Do Catholics despise Anglicans?

[burnside]

I have always tended to find i feel more comfortable amongst the English when the subject of religion comes up.I assumed it was because a lot of them were anglo-catholic and the Evangelicals in England had to try to live with them.So,it wasn’t such a huge step
to tolerate catholics.
In Scotland,we have a similar situation to Northern Ireland.Things are improving because families are so mixed now.Protestant friends had relatives who had been catholics.My own catholicism only goes back to my grandparents.Scots,whether catholic or protestant,vote for the Labour Party.In Northern Ireland,
protestants vote for the Unionist Parties and ally themselves with the Conservatives in Parliament.Rather strange,since the Scots and Ulstermen were the same in that they were largely working-class and the Labour Party was the best bet for getting them into employment.Unfortunately,as the catholic Cardinal,Murphy-O’Connor said recently,(and took some brickbats for it)“for catholics Labour are no longer the natural party of government.”
He was right,they can no longer be trusted on catholic issues.
I remember a Baptist friend telling me of one of his neighbours
who was a coal miner but voted conservative.He was baffled by this till he found out the guy was a member of the Orange Order.
I have voted conservative on one occasion but i am wary of them.I remember Maggie Thatcher’s duplicity in her approach to South Africa and The Soviet Union.When Gorbachev showed willingness to compromise on nuclear weapons and people suggested we should do more on that issue,Maggie was telling us to keep our guard up.The same woman was trying to get sanctions eased on South Africa as soon as the white minority government started to dismantle apartheid.Thankfully,she did not get her way.Sanctions stayed for a while longer.
Now,we have a Hobson’s choice for our parliament.The conservatives are trying to take the centre ground and becoming soft on catholic issues.The Labour Party became unelectable in the 1980’s and grabbed the centre ground,except on matters like abortion.One poster wondered if the dislike of anglicans was something to do with HenryVIII/ElizabethII.Her uncle,the one who abdicated in the late 1930’s,was accused of being a friend of the
Nazis.There seems to be a German connection.It seems odd that so much is said against Pope Pius XII regarding the Nazis and the Holocaust.Yet,there is not so much said about the former King Edward VIII.Before i learned of his association with the Nazis,i felt sorry for this guy.He had to abdicate because he refused to give up the divorced Mrs Simpson.If it weren’t for Henry VIII’s divorce,there would be no Anglicanism to dislike.

 

[quantumDeus]

I have always tended to find i feel more comfortable amongst the English when the subject of religion comes up.I assumed it was because a lot of them were anglo-catholic and the Evangelicals in England had to try to live with them.So,it wasn’t such a huge step
to tolerate catholics.
In Scotland,we have a similar situation to Northern Ireland.Things are improving because families are so mixed now.Protestant friends had relatives who had been catholics.My own catholicism only goes back to my grandparents.Scots,whether catholic or protestant,vote for the Labour Party.In Northern Ireland,
protestants vote for the Unionist Parties and ally themselves with the Conservatives in Parliament.Rather strange,since the Scots and Ulstermen were the same in that they were largely working-class and the Labour Party was the best bet for getting them into employment.Unfortunately,as the catholic Cardinal,Murphy-O’Connor said recently,(and took some brickbats for it)“for catholics Labour are no longer the natural party of government.”
He was right,they can no longer be trusted on catholic issues.
I remember a Baptist friend telling me of one of his neighbours
who was a coal miner but voted conservative.He was baffled by this till he found out the guy was a member of the Orange Order.
I have voted conservative on one occasion but i am wary of them.I remember Maggie Thatcher’s duplicity in her approach to South Africa and The Soviet Union.When Gorbachev showed willingness to compromise on nuclear weapons and people suggested we should do more on that issue,Maggie was telling us to keep our guard up.The same woman was trying to get sanctions eased on South Africa as soon as the white minority government started to dismantle apartheid.Thankfully,she did not get her way.Sanctions stayed for a while longer.
Now,we have a Hobson’s choice for our parliament.The conservatives are trying to take the centre ground and becoming soft on catholic issues.The Labour Party became unelectable in the 1980’s and grabbed the centre ground,except on matters like abortion.One poster wondered if the dislike of anglicans was something to do with HenryVIII/ElizabethII.Her uncle,the one who abdicated in the late 1930’s,was accused of being a friend of the
Nazis.There seems to be a German connection.It seems odd that so much is said against Pope Pius XII regarding the Nazis and the Holocaust.Yet,there is not so much said about the former King Edward VIII.Before i learned of his association with the Nazis,i felt sorry for this guy.He had to abdicate because he refused to give up the divorced Mrs Simpson.If it weren’t for Henry VIII’s divorce,there would be no Anglicanism to dislike.

