Episcopalian/ Anglican services

[7_Sorrows]

Thank you for the welcome! We go to the Anglican Use mass in Kansas City, it is rather new. My husband attends with us and he likes it alright. I think he prefers the freedom of considering himself Anglican, rather than being Catholic? He was raised only nominally Catholic, so he never had a strong foundation there. But he is in agreement with me on one thing about it, that the Anglican movement is not a success. You have splinter group after splinter group and most have animosity towards the others. It is a mess.

i grew up in kansas and was baptized and confirmed in the episcopal church. i stopped attending the episcopal church in 1970 and returned briefly in 1980. by then, the new prayer book was in use and the church just seemed irrelevant to me. i was not aware of any changes going on, so i stopped again. 28 years later, i tried going back to the episcopal church when the controversies were beginning. i realized how much i had missed out on and the episcopal church as i knew it in the 1960’s, did not exist. as a teenager, maybe i just didn’t pick up on things. i guess even back then i felt something was missing. anyhow, part of our episcopal church broke off and formed an anglican church and we had people come from other new anglican churches that had just joined under an archbishop in uganda and it just seemed like we were all going in circles. there are so many different anglican groups in north america that it is just worse than it was before and to me, as long as they are still in communion with the archbishop of canterbury, they aren’t too different than the episcopalians. i stayed in the new anglican church that had been formed for a few months, but i just felt like it was time to make the jump to roman catholicism. at least i feel like i have a home right now.
i know the orthodox think they are the first and true church and the roman catholic believe they are and it gets so confusing. i don’t like hearing about orders being null and void
or that altars in the episcopal churches are not as sacred as those in the catholic churches. western christianity is very divided and so is eastern christianity. we used to be ONE church. now it just seems all a mess, not just the anglican part.

 

[jay29]

So why is it “THEOLOGICALLY CORRECT” to have a Black man, or any non-Semite? Be consistent, now.

1.) The Old Covenant became obsolete with God fulfilling His promise to send a Messiah, Jesus Christ. Judaism is an obsolete religion.

2.) The Apostles, in the Acts, decided Gentiles do not have to become Jews FIRST to become Christians. They become Christian by BAPTISM and circumcision is not necessary any longer.

3.) Those Apostles at the Last Supper were baptized males AND THEREFORE CHRISTIANS and Bishops/priests.

4.) The Apostles CONSECRATED bishops, priests, and deacons, “everywhere they went” Those consecrated were not all Jews. They also evangelized Africa.

5.) St. Paul was the Apostle to the Gentiles. Many became priests through him.

---

The actions of the Apostles prove that your logic is faulty THEOLOGICALLY.

A woman cannot stand in place of Christ behind the altar. There wasn’t a woman at the Last Supper instituting the Eucharist nor hanging on the cross.
A woman cannot be married to a bride, the Church.

 

[LDNCatholic]

Great post, LDN, but I can predict what the liberals will reply: all women and men are called actors now, stewardesses are now flight attendants, men and women are now called waitors. You haven’t kept up your liberal P.C. thought-police terminology, man. Come on! The lefty fringe Christians want to pretend men and women are identical and any attempt to even imply that not all sexes are cut out for the same roles within the church is an abomination to them. They think there’s an abundance of women in leadership roles in the NT when there’s scarcely any. La la land…

Oh I knew I’d forgot something. So I take it all children are boys now? And all people are men? Can’t go around separating the genders now can we?

Simply trying to widen the title to fit both genders does not mean that the vocation itself will widen to accomodate them.

 

[Augie1530]

Would some one please define what the dutch touch means to use a phrase and not give its meaning is a bit rude

 

[Peter_J]

Would some one please define what the dutch touch means

I found this at liturgicalnotes.blogspot.com/2008/12/apostolicae-curae.html …

What has to be pointed out is that Apostolicae curae no longer applies. Some sixteen years ago I coined the phrase ‘the Dutch Touch’ to describe the participation after 1933 of Dutch schismatics with indubitably valid orders in Anglican episcopal consecrations (the technical details are in my paper in the volume Reuniting Anglicans with Rome). The secret archives in Pusey House, Oxford, make absolutely clear that the intention of the very highest levels in the Church of England and the Dutch Old Catholic Church was to introduce the ‘Dutch Succession’ into the Church of England and so, after two or three generations, render Apostolicae curae obsolete. Remember that in 1662 the C of E had made the formulae in presbyteral and episcopal ordination (which Leo had asserted were insufficiently clear), more explicit. Although the plotting of 1933 was done in private (so that nobody could say ‘Ah, the Anglicans do realise they are not real priests’), it clearly represents a formal and ecclesial act.

