G
GKC
Guest
As an understanding of the RCC position, that looks ok to me. It doesn’t describe all Anglicans, but then, nothing does.
GKC, still tied up with life right now
GKC, still tied up with life right now
- Status
GKC, you got me thinking again…doh! Actually, the one question I would like to know the answer to is: Is there a way to find out which Anglican Bishops received the Dutch touch? That way even if, there is a lack of complete understanding in the Anglicans that received it, the faithful who went there would still receive an illicit but valid sacrament. Not trying to cause a riot, but am trying to know where they are/were. I think it would be gratifying to those Anglican Catholics to know where to go to get the closest thing to Rome without giving up too much of their tenets. Also…and this may make some of my fellow Catholics squirm …sorry folks. What if the majority of the Anglican priests out there actually had this even if its without their knowledge? The priesthoods of all faiths are suffering a shortage in this modern time afterall. Things to ponder…
G
GKC
Guest
Yes. But it would require work. As with the RCC, the Anglicans keep records of their consecrations. A quick source for the Anglican bishops who had Old Catholics co-consecrators, from 1932, and PNCC co-consecrators, from 1946, through 1964, can be found in the Appendix II to Fr. J. J. Hughes’ STEWARDS OF THE LORD, an essential read on the whole Apostolicae Curae question. But then it requires tracing all who these bishops consecrated/ordained, and so forth, generation after generation, spreading into Anglicanism. It can be done, but it takes an archivist. Point there is that a validly consecrated bishop consecrates/ordains validly. It doesn’t stop with him.GKC, you got me thinking again…doh! Actually, the one question I would like to know the answer to is: Is there a way to find out which Anglican Bishops received the Dutch touch? That way even if, there is a lack of complete understanding in the Anglicans that received it, the faithful who went there would still receive an illicit but valid sacrament. Not trying to cause a riot, but am trying to know where they are/were. I think it would be gratifying to those Anglican Catholics to know where to go to get the closest thing to Rome without giving up too much of their tenets. Also…and this may make some of my fellow Catholics squirm …sorry folks. What if the majority of the Anglican priests out there actually had this even if its without their knowledge? The priesthoods of all faiths are suffering a shortage in this modern time afterall. Things to ponder…
In the case of my rector, I know who ordained him. And who consecrated the bishop who did so. That bishop is listed in Hughes. So I have no doubt.
However, if the issue were to arise, in the current sitaution, the lines would certainly be traced.
GKC
Thanks GKC, I’m not an archivist, but since the Anglican church has always interested me I may one day trace it. But first I must become a full fledged Eastern Catholic Christian Maronite. I must say, I see the fascination you have for A. C. It can seem to border on an obsession I’ve developed.
But first I must become a full fledged Eastern Catholic Christian Maronite. I must say, I see the fascination you have for A. C. It can seem to border on an obsession I’ve developed.
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
If you think he knows a lot about A.C., ask him about jet propulsion and thermal dynamics! Or stealth bombers! GKC is the man!Thanks GKC, I’m not an archivist, but since the Anglican church has always interested me I may one day trace it.
G
GKC
Guest
I’m perhaps a little rusty on thermal dynamics.If you think he knows a lot about A.C., ask him about jet propulsion and thermal dynamics! Or stealth bombers! GKC is the man!
GKC
Whose daughter and SIL are now visiting, taking a lot of dad’s time.
G
GKC
Guest
You’re welcome. I have an obsessively large number of obsessions, myself. But not one large enough to track the trail of OC/PNCC co-consecrators, and all those who they co-consecrated, and so forth, from 1932 until today (crossing out, of course, those cases in which invalid matter was present).Thanks GKC, I’m not an archivist, but since the Anglican church has always interested me I may one day trace it.
But if you ever do, make me a copy.
GKC
S
Supercatholic
Guest
BEWARE OF RAVENOUS WOVLES IN SHEEPS’ CLOTHING. Don’t let the outward appearance and similarity of service fool you. The Episcopal church is 100% Protestant, regardless of what some of their members might believe or try to convince others and themselves of. Their orders of ordination are just as invalid as any other Protestant denomination’s (don’t try to argue that point you’ll get nowhere). The Catholic church only ordains men. Not because they’re sexist or chauvinistic, which they are so often unfairly accused of, but because nowhere in the Bible, old testament or new is there an ordination of women to the priesthood. The Catholic church does not have the authority to assume stupid secular modernism and say “Well these are modern times and women have equal rights in everything else, I’m sure Jesus wanted to ordain women, but he didn’t want to rock the boat or it just wasn’t proper for his time”. WAKE UP FOLKS! Did you forget who Jesus is? I didn’t. Jesus could have done anything and everything He wanted to. And everything he wanted to, He did. And what he did not do is, ordain women. He didn’t ordain them then. We don’t ordain them now. Or ever. But the Episcopal Church ordains women. That’s a slap in Jesus’ face. By what nerve do they assume that they have the authority to do such a thing? By the authority of their own imagination that they think because they dress like Catholic priests they have the same authority. While the Catholic church may ordain a gay person into the priesthood, he must make a vow of chastity and never indulge in that lifestyle ever again. Whereas not only do Episcopals ordain openly gay men and lesbian women, they are encouraged by the congregation by majority vote to continue that lifestyle. Since when is homosexual practice open for debate with God? Episcopals are supposed to be Bible believing christians. So they claim. Please cite the chapter and verse where God says “Not only is it okay to be gay, but please put it out on shameless display”. Out of all the Protestant denominations out there, I feel truly sorry for the member’s of the Episcopal denomination because it’s so catholic like in it’s appearance many people think they are in the right place. Like I said at the beginning of this post, BEWARE OF RAVENOUS WOLVES IN SHEEP’S CLOTHING…
C
CMatt25
Guest
There are tons of things in the Bible neither Catholics nor other Christians follow literally nowadays. Women refrain from speaking in your church? Nope. A custom of Biblical times but not now. And we have no idea where God might lead a future Pope about women. I don’t know. He could decide to allow women to be ordained to aleviate a shortage or something? Who knows. So how can we really say not now or ever? The Church has changed over time.
