroughly defensible. In fact, it’s far more defensible not only than the recent “liberal” changes but than most of the 16th-century changes as well. It seems odd to object to this, in itself.

Additionally, they have substituted the word ‘human’ for ‘man’ in the incarnatus. I hate to break this to them, but Jesus was a man, not an androgynous human.

Sure, and he was a man of a particular hair color, etc. But we don’t say “He became a brown-haired man.” We don’t even say “he became a Jewish man,” even though everyone agrees that His Jewishness was very significant.

Since women may be saved, and since we are saved by Jesus’ assumption of human nature, a case can be made that “he became human” is a better translation which more clearly expresses the orthodox faith of the Church.

However, this is a controversial issue, and I don’t think fragments of the Universal Church have the right to change the Creed to express their views on controversial issues, even if those views are right. In fact, I would argue that the “androgynous” translation here is equivalent not to dropping the Filioque but to the original addition of the Filioque.

So while I don’t object to this addition in the way you do, I think “he became man” is preferable, because the other translation obscures the fact that the significance of Jesus’ masculinity is still a matter of debate–it shortcircuits theological discussion by teaching people to pray in a manner that assumes the issue has already been solved.

I was going to correct some of the misapprehensions about TEC stated by people in this thread. Now I see no need to do so.

Misapprehensions are always worth correcting. It isn’t about “defending TEC,” but about speaking truth and helping others do so.

Edwin

 

[Matthew_Holford]

She has no authority to exercise.

She has but it is conducted privately in meetings with Her Government ministers.

 

[liturgyluver]

The Lady Shrine in my Anglican parish is OL of Walsingham.

Sing of Mary, an Anglican hymn, is my wife’s favorite hymn.

GKC

I also love For Mary, Mother of Our Lord, written by John Pearcy sung to the tune of St Botoph.

And Sing we of the Blessed Mother to the tune of Abbot’s Leigh.

Oh, and Ye who own the faith of Jesus.

 

[AnglicanForMary]

The problem is not so much that TEC changed the Creed (though they changed the prayer book to the point that it led to the first departures of the Continuers, who knew that lex orandi, lex credendi), but that they permit such changes, ad lib, where such revisions are locally desired, as at Grace Cathedral.

GKC

Indeed, such changes occur regularly in all parts of the Communion (the majority of Anglo-Catholic parishes I have attended in England, including the Anglican Shrine of Our Lady of Walsingham, actually use the Roman Missal in preference to the BCP or the BCW). Then again, that is part of the distinction between “Prayer Book Catholics” and “Anglo-Catholic” in terms of liturgical piety (the former only use prayers and rubrics from the Prayer Book and celebrate only those Saints Days in the Calendar, the latter draw from the entirety of Catholic tradition (including that of the Royal Martyr, Charles Stuart). Partly this is due to the fact that the Priest Rector (the legal and canonical head of the parish) has the final say in liturgical matters, partly to a lack of oversight and enforcement on the part of the Bishops, and partly I think this is due to what is euphemistically termed “local option” under “pastoral necessity”: the General Convention basically allows individual Dioceses to determine for themselves, by not adapting Canons that prohibit it (the same applies, sadly, to “blessing” of “gay marriages” or (obviously) the ordination or consecration of Priets/Bishops), at the behest of the liberal-revisionist leadership of the Church, which has held Her captive for so long. On the other hand, continuing along this path will quickly take us from the original intent of the thread, no?

 

[GKC]

Indeed, such changes occur regularly in all parts of the Communion (the majority of Anglo-Catholic parishes I have attended in England, including the Anglican Shrine of Our Lady of Walsingham, actually use the Roman Missal in preference to the BCP or the BCW). Then again, that is part of the distinction between “Prayer Book Catholics” and “Anglo-Catholic” in terms of liturgical piety (the former only use prayers and rubrics from the Prayer Book and celebrate only those Saints Days in the Calendar, the latter draw from the entirety of Catholic tradition (including that of the Royal Martyr, Charles Stuart). Partly this is due to the fact that the Priest Rector (the legal and canonical head of the parish) has the final say in liturgical matters, partly to a lack of oversight and enforcement on the part of the Bishops, and partly I think this is due to what is euphemistically termed “local option” under “pastoral necessity”: the General Convention basically allows individual Dioceses to determine for themselves, by not adapting Canons that prohibit it (the same applies, sadly, to “blessing” of “gay marriages” or (obviously) the ordination or consecration of Priets/Bishops), at the behest of the liberal-revisionist leadership of the Church, which has held Her captive for so long. On the other hand, continuing along this path will quickly take us from the original intent of the thread, no?