 

[jay29]

Would some one please define what the dutch touch means to use a phrase and not give its meaning is a bit rude

The “Dutch Touch” is irrelevant to female “ordinations.” It is not possible to confer Holy Orders to a female. Female “ordinations” are one of the root causes of why the Anglican/Episcopal Churches are falling apart.

 

[GKC]

Would some one please define what the dutch touch means to use a phrase and not give its meaning is a bit rude

The link Peter J gives touches on the issue, It refers to the joint episcopal consecrations that took place (starting in 1932, rather than 1933, as the article linked says), between the Anglican Communion, and the Old Catholic Church of Utrecht. For reasons a little complicated to go into, the Old Catholics possess, in the eyes of the RCC, valid orders. After a meeting between the Anglican Communion and the Old Catholics ( which arose out of the 1930 Lambeth Conference), the Agreement of Bonn was signed, in 1932, establishing communion between Anglicans and the OCs. This was followed later by a similar agreement, in 1946, with the Polish National Catholic Church, which also possesses valid orders, in Rome’s eyes.

Given the fact that the Old Catholics of Utrecht are Dutch-based, the term “Dutch Touch” was coined to refer to the imposition of hands of OC bishops, during joint consecrations of Episcopal bishops. This, in accordance with the Augustinian theory of the transmission of holy orders, would imply that the valid episcopal lines possessed by the Old Catholics has been infused, numerous times, into Anglicanism. And thus transmitted and spread throughout Anglicanism as these Anglican bishops consecrate and ordain, themselves.

The logic would suggest that this would overcome the conclusion stated in Apostolicae Curae, that Anglicanism had lost apostolic succession, by showing it reintroduced into Anglicanism, by the touch (the imposition of episcopal hands) of the Old Catholic bishops (who were Dutch). Hence, Dutch Touch.

While it is logical that this would reestablish Apostolic succession (assuming it had been lost in Anglicanism), consideration would also have to be give to the form of the rite used (which should not be a problem), and to the intent (which can be demonstrated). And, as has been mentioned, valid matter would also be required.

What ever the logical position the Dutch Touch suggests, the RCC has not made any statement on it, and Apostolicae Curae is the rule all RCs should affirm.

More on the Dutch Touch can be found in C. B. Moss’ THE OLD CATHOLIC MOVEMENT: ITS ORIGINS AND HISTORY and J. J. Hughes STEWARDS OF THE LORD, where the list of joint consecrations including Old Catholic and Polish National Catholic Church bishops, between 1932 and 1961 may be found.

GKC

 

[rr1213]

It is true that the Catholic Church has not really addressed how the “dutch touch” may or may not have affected Anglican ordinations. Yet, there is at least a hint of hope (I believe) in that the ordination of Leoanard was conditional based on instructions from the Vatican. So, it might be said that there is a recognition of a possibility. If Rome ever moves on TAC’s proposal, we might find out more on this issue.

 

[GKC]

It is true that the Catholic Church has not really addressed how the “dutch touch” may or may not have affected Anglican ordinations. Yet, there is at least a hint of hope (I believe) in that the ordination of Leoanard was conditional based on instructions from the Vatican. So, it might be said that there is a recognition of a possibility. If Rome ever moves on TAC’s proposal, we might find out more on this issue.