Thanks for a wonderful insight to the religio-political workings of our cousins across the water.

 

[GKC]

Sorry…it is not mere nonesene…it is utter nonesense Anymore than the Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon nonsense complete with alleged proofs.

The motivation (IMHO) for declaring Anglican orders invalid had most to do with politics. No good to have the Church of the world’s super power (English Catholics aka Anglicans) having valid orders. That would mean that people who culturally more closesly identified with Anglicanism than Roman Catholicsm would be more likely to assimilate into the Anglican Church. Yes… Catholicism mounted a valiant effort to intellectually defend a position that did not have much to defend it but that is no different than the sincere Protestants who use scripture/logic and so on to prove the apostasy (alleged) of the Roman Catholic Church. The alleged invalidity of Anglican orders is a joke. I cracked up when I first read about the issue

Caveat…I am not anti Catholic by ANY stretch. I have a great deal of respect for the Church and its leadership role, do not beleive it is the Whore of Babylon and so on.

North

And I’m not anti-Catholic, either. I’m Anglo-Catholic. And certainly there was a political component. And a personal one, on the part of Cardinal Vaughan, who was responsible for the setting up of the commission to examine two questions (note: neither question initially had to do with whether Anglican orders were invalid, though answering them and explaining the answers led to that). The result was *Apostolicae Curae * (signed by Leo, written by Monsignor Merry del Val, with the assistance of Dom Francis Gasquet). All specifically designed to derail the efforts of Lord Halifax and the Abbe Portal.

I’ve read (and own) most of the standard literature on the issue (it’s a hobby of mine), and I have my own conclusions, which are basically those of Fr. Hughes, mentioned above. But let’s see you handle the issue of defect of intent and form in the consecration/ordiantion rites (and remember that both need to be addressed together. Both are necessary to the RC position that the orders were rendered invalid by the writing and use of the Edwardine Ordinal, to replace the Roman Pontifical). I’m interested in seeing how you approach it.

From an intellectual standpoint, it is inadequate to merely say “nonsense”. How to you answer the liturgical issue? Unlike the Babylon silliness, this related to a certain identifiable action, involving certain words, and a certain identifiable point in time (1559, that is). How do you counter the assertions, specifically?

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus

 

[jmcrae]

I’ve just received a note from my Bishop’s office that we are to treat Anglicans exactly the same way that we treat Protestants - means that if they were Confirmed before, it doesn’t matter - they still have to be Confirmed in the Catholic Church, and they still have to wait for Confirmation before receiving First Holy Communion.

I specifically asked about Anglican Confirmation and we’re to give them exactly the same thing that Protestants and uncatechized Catholics get - the full deal, with no conditionals. As you know, Confirmation is an unrepeatable Sacrament in the Catholic Church - if this were merely political, and there were some actual chance that Anglican orders could be valid, then they would have us do a conditional Confirmation; not the real thing. But they’re saying, do the real thing. No conditionals, and definitely, definitely, no taking it as having been previously done.

This is unlike how we treat members of the Eastern Orthodox churches, who don’t go through any process - they just make a Profession of Faith, and it’s understood that they already have their Sacraments of Confirmation and First Holy Communion - no re-dos (not even conditionally) for them.

Sorry for the bad news.

 

[mercygate]

I’ve just received a note from my Bishop’s office that we are to treat Anglicans exactly the same way that we treat Protestants - means that if they were Confirmed before, it doesn’t matter - they still have to be Confirmed in the Catholic Church, and they still have to wait for Confirmation before receiving First Holy Communion.