Possibly, but that doesn’t always deter me.

My late rector would occasionally supplement the 28 BCP with the Sarum Missal, or use a 1549 or 1559 Book for the Mass. Charles Stuart was mentioned, annually.

GKC

 

[FrancisB]

As GKC said, this is a local adaptation and not the official Creed as found in the 1979 BCP. There is discussion in the Episcopal Church about dropping the Filioque. This is actually a return to the Creed of the “Undivided Church” and is in itself thoroughly defensible. In fact, it’s far more defensible not only than the recent “liberal” changes but than most of the 16th-century changes as well. It seems odd to object to this, in itself.

I’m sure that it will come as some surprise to some people on the forum, but there has been talk of this in the Catholic Church as well, and the Pope himself has made it clear that the filioque is to be removed by the Eastern Catholics, since it is not part of their tradition. Furthermore, we were told that in joint services with Easterners, the filioque was to be left out in deference to their ancient practice, not the more recent Western one. In short, there’s no reason to get so concerned about the filioque not being there; it probably should be removed across the board, especially in light of the theological acrobatics that have been used to try to justify it. I suspect it is only a matter of time.

Sure, and he was a man of a particular hair color, etc. But we don’t say “He became a brown-haired man.” We don’t even say “he became a Jewish man,” even though everyone agrees that His Jewishness was very significant.

Since women may be saved, and since we are saved by Jesus’ assumption of human nature, a case can be made that “he became human” is a better translation which more clearly expresses the orthodox faith of the Church.

I think that is a weak justification of using the word “human” in place of “man”. Here’s a much better one: that’s what the creed says. Go back and look at the Latin from which our use is derived. It says “homo” not “vir”. The Greek reads “ἐνανθρωπήσαντα” which is taken from “ανθρωπος” and not “ανδρας”. It isn’t talking about Jesus’s sex; it is talking about the miracle of God becoming a human being. I suspect that because of the peculiarities of the English language, “human” strikes us as sounding strange. To me at least it conjures up images of science fiction or fantasy stories where there is another group of sapient beings living alongside humans. That said, there is no denying that the more authentic translation is “human”, not because God did not become a man (which he did), but because that isn’t what the creed actually says.

Lastly, on the topic of Anglican holy orders, I think one might take a closer look at the way that Cardinal Kasper treated them with regard to the institution of Anglicanorum Coetibus. While I would never deny the truth or the force of Apostolicae Curae in its own day, I think we should remember that many of the High Church Anglican priests went out of their way to secure valid holy orders through the Old Catholics (the Utrecht Union), with whom the Anglicans are in communion. The Roman Church never considered the orders of the Old Catholics invalid, and–at least in theory–this means that some of the Anglican holy orders must have been validated and Apostolic Succession restored to parts of the Anglican communion, unless there is some reason to suspect that the Old Catholics lost validity before they began this practice in the 1930s.

 

[GKC]

I’m sure that it will come as some surprise to some people on the forum, but there has been talk of this in the Catholic Church as well, and the Pope himself has made it clear that the filioque is to be removed by the Eastern Catholics, since it is not part of their tradition. Furthermore, we were told that in joint services with Easterners, the filioque was to be left out in deference to their ancient practice, not the more recent Western one. In short, there’s no reason to get so concerned about the filioque not being there; it probably should be removed across the board, especially in light of the theological acrobatics that have been used to try to justify it. I suspect it is only a matter of time.

I think that is a weak justification of using the word “human” in place of “man”. Here’s a much better one: that’s what the creed says. Go back and look at the Latin from which our use is derived. It says “homo” not “vir”. The Greek reads “ἐνανθρωπήσαντα” which is taken from “ανθρωπος” and not “ανδρας”. It isn’t talking about Jesus’s sex; it is talking about the miracle of God becoming a human being. I suspect that because of the peculiarities of the English language, “human” strikes us as sounding strange. To me at least it conjures up images of science fiction or fantasy stories where there is another group of sapient beings living alongside humans. That said, there is no denying that the more authentic translation is “human”, not because God did not become a man (which he did), but because that isn’t what the creed actually says.