I have heard that was the case, unofficially, with respect to Fr. Leonard…

GKC

 

[Daedelus76]

I’ve been going to a Continuing Anglican church for months on and off. I’ve also gone to an Episcopal church a few times, and I’m a baptized Christian and I do receive the Eucharist at the Anglican church (and I do accept a “Real Presence” in a mystical or spiritual sense, but not necessarily Roman Catholic). Both are Anglo-Catholic, though the Episcopal is actually a bit moreso, with a sort of “Novus Ordo” style mass (but a female curate)- it wasn’t as liberal as I expected, in fact it is fairly “orthodox” compared to mainline churches where I have heard some very ugly sermons in my time that are cringeworthy (no wonder I became irreligious). However, an Anglican priest friend online informed me that the leadership of the Episcopalians are engaging in pressure/coercion to compromise and force out the orthodox Episcopalians.

I have an Orthodox friend online and I actually think Orthodoxy influenced me more when I was trying to get back into being a Christian from years of irreligion. So much of the way he explained Christianity sounded very different from things I’d heard before. Even though we aren’t co-communicants in terms of the Eucharist, he does consider me a Christian and he’s liberal on that point (there are Orthodox who would say all in the West are heretics, but he’s not like that).

So, I’m not sure Anglicanism is where I will stay in the end… maybe I will become Orthodox in the end, or even Roman Catholic. I am definitely more attracted to liturgical Christianity where they try to have more orthodox practices. I have a crucifix on the wall, a picture of Jesus and a madonna and child (that’s sort of Orthodox-looking like an icon), so I’d say I’m not Protestant in my spirituality.

I have actually thought about a monastic life or something like that, I’m single and not doing anything else important, but at age 33 time is running out on that. I’ve talked to a few traditional Anglicans online who feel alot of the monastic movement in the US is compromised by the apostasy/schism, so that has me perhaps thinking about conversion to Roman Catholicism or Orthodoxy. Or maybe I will just become a missionary. I’m not happy with secular life, though- what am I suppossed to do now?

 

[GKC]

I’ve been going to a Continuing Anglican church for months on and off. I’ve also gone to an Episcopal church a few times, and I’m a baptized Christian and I do receive the Eucharist at the Anglican church (and I do accept a “Real Presence” in a mystical or spiritual sense, but not necessarily Roman Catholic). Both are Anglo-Catholic, though the Episcopal is actually a bit moreso, with a sort of “Novus Ordo” style mass (but a female curate)- it wasn’t as liberal as I expected, in fact it is fairly “orthodox” compared to mainline churches where I have heard some very ugly sermons in my time that are cringeworthy (no wonder I became irreligious). However, an Anglican priest friend online informed me that the leadership of the Episcopalians are engaging in pressure/coercion to compromise and force out the orthodox Episcopalians.

I have an Orthodox friend online and I actually think Orthodoxy influenced me more when I was trying to get back into being a Christian from years of irreligion. So much of the way he explained Christianity sounded very different from things I’d heard before. Even though we aren’t co-communicants in terms of the Eucharist, he does consider me a Christian and he’s liberal on that point (there are Orthodox who would say all in the West are heretics, but he’s not like that).

So, I’m not sure Anglicanism is where I will stay in the end… maybe I will become Orthodox in the end, or even Roman Catholic. I am definitely more attracted to liturgical Christianity where they try to have more orthodox practices. I have a crucifix on the wall, a picture of Jesus and a madonna and child (that’s sort of Orthodox-looking like an icon), so I’d say I’m not Protestant in my spirituality.

I have actually thought about a monastic life or something like that, I’m single and not doing anything else important, but at age 33 time is running out on that. I’ve talked to a few traditional Anglicans online who feel alot of the monastic movement in the US is compromised by the apostasy/schism, so that has me perhaps thinking about conversion to Roman Catholicism or Orthodoxy. Or maybe I will just become a missionary. I’m not happy with secular life, though- what am I suppossed to do now?

Pray. And keep looking.

GKC

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

A woman cannot stand in place of Christ behind the altar. There wasn’t a woman at the Last Supper instituting the Eucharist nor hanging on the cross.
A woman cannot be married to a bride, the Church.