I specifically asked about Anglican Confirmation and we’re to give them exactly the same thing that Protestants and uncatechized Catholics get - the full deal, with no conditionals. As you know, Confirmation is an unrepeatable Sacrament in the Catholic Church - if this were merely political, and there were some actual chance that Anglican orders could be valid, then they would have us do a conditional Confirmation; not the real thing. But they’re saying, do the real thing. No conditionals, and definitely, definitely, no taking it as having been previously done.

This is unlike how we treat members of the Eastern Orthodox churches, who don’t go through any process - they just make a Profession of Faith, and it’s understood that they already have their Sacraments of Confirmation and First Holy Communion - no re-dos (not even conditionally) for them.

Sorry for the bad news.

Did you ask about the fact that there are now certain Anglican episcopal lines that are valid? There are Anglicans who have been conditionally ordained to the Priesthood based on their ability to demonstrate the infusion of valid episcopal lines since *Aapostolicae curae. *

As a former Anglican, I understand that Anglicans should be put through all the catechetical and ritual paces required of others entering the Church, including withholding the Eucharist until after Confirmation. However, with all the water that has run under the bridge since Apostolicae curae and with Anglican efforts in some quarters to acquire unquestionably valid episcopal lines through Utrecht, the PNC, and certain Orthodox lines, many Anglican Apostolic lines can now claim validity.

That being the case, I believe it is imprudent not to confirm Anglicans conditionally. But then, nobody has consulted me on the matter.

 

[GKC]

I’m not sure why this would be either a surprise, or distressing. It follows naturally from the logic in Apostolicae Curae.

And my conviction, based on my reading, that there was both a political and a personal (particularly Cardinal Vaughan’s) component behind the decision, doesn’t mean that the decision isn’t “right”, at all. The motives don’t affect the legitimacy of the outcome, any more than the personal qualities of a given priest affect the validity of his Mass. The books may have been completely cooked, the fix might have been in, the theology (which I consider at least possibly correct) might have been wrong, and the conclusion, at the end might still be valid.,At any rate, it certainly is what RCs should affirm. I don’t know if I’m quite getting across that, for Anglicans, it doesn’t matter, except in considering any moves to unity. It’s a non-issue, to those of us who know the Anglican orders are valid, the sacraments likewise, etc. Some Anglicans might get touchy about the RC attitude toward Anglican orders. I don’t. I know too much about it.

And there is one sense in which the issue is treated as slightly unsure; ordination sub conditione for former Anglican priests. It’s rare but it happens.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus

I’ve just received a note from my Bishop’s office that we are to treat Anglicans exactly the same way that we treat Protestants - means that if they were Confirmed before, it doesn’t matter - they still have to be Confirmed in the Catholic Church, and they still have to wait for Confirmation before receiving First Holy Communion.

I specifically asked about Anglican Confirmation and we’re to give them exactly the same thing that Protestants and uncatechized Catholics get - the full deal, with no conditionals. As you know, Confirmation is an unrepeatable Sacrament in the Catholic Church - if this were merely political, and there were some actual chance that Anglican orders could be valid, then they would have us do a conditional Confirmation; not the real thing. But they’re saying, do the real thing. No conditionals, and definitely, definitely, no taking it as having been previously done.

This is unlike how we treat members of the Eastern Orthodox churches, who don’t go through any process - they just make a Profession of Faith, and it’s understood that they already have their Sacraments of Confirmation and First Holy Communion - no re-dos (not even conditionally) for them.

Sorry for the bad news.

 

[jmcrae]

Did you ask about the fact that there are now certain Anglican episcopal lines that are valid?

As a matter of fact, that was the basis of my question.

There are Anglicans who have been conditionally ordained to the Priesthood based on their ability to demonstrate the infusion of valid episcopal lines since *Aapostolicae curae. *

There are? Can you give names, places and dates? I bet my Bishop would be very surprised to learn this.

That being the case, I believe it is imprudent not to confirm Anglicans conditionally. But then, nobody has consulted me on the matter.

That’s what I would have thought, too, but I am being told, “no, definitely not.” Meaning that this is not a political issue; that they are very, very sure that no Anglican alive today, who could show up for RCIA in our Diocese, has ever been validly Confirmed.

 

[GKC]

As a matter of fact, that was the basis of my question.

There are? Can you give names, places and dates? I bet my Bishop would be very surprised to learn this.

I can. Though dates would have to be looked up.

