Church of England

[Anna_Scott]

I have read a lot of postings here and I have noticed that so many of you have so much against this Pope!!! He has been doing his best to bring all Catholics together and he is going as far as bringing all christians together instead of seperating them from each other and declaring wars on one and an other! Pope Benedict is for re unification of all christians and I could not agree more with him! Look what is happening to our churches today! Why do we need so much seperations, when it is time for all of us to come together??? Did not we have enough of them already druing last three centuries!!! What did we gain from all these sepations so far??? Nothing! We are braking our faith in pieces and weakenning our Catholic faith instead of fighting together against the real dangers!

godismyfather,

Who is posting against the Pope?

Anna

 

[Aelred_Minor]

I recommend reading the article GKC linked to, which explains why a pro-female bishops layperson voted against the measure.

While of course I do not believe female ordination can be valid, it is refreshing to see that not all those who are advocates of this sort of thing are intent on imposing female clergy on everyone or forcing those with traditional beliefs out.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

Dolezal,

As a Catholic, you must believe Anglican orders are invalid. You are bound by Apostolicae Curae.

Is this actually true? How binding is the decision of Leo XIII on the validity of Anglican orders, or any later reaffirmations of that decision?

Also, there is the question of the Church’s authority in general to declare what other people believe or practice, or believed or practiced in the past. For example, when the Church condemned Nestorius at the Council of Ephesus, the heresy it attributed to Nestorius was forever bindingly forbidden for Catholics, but today some orthodox Catholics have begun to question whether Nestorius ever believed the heresy the Council attributed to him. This is even more true (except in the sense of how well known it is) of Constantinople II and its condemnation of certain long-dead people as Nestorians. Also, while I personally disagree with them, there are those who claim that Vatican II’s assertion that Muslims worship the same God as we do could be factually wrong due to a misunderstanding of Islam on the part of the Council Fathers. The Church is infallible with regard to morality and the Catholic faith, but not, I think, with regard to declaring what other people believe.

It’s my understanding that the decision that Anglican orders are invalid was based on an absence of an understanding of a sacrificial priesthood in Anglicanism for a long period of its history. Without a sacrificial priesthood, there would not be an intention to ordain a man as a true priest, and so the requirements for the sacrament of Holy Orders would not be met except perhaps for deacons, and even in that case the deacons would no longer be validly ordained once Anglican bishops were no longer validly ordained.

However, if evidence were brought forward that was not available to Leo XIII that the concept of a sacrificial priesthood did indeed survive in Anglicanism sufficiently to constitute intent to ordain a true priest, could a Catholic take the position that the Vatican decision was factually in error, though the doctrine reflected in the decision is true?

I myself have no reason to doubt Apostolicae Curae. I am speaking merely in hypotheticals.

 

[Theophorus]

It’s not illogical. There are two tradtionalist views in the Church of England, the Anglo-Catholics and the traditional evangelicals.

From an Anglo-Catholic viewpoint, women priests have no effect on the entire apostolic succession of the church. The only problem female priests present is the validity of their sacramental acts, etc. If you do not want a woman as your priest, you simply go to a parish with a male priest. However, once female bishops are consecrated, this affects the validity of all orders.

For traditional evangelicals, the concern is not apostolic succession. What concerns them is the principle of male headship. The argument can be made that even though there are women priests, as long as there are only male bishops then male leadership of the church has been maintained. If you cannot submit to a female priest, then you need only find a parish with a male priest. However, once you have dioceses presided over by women, male headship is over.

What both groups want is assurance that they will never have to submit to female bishops. The defeated legislation only required that their views be “respected” but did not obligate the church to provide alternative oversight for them.

With respect, if you accept the premise that women can be admitted to Holy Orders(which I don’t BTW, unfortunately we haven’t been given that option), then I don’t see why they cannot be Bishops by the same logic.

Unless you claim that the Episcopate and the Presbyterate are completely separate sacraments(not a catholic or orthodox view) or you down play the ritual priest and apostolic succession elements of the priesthood, as the evangelicals do, in which case we are not really talking about apostolic succession or priesthood in a real sense any more.

But even with women ‘priests’, deans canons etc. with an evangelical understanding of the terms you still have women exercising authority in the Church so the problem they seek to prevent seems to already exist under a different name.