Lastly, on the topic of Anglican holy orders, I think one might take a closer look at the way that Cardinal Kasper treated them with regard to the institution of Anglicanorum Coetibus. While I would never deny the truth or the force of Apostolicae Curae in its own day, I think we should remember that many of the High Church Anglican priests went out of their way to secure valid holy orders through the Old Catholics (the Utrecht Union), with whom the Anglicans are in communion. The Roman Church never considered the orders of the Old Catholics invalid, and–at least in theory–this means that some of the Anglican holy orders must have been validated and Apostolic Succession restored to parts of the Anglican communion, unless there is some reason to suspect that the Old Catholics lost validity before they began this practice in the 1930s.

More precisely, the Anglicans and the Old Catholics, after the Agreement of Bonn in 1931, established full inter-communion (Moss, THE OLD CATHOLIC MOVEMENT, chap. XXVIII). Following which, the two jurisdictions began joint consecration of bishops. The logic then would be that such joint consecrations infused valid/illicit OC episcopal lines into Anglicanism, and that these lines were further propagated as the Anglican bishops receiving the sacrament consecrated and ordained, in turn. If there were occasions in which Anglican priests, particularly subsequent to the Bonn agreement, sought out OC bishops to be ordained, directly I am not aware of it.

The same agreement and arrangement of inter-communion and joint consecration was established in 1946, between Anglicans and the PNCC. Accounts of Anglican bishops jointly consecrated by either OC or PNCC bishops between 1932 and 1964 may be found in Hughes/STEWARDS OF THE LORD, Appendix II.

The logic, as stated, would be an infusion and continued propagation of valid/illicit episcopal lines into Anglicanism, assuming all other sacramental factors were valid. The RCC has not formally (AFAIK) commented on the point.

GKC

 

[FrancisB]

More precisely, the Anglicans and the Old Catholics, after the Agreement of Bonn in 1931, established full inter-communion (Moss, THE OLD CATHOLIC MOVEMENT, chap. XXVIII). Following which, the two jurisdictions began joint consecration of bishops. The logic then would be that such joint consecrations infused valid/illicit OC episcopal lines into Anglicanism, and that these lines were further propagated as the Anglican bishops receiving the sacrament consecrated and ordained, in turn. If there were occasions in which Anglican priests, particularly subsequent to the Bonn agreement, sought out OC bishops to be ordained, directly I am not aware of it.

The same agreement and arrangement of inter-communion and joint consecration was established in 1946, between Anglicans and the PNCC. Accounts of Anglican bishops jointly consecrated by either OC or PNCC bishops between 1932 and 1964 may be found in Hughes/STEWARDS OF THE LORD, Appendix II.

The logic, as stated, would be an infusion and continued propagation of valid/illicit episcopal lines into Anglicanism, assuming all other sacramental factors were valid. The RCC has not formally (AFAIK) commented on the point.

GKC

Thank you for the more precise explanation of this. I’m not aware of any official comment on the matter either, but Cardinal Kasper has not been as hard-line with the Anglicans on the matter of validity as has been the case in the past, and I suspect this has much to do with it.

 

[GKC]

Thank you for the more precise explanation of this. I’m not aware of any official comment on the matter either, but Cardinal Kasper has not been as hard-line with the Anglicans on the matter of validity as has been the case in the past, and I suspect this has much to do with it.

You are very welcome.

Perhaps. But, OTOH, there is the Doctrinal Commentary on Ad Tuendam Fidem by (then) Cardinal Ratzinger, in 1998, which seems to eliminate, in passing, the possible wiggle room. And given the direction and tone of Anglicanism, in general, since the 70s, I don’t think re-assessment is likely. Hence ,I suspect, ordinations arising from Anglicanorum Coetibus will be uniformly absolute. If there are any done sub conditione, I would be both surprised and intrigued.

GKC

Anglicanus-Catholicus

 

[grandfather]

She has but it is conducted privately in meetings with Her Government ministers.

What might that autrhority be? Can she command “Her” ministers to act? Why does she exercise her authrity in private? Is it secret? Is she a public figure who does he work behind closed doors?

Is she a symbol or not a symbol? One British poster compared her to the flag, a symbol to get excited about.

If she has authority she is more than a symbol. It can’t be both.

The royals go to ceremonies with sceptors, swords, crowns and capes and take oaths to do this and that, and it means nothing. The sceptor is a symbol of rule, but they don’t rule anything. All it is is trappings, acting important and dignified for the sake of acting important. The show must go on.

Whatever an outsider thinks of it all does not matter. What does leave me totally confounded is that a person changes religions at the border. Can there be any religious conviction there? What of the martyrs who gave their lives rather than reonunce their faith? I’ll be this today and that tomorrow and this again next week.