John J. Hughes, the author of the books I have mentioned, was ordained sub conditione, as was Graham Leonard, one time Anglican Bishop of London. Fr. Hughes was in the 50s, Fr. Leonard was in the 80s. I have heard rumor of another, no details.

That’s what I would have thought, too, but I am being told, “no, definitely not.” Meaning that this is not a political issue; that they are very, very sure that no Anglican alive today, who could show up for RCIA in our Diocese, has ever been validly Confirmed.

I realize that I’m intruding into a conversation here, but when I say there was a political component, I’m referring to the time prior to Apostolicae Curae. There was no way Cardinl Vaughan was going to permit the sort of thing that Lord Halifax and the Abbe Portal were trying, to succeed. And please remember that the issue of Anglican orders was an accident, arising from Halifax and Portal’s work.

There is a history to all this. *AC *did not emerge *ex nihilo. *
GKC

 

[mercygate]

As a matter of fact, that was the basis of my question.

There are? Can you give names, places and dates? I bet my Bishop would be very surprised to learn this.

That’s what I would have thought, too, but I am being told, “no, definitely not.” Meaning that this is not a political issue; that they are very, very sure that no Anglican alive today, who could show up for RCIA in our Diocese, has ever been validly Confirmed.

The one certain case I know of is Father Graham Leonard (formerly the Anglican Bishop of London), as GKC points out.

Because of this, when I was confirmed de novo I posed the initial objection based on the post-*Apostolicae curae *history. Without so much as looking into the matter, my pastor rejected the idea. I did not pursue it. It is very likely that the bishop who confirmed me in the Episcopal Church was not in one of those re-validated lines because I came from a Low Church diocese where people weren’t thinking much about that sort of thing.

 

[GKC]

The one certain case I know of is Father Graham Leonard (formerly the Anglican Bishop of London), as GKC points out.

Because of this, when I was confirmed de novo I posed the initial objection based on the post-*Apostolicae curae *history. Without so much as looking into the matter, my pastor rejected the idea. I did not pursue it. It is very likely that the bishop who confirmed me in the Episcopal Church was not in one of those re-validated lines because I came from a Low Church diocese where people weren’t thinking much about that sort of thing.

Fr. Hughes was ordained, sub conditione, in January, 1968, in the diocese of Munster, Germany.

GKC

Added: Fr. Hughes discusses his case, in an appendix to his STEWARDS OF THE LORD, in which he covers the significance of Old Catholic and PNCC bishops participating in Anglican consecrations, generally, beginning in 1932.

GKC

 

[Ridgerunner]

This thread is awfully long, and I haven’t read all of it, so maybe I’m going to say something someone else has already said. So please forgive me.

I have never had any particular animosity toward Anglicans as Anglicans. I (and many like me) grew up thinking of them as the “ruling class”, even among Protestants. Seemed like all the wealthy folk on the high end of the social scale were Anglicans. Since Catholics in my area were rather lower down on both scales, and since everyone knew it, I think there was a kind of mild “class resentment” thing going on. But, as I said, it wasn’t exactly the religion. It was the class thing. That has changed since I was a kid growing up. Socially and economically, Catholics are now pretty much on a par with Anglicans.

 

[RevDrNorth]

I’ve read (and own) most of the standard literature on the issue (it’s a hobby of mine), and I have my own conclusions, which are basically those of Fr. Hughes, mentioned above. But let’s see you handle the issue of defect of intent and form in the consecration/ordiantion rites (and remember that both need to be addressed together. Both are necessary to the RC position that the orders were rendered invalid by the writing and use of the Edwardine Ordinal, to replace the Roman Pontifical). I’m interested in seeing how you approach it.

From an intellectual standpoint, it is inadequate to merely say “nonsense”. How to you answer the liturgical issue? Unlike the Babylon silliness, this related to a certain identifiable action, involving certain words, and a certain identifiable point in time (1559, that is). How do you counter the assertions, specifically?

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus

I mean this respectfully but …why? Is there a point to vain dispute other than serving as intellectual chewing gum (which can be a fun past time). So, I research the issue to add specifics and post them…you counter them…I counter yours and so on and so on as we disfunctionally two step across the thread and arrive…back where where started. Can be fun but when I do not have either vast amounts of time or vast interest…to what end.