 

[Theophorus]

Dolezal,

As a Catholic, you must believe Anglican orders are invalid. You are bound by Apostolicae Curae.

I don’t think it is as clear cut as that any more. Things have changed slightly since then. In general Anglican orders are indeed invalid, but sufficient doubt exists in some cases(for example the Post-Leo XIII “Dutch touch” as it were") to limit the universal scope of this pronouncement today.

 

[rfournier103]

Having never even set foot in an Episcopal church, please forgive my lack of knowledge. That being said, I would like to throw in my two cents, if I may…

I love democracy. I was blessed by God to be born an American, and self-determination is our bedrock principle in the United States. We vote for our leaders, and we even have referendums from time to time on this issue or that.

Sometimes we like the results, sometimes not; but ‘the people’ always have their say one way or another. I know the Roman Catholic Church is the antithesis of American politics, but I accept that, and that is not the issue here.

The Anglican faithful have spoken, and apparently the resolution is binding. My question is: how often do the lay-people disagree with the hierarchy? From what I gather, the Archbishop of Canterbury wanted this, and is disappointed? Also, is the CoE moving in a more conservative direction, or is this an anomaly?

 

[GKC]

I don’t think it is as clear cut as that any more. Things have changed slightly since then. In general Anglican orders are indeed invalid, but sufficient doubt exists in some cases(for example the Post-Leo XIII “Dutch touch” as it were") to limit the universal scope of this pronouncement today.

Yes, it is still clear cut. See the Doctrinal Commentary on* Ad Tuendam Fidem*, by (then) Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, para 11. And the “Dutch Touch” issue, interesting as it is, has never been commented in, by Rome.

There is no wiggle room with respect to the judgement in Apostolicae Curae, for RCs.

For Anglicans, different story.

I’ve been out of own for a few days so it’s been a while since I said that the whole, sad, complicated story of Apostolicae Curae, history, politics, theology and personalities, has been a hobby of mine for over 10 years. More like 14, in fact. I do have other hobbies, but this one comes up a lot.

GKC

Anglicanus-Catholicus

 

[GKC]

Is this actually true? How binding is the decision of Leo XIII on the validity of Anglican orders, or any later reaffirmations of that decision?

Also, there is the question of the Church’s authority in general to declare what other people believe or practice, or believed or practiced in the past. For example, when the Church condemned Nestorius at the Council of Ephesus, the heresy it attributed to Nestorius was forever bindingly forbidden for Catholics, but today some orthodox Catholics have begun to question whether Nestorius ever believed the heresy the Council attributed to him. This is even more true (except in the sense of how well known it is) of Constantinople II and its condemnation of certain long-dead people as Nestorians. Also, while I personally disagree with them, there are those who claim that Vatican II’s assertion that Muslims worship the same God as we do could be factually wrong due to a misunderstanding of Islam on the part of the Council Fathers. The Church is infallible with regard to morality and the Catholic faith, but not, I think, with regard to declaring what other people believe.

It’s my understanding that the decision that Anglican orders are invalid was based on an absence of an understanding of a sacrificial priesthood in Anglicanism for a long period of its history. Without a sacrificial priesthood, there would not be an intention to ordain a man as a true priest, and so the requirements for the sacrament of Holy Orders would not be met except perhaps for deacons, and even in that case the deacons would no longer be validly ordained once Anglican bishops were no longer validly ordained.

However, if evidence were brought forward that was not available to Leo XIII that the concept of a sacrificial priesthood did indeed survive in Anglicanism sufficiently to constitute intent to ordain a true priest, could a Catholic take the position that the Vatican decision was factually in error, though the doctrine reflected in the decision is true?

I myself have no reason to doubt Apostolicae Curae. I am speaking merely in hypotheticals.

I have no time for posting on this right now. But I’ve done so, over the past years, somewhere in the neighborhood of more times than you’d believe, plus a lot.

Try a search on my board name and Apostolicae Curae. If you have any specific questions, I’ll be in town, again, around 9 Dec.

The answer is No, BTW.

GKC

*Angicanus-Catholicus

 

[Aelred_Minor]

I have no time for posting on this right now. But I’ve done so, over the past years, somewhere in the neighborhood of more times than you’d believe, plus a lot.