D
Daedelus76
Guest
I know plenty of mainstream Episcopalians and honestly some of them are more devout than your average Roman Catholic. I think there’s a bad tendency to portray them all as liberal modernists who don’t believe anything. The reality is far more nuanced. How they feel about recent events? Confused, in pain… it’s a sore issue for them. Anglicanism is congregational, so they tend to stay loyal to their local church. Episcopalians have the virtue of traditionally being level headed, they aren’t going to just run off because their church has issues, and most would scoff at the idea that Roman Catholics have a corner on sacramental validity.
Episcopalian/Anglican worship is very similar to Roman Catholic liturgy. Many have similar beliefs and practices. Even low-church Anglicans are closer to Roman Catholicism than many other Protestants (like Baptists or Presbyterians). Still, the theology and piety has an undeniable Protestant background ( beliefs about “Purgatory” or even Hell are more ambiguous, like the East, or nonexistent, more emphasis on simplified Protestant salvation and no concept of indulgences or formal penances, a more Wesleyan/Reformed Christocentric tone and de-emphasis on saints or the Blessed Virgin Mary)
High church episcopalianism/Anglicanism is what I most identify with, with some of the catholic stuff without getting lost in Scholastic theology or overly magical ideas about what sacraments do.
D
Daedelus76
Guest
G
gamewell45
Guest
…and proud of it!
S
Supercatholic
Guest
It’s obvious you and many others take the verse “Women should refrain from speaking in church” to either promote a chauvinistic agenda or to make the Catholic church out to be a source of contradictions. Neither premise is correct. If you read the passage properly it states women should ask their husbands at home what they desire to know. It is obvious from that text women were asking questions which disturbed the worship service. Remember this Bible passage is a letter from Paul. So more than likely it was a response to how the women were behaving. This instruction given by Paul was by no means to forbid women from becoming readers, cantors, or eventually instructors in church. Sensibly, how can women say the Lord’s Prayer or other responses required if they are to keep silent? As for women priests, I’ll tell you why that will never happen. The Catholic Church is the bride of Christ and Christ is the bridegroom. Bride (female) Bridegroom (Male). Same sex marriage? Not allowed at all by God for ANY reason no matter how sickly emotional or sympathetic one might feel. Ordaining women would be the same thing as a same sex marriage. Christ specifically appointed male apostles to be stewards of His church. Get over it, and yourself. The Catholic Church has changed in terms of growth, disciplines, and traditions that were proper at the time, but she has never ever changed or ever will change any doctrine that she has established as infallible. If you’re in the Episcopal denomination because they do what you approve of, then fine. But it’s not what Jesus approves of. I have great joy in worshipping Jesus the way he wants me to, in His true church that He established, not a cheap paper imitation.
S
Supercatholic
Guest
Really? Tell me why. Tell us all. Why are Episcopalians proud to belong to the denomination established by Samuel Seabury in 1789? 1789 is not 33 AD and Sam Seabury is not Christ Jesus. I guess Mr Seabury must have been wiser than Jesus.…and proud of it!
C
CMatt25
Guest
Ok so even if your interpretaion is correct, still then in Biblical times it was the custom husbands knew more than their wives. Not necessarily
now.Same perhaps with gays. Without getting into Episcopal interpretations of verses, if science and reason determines homosexuals do not suddenly wake up some morning and say… “Hey, choosing to be homosexual today!”… any more than heterosexuals choose orientation, then so goes the customs of Biblical times.
Actually I’m not in the Episcopal denomination. But might be driven there yet. I’m beginning to find them more welcoming of all God’s children.
It’s fine too though for you to follow your interpretation of His true church.
G
GKC
Guest
No, no. Sam was the first bishop consecrated for the Episcopal Church, after it was separated from the Church of England following the Revolutionary War. He was chosen by it, to become the first bishop; couldn’t keep running off to the Bishop of London, after all. He didn’t establish it. Land sakes.
GKC
Anglicanus-Catholicus
L
Lutheranteach
Guest
And good friends to the ELCA.…and proud of it!
G
gamewell45
Guest
Hey Supe!
I can’t speak for all Episcopalians, but only for myself.
Your post appears to me to be very sarcastic and as such I fear no matter nicely I express myself to you will be met with negativity and as such there’s no need to discuss it with you.
G
gamewell45
Guest
I concur !
C
CMatt25
Guest
Nice to see at least the Piskies and the Lutherans getting along on a Catholic board. 
- Status