It reminds me of the endless Arminian/Calvinism debates. If there were a knock out punch it would have been delivered centuries ago. There is not and it has not. Instead two people or more will spend vast amounts of time quoting scripture and logic to assert their position and end up exactly where they started. If the point to do it is just to enjoy a good argument/fight then wonderful.

Of course to many Protestants the whole issue of apostolic succession is unscriptural nonsense.

If it makes Catholics feel warm and fuzzy to think Anglican orders are invalid. Good for them. It it makes Anglicans feel warm and fuzzy to think Catholics are inaccurate (superstitous and anti intellectual)…good for them. Mine is bigger than yours and we can exclude you because you did not say the magic words on a Tuesday and they have to be said on a Tuesday (and only in Latin) and so tick tock the game is locked. Zeeesh There are Catholics who believe the See of Peter was vacant (which Pope was the last is up to debate). They can line up arguments according to Intent and so on with regard to this and that that demonstrate the current Pope (s) are apostate and not genuine holder of the Chair of Peter. Usually these are traditonalists who want the Latin returned. They can sit and marshall similar arguments to that against Anglican orders to demonstrate that it is a FACT that the Popes and current hierarchy are illegitmate and Novus Ordo is a violation of the Roman Catholic faith.

I realize that you have researched the issue and enjoy it (kind of like I enjoy debating educational issues). It can be fun even when there is no real answer. Some day we can ask Christ. Personally, I think He will tend to be amused and saddened by some of it.

Rev North

 

[GKC]

I guess because I feel if I am going to have a public opinion, I want it to be an informed opinion. Mine is, on this, as on many others.

I agree with your last paragraph.

GKC

I mean this respectfully but …why? Is there a point to vain dispute other than serving as intellectual chewing gum (which can be a fun past time). So, I research the issue to add specifics and post them…you counter them…I counter yours and so on and so on as we disfunctionally two step across the thread and arrive…back where where started. Can be fun but when I do not have either vast amounts of time or vast interest…to what end.

It reminds me of the endless Arminian/Calvinism debates. If there were a knock out punch it would have been delivered centuries ago. There is not and it has not. Instead two people or more will spend vast amounts of time quoting scripture and logic to assert their position and end up exactly where they started. If the point to do it is just to enjoy a good argument/fight then wonderful.

Of course to many Protestants the whole issue of apostolic succession is unscriptural nonsense.

If it makes Catholics feel warm and fuzzy to think Anglican orders are invalid. Good for them. It it makes Anglicans feel warm and fuzzy to think Catholics are inaccurate (superstitous and anti intellectual)…good for them. Mine is bigger than yours and we can exclude you because you did not say the magic words on a Tuesday and they have to be said on a Tuesday (and only in Latin) and so tick tock the game is locked. Zeeesh There are Catholics who believe the See of Peter was vacant (which Pope was the last is up to debate). They can line up arguments according to Intent and so on with regard to this and that that demonstrate the current Pope (s) are apostate and not genuine holder of the Chair of Peter. Usually these are traditonalists who want the Latin returned. They can sit and marshall similar arguments to that against Anglican orders to demonstrate that it is a FACT that the Popes and current hierarchy are illegitmate and Novus Ordo is a violation of the Roman Catholic faith.

I realize that you have researched the issue and enjoy it (kind of like I enjoy debating educational issues). It can be fun even when there is no real answer. Some day we can ask Christ. Personally, I think He will tend to be amused and saddened by some of it.

Rev North

 

[jmcrae]

Of course to many Protestants the whole issue of apostolic succession is unscriptural nonsense.

Apparently this was the attitude of your ancestor, King Edward VI, who made absolutely certain that the Anglicans would never again be able to follow this “superstition,” even if they ever wanted to, by gutting the Ordination ceremony and changing the words.

If it makes Catholics feel warm and fuzzy to think Anglican orders are invalid. Good for them.

Well, we just look at the fact that your ancestor King Edward VI succeeded in his aim to destroy the validity of Anglican holy orders, and we also note that, once lost, it’s not the kind of thing you can get back, really - kind of like losing your virginity, or getting someone pregnant, or cutting off your arm with a skil-saw - there is no “undo” button for these kinds of things.