Try a search on my board name and Apostolicae Curae. If you have any specific questions, I’ll be in town, again, around 9 Dec.

The answer is No, BTW.

GKC

*Angicanus-Catholicus

I’ll try and take a look, but in case you see this before you go away, is the “No” answer in response to the question I opened my post with or the one I all but closed my post with?

 

[GKC]

I’ll try and take a look, but in case you see this before you go away, is the “No” answer in response to the question I opened my post with or the one I all but closed my post with?

I don’t actually leave town again until Friday, but I have little time for posting. But no doubt I’ll do a little, anyway.

The answer to the first question in the post is yes. The last question, no.

GKC

 

[Aelred_Minor]

I don’t actually leave town again until Friday, but I have little time for posting. But no doubt I’ll do a little, anyway.

The answer to the first question in the post is yes. The last question, no.

GKC

Wow. That’s the opposite of what I thought you meant, remembering that you are Anglican, and I suppose it’s a good sign you are probably right.

 

[Anna_Scott]

I don’t think it is as clear cut as that any more. Things have changed slightly since then. In general Anglican orders are indeed invalid, but sufficient doubt exists in some cases(for example the Post-Leo XIII “Dutch touch” as it were") to limit the universal scope of this pronouncement today.

Theophorus,

As far as I know, Catholics are bound by Apostolicae Curae, which deems Anglican Orders invalid. I am open to correction, if something has changed.

I believe Anglican Holy Orders are valid. Otherwise, I would not be Anglican.

Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

Is this actually true? How binding is the decision of Leo XIII on the validity of Anglican orders, or any later reaffirmations of that decision?

Also, there is the question of the Church’s authority in general to declare what other people believe or practice, or believed or practiced in the past. For example, when the Church condemned Nestorius at the Council of Ephesus, the heresy it attributed to Nestorius was forever bindingly forbidden for Catholics, but today some orthodox Catholics have begun to question whether Nestorius ever believed the heresy the Council attributed to him. This is even more true (except in the sense of how well known it is) of Constantinople II and its condemnation of certain long-dead people as Nestorians. Also, while I personally disagree with them, there are those who claim that Vatican II’s assertion that Muslims worship the same God as we do could be factually wrong due to a misunderstanding of Islam on the part of the Council Fathers. The Church is infallible with regard to morality and the Catholic faith, but not, I think, with regard to declaring what other people believe.

It’s my understanding that the decision that Anglican orders are invalid was based on an absence of an understanding of a sacrificial priesthood in Anglicanism for a long period of its history. Without a sacrificial priesthood, there would not be an intention to ordain a man as a true priest, and so the requirements for the sacrament of Holy Orders would not be met except perhaps for deacons, and even in that case the deacons would no longer be validly ordained once Anglican bishops were no longer validly ordained.

However, if evidence were brought forward that was not available to Leo XIII that the concept of a sacrificial priesthood did indeed survive in Anglicanism sufficiently to constitute intent to ordain a true priest, could a Catholic take the position that the Vatican decision was factually in error, though the doctrine reflected in the decision is true?

I myself have no reason to doubt Apostolicae Curae. I am speaking merely in hypotheticals.

Aelred Minor,

Excellent points and very honest comments.

Of course the Catholic Church does not have the right to dictate what Anglicans believe; but Catholics must submit religious mind and will to the Roman Pontiff, even if he is not speaking Ex Cathedra (according to Lumen Gentium.)

 

[Indifferently]

The Church of England will plod on, and if it is moving in a conservative direction, good. Bishop Justin is a holy man, and his evangelical wing of the Church has somewhat reinvigorated the aspects of the Gospel which conservative Protestants place in a high level of priority, and consider Christian orthodoxy. I am not alone in being quite glad to see the back of the bearded lefty intellectual Rowan Williams. I might not care for their kinds of services, but Welby’s spiritual home, Holy Trinity Brompton, is the place where the Alpha Course was born and holds TEN services on a Sunday.

I know that on CAF every discussion of Anglicanism either devolves into a row about Apostolicae Curae or how allegedly ‘Anglican’ the Ordinariate is, but there are other interesting aspects of Anglicanism. The Communion is definitely in crisis, and the forces of evil - political correctness in particular - are working to destroy it. We must be vigilant. Women bishops is only a small piece of the puzzle.