I’ve written on this on other threads, so won’t get into it here in too much detail, but I do wonder where St. Paul’s mention that in Christ there is no slave or free, male or female fits into all of this for you. For me, it seems to at least indicate that a specific set of genitalia does not determine who is or who is not in Christ, and that what it means to act in persona Christi (which, as Christians, is our calling anyway) has nothing to do with gender.

Regarding your statement that a woman didn’t institute the Eucharist or suffer on the cross, I must say that neither did the male priest at the altar offering the Mass at my church. Are you saying that because he has a certain set of genitalia that he’s therefore that much closer to God? Are you saying that it is ultimately by virtue of the priest’s genitals that he is able to confect the Eucharist?

Regarding your statement that a woman cannot be married to a bride, one might as well say that a man cannot have a personal relationship with Christ. If men and women are all called to be the Church and the Church is the Bride of Christ, then are not men called to be wed to Christ?

What I’m getting at is that you are mistaking a sign for a reality. That is–gender is a sign. It is, moreover, a multivalent sign. To God, are not all souls feminine, even the souls of men? Are not men and women both called to be Theotokoi? As Meister Eckhart once wrote, and I paraphrase, what good is it if the angel comes to Mary to say ,“you shall conceive the Son of God,” if he does not also come to me to say the same thing? And the truth of the matter is that the angel comes to all of us bearing the same message and waits for us to say, “let it be done unto me according to thy word.” It is a fundamental mystical reality that we must all first be Mary in order to be Christ.

Or to return to the Marriage Supper of the Lamb–is it not our marriage to the Lamb that is being celebrated? The Incarnation of Christ is itself proof that being a spectator at the marriage is not an option–the marriage of Heaven and Earth that Christ accomplished in himself shows us that we are all called to be wed to him, men and women alike. How absurd to insist or infer that gender is an obstruction to this marriage which is, in fact, the consummation of all creation!

The question I would like answered in all of this, with regard to women’s ordination, is–what is it specifically about being a woman that is improper? What is it, theologically, about a woman’s being which makes her improper? What is it, in a man, which makes him proper? What does a woman lack? Is it possible to limit a woman’s improper-ness to an incapability to exercise the priesthood when it is to the priesthood of all believers to which we are called? In what other ways are women, therefore, improper?

If the issue is one of the impossibility of a woman acting in persona Christi, what does this say about the possibility of a woman bearing in herself the image of God? Is it possible that a woman can bear God’s image, but not Christ’s?

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is grace and mercy! Deo gratias!

 

[cothrige]

I’ve written on this on other threads, so won’t get into it here in too much detail, but I do wonder where St. Paul’s mention that in Christ there is no slave or free, male or female fits into all of this for you. For me, it seems to at least indicate that a specific set of genitalia does not determine who is or who is not in Christ, and that what it means to act in persona Christi (which, as Christians, is our calling anyway) has nothing to do with gender.

But, didn’t Paul also say that women should be silent in Church? How should that reflect in our understanding of what you have referenced above?

If the issue is one of the impossibility of a woman acting in persona Christi, what does this say about the possibility of a woman bearing in herself the image of God? Is it possible that a woman can bear God’s image, but not Christ’s?

I have been following this thread and I find it interesting. I have been intrigued by the positions and arguments posited by the Catholic side of the argument, and then equally in turn by the responses. Some have said that the priest acts “in persona christi” and so must be male. There is certainly merit in that position, but as you have shown above there is certainly a good argument in response. Some have said that Christ chose only males, and that is also sensible. But, as some others have shown, that too has lacunae which can be used to advantage. The real position, as I see it, is nothing but tradition. The Church, acting in the Apostles, selected only males. That continued unbroken for two millenia. Blacks, whites, browns, reds, yellows and every other color under the sun have all been raised up to the priesthood, in the East and the West, but they were all men. The only reason I have for supporting the male only priesthood is that Holy Mother Church does. Pope John Paul II made it abundantly clear that the Church has no authority to ordain a woman, and that seals it for me. If it had been the will of the Church and the Holy Spirit to reveal that women were called to the priesthood I would have gladly embraced it. But, it didn’t happen, and so we are comfortable in the truth of that.

Some Churches will argue one way or the other about it, and rely on reason and logic as they know