 

[GKC]

Apparently this was the attitude of your ancestor, King Edward VI, who made absolutely certain that the Anglicans would never again be able to follow this “superstition,” even if they ever wanted to, by gutting the Ordination ceremony and changing the words.

Well, we just look at the fact that your ancestor King Edward VI succeeded in his aim to destroy the validity of Anglican holy orders, and we also note that, once lost, it’s not the kind of thing you can get back, really - kind of like losing your virginity, or getting someone pregnant, or cutting off your arm with a skil-saw - there is no “undo” button for these kinds of things.

And, RevDrNorth, if one wanted to counter allegations such as these, a knowledge of history (it wasn’t Edward’s doing, remember his age when he died), as well as a knowledge of the logic, history and personalities surrounding *Apostolicae Curae *is useful. As is the Old Catholic/PNCC issue.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus

 

[Renton405]

The episcopalians have started ordaining homosexual priests and people who are ignorant of the church think that the Catholic Church has started ordaning homosexuals, thus is tarnishes the Catholic Faith…

But I disagree about Catholics disliking Anglicans more than Lutherans… usually fundamentalists are the ones that Catholics dislike the most because of how they twist scripture and call us the “Whore of Babylon” and such…Only the fundamentalist heretics would think of such a thing

 

[Pope_Noah_I]

The episcopalians have started ordaining homosexual priests and people who are ignorant of the church think that the Catholic Church has started ordaning homosexuals, thus is tarnishes the Catholic Faith…

Well, what else can we expect from a Church that has the beginning that Anglicanism has? I don’t trust any Church that was founded by a divorced monarch.

 

[RevDrNorth]

Apparently this was the attitude of your ancestor, King Edward VI, who made absolutely certain that the Anglicans would never again be able to follow this “superstition,” even if they ever wanted to, by gutting the Ordination ceremony and changing the words.

Well, we just look at the fact that your ancestor King Edward VI succeeded in his aim to destroy the validity of Anglican holy orders, and we also note that, once lost, it’s not the kind of thing you can get back, really - kind of like losing your virginity, or getting someone pregnant, or cutting off your arm with a skil-saw - there is no “undo” button for these kinds of things.

You made me smile I wish he was my ancestor. Maybe then my blue blood would get me a good room on the QEII. He certainly did not last long (sickly male heir).

On a more serious note, Mitch Pacwa once said something like (ie paraphrase) “Don’t get too caught up in the whole apostolic succession thing because that is not the main issue. Fidelity to the Church teaching and the Holy Father are”.(I apologize if I have misrepresented what he said). This was in regard to a women who asked about a certain group’s apostolic succession. Fr. Pacwa’s point is well taken. That ICAN whatever it is in Brazil has a Bishop (s) decended from one (Calros Duarte Costa) that broke with Rome. Now, even if they have valid orders and apostolic succession, does that place them in good standing. No. Would anyone advise a RC to receive sacraments from them…no. If I recall they claim one of their Priests who was made a Bishop was received back into the RCC and remained a Bishop.

This is very interesting stuff. You might enjoy this site:

tboyle.net/Catholicism/Cath_Links_Priest_Groups.html

One of the more peculiar is Fr. Pulvamacher, now Pope Pius the XIII. Rather than a Sedevacantist (believe See of Peter is vacant and held hostage by heretical clergy) there is another name for him that escapes me (and no not an unkind one) but begins with a “c”. Actually I kind of feel sorry for him.

truecatholic.org/#top

North

 

[GKC]

"That ICAN whatever it is in Brazil has a Bishop (s) decended from one (Calros Duarte Costa) that broke with Rome.

I suspect you are thinking of the Charismatic Episcopal Church?

GKC

 

[THutch04]

Just out of curiosity, since the subject of ordaining homosexual priests came up…is that problem that people have with it the fact that the man is homosexual or the fact that he OPENLY practices it?

And second, this is a little off topic and I do apologize, but if someone WAS validly confirmed in the Episcopal Church and then became Catholic, and the Bishop had given orders that former Episcopalians had to go through the RCIA process and completely reconfirmed, what exactly would happen? Since it’s a Sacrament that can only be received once, what exactly would happen if someone attempted to receive it twice? I hope this makes some sense, but it’s getting late, so it might not!!!