 

[Eilrahc]

The Church of England will plod on, and if it is moving in a conservative direction, good. Bishop Justin is a holy man, and his evangelical wing of the Church has somewhat reinvigorated the aspects of the Gospel which conservative Protestants place in a high level of priority, and consider Christian orthodoxy. I am not alone in being quite glad to see the back of the bearded lefty intellectual Rowan Williams. I might not care for their kinds of services, but Welby’s spiritual home, Holy Trinity Brompton, is the place where the Alpha Course was born and holds TEN services on a Sunday.

I think Bishop Welby is half conservative, half liberal. Conservative because he’s against homosexuality, and liberal because he’s in favor of women bishops. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justin_Welby#Views

 

[Indifferently]

I think Bishop Welby is half conservative, half liberal. Conservative because he’s against homosexuality, and liberal because he’s in favor of women bishops. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justin_Welby#Views

I think he has theological reasons to support women bishops, though, which a conservative can conceivably have in my opinion (Lord Carey, former Archbishop, was most definitely a conservative but it was he who initiated the process of women’s ordination). Most of the women bishops supporters, however, seemed to have the sort of worldly arguments in favour of women bishops that I have come to despise in the rest of politics. They rested most of their arguments on the ‘equality and diversity’ rubbish that has fast become (under New Labour) the official ideology of the British state.

Christians are being persecuted in Britain because of it. A Roman Catholic orphanage charity was forced to close its doors because of it. Elderly bed-and-breakfast owners have been hauled into court in its name. Registrars have been threatened with the sack for refusing to conduct ‘civil partnership’ ceremonies. Scottish midwives have been threatened with dismissal for refusing to supervise abortions. I see very dark days ahead in this country, I really do.

 

[Usbek_de_Perse]

One thing Catholics need to distinguish is moral conservatism and ecclesial conservatism. Bishop Welby holds conservative positions with regard to homosexual marriage and other hot-button moral issues. Women as clergy is not an issue that has anything to do with morality. You may have your scruples based on theology, tradition, or definitive pronouncements by a pope, but you cannot suggest that there is anything immoral *per se * about women as clergy. You just say it ain’t possible.

As an Anglican of a traditional bent, I am not in love with the idea, but I am less convinced than many Catholics that it is absolutely impossible for holy orders to be given to a person of the female gender.

I think Bishop Welby is half conservative, half liberal. Conservative because he’s against homosexuality, and liberal because he’s in favor of women bishops. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justin_Welby#Views

 

[ltwin]

I think Bishop Welby is half conservative, half liberal. Conservative because he’s against homosexuality, and liberal because he’s in favor of women bishops. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justin_Welby#Views

Supporting women’s ordination does not make one liberal. Pentecostals have been ordaining women for a hundred years now, and we’re still considered fundamentalists.

For evangelicals, the question one has to ask is are there valid theological justifications for this practice, all the while keeping scripture as the rule and standard. There can be a conservative, evangelical argument for women’s ordination.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

Aelred Minor,

Excellent points and very honest comments.

Of course the Catholic Church does not have the right to dictate what Anglicans believe; but Catholics must submit religious mind and will to the Roman Pontiff, even if he is not speaking Ex Cathedra (according to Lumen Gentium.)

Certainly we are required to give religious assent to all Magisterial teaching on faith and morals. I would not think of denying the teachings regarding the sacrament of Holy Orders outlined in this encyclical. My question is whether Magisterial authority and the claims it has on a Catholic’s assent extend to purely factual statements on what a non-Catholic group believes or practices and to conclusions on subjects like sacramental validity which partially depend on such factual assessments.

 

[KevinNeri]

The vote in synod was “corrupted” in that tactical voting took place whereby those who would have voted “for” voted “against” as they believed the provisions for Anglo-Catholics should not include a separation from women bishops (to avoid the taint). Left to their own convictions the vote would have been passed.

The issue will return and be pased. While no-one wants Pope Benedict to die, this must be on the agenda and then consider that the Church of ROme has radicals, liberals and conservatives at all levels, including cardinals and candidates for the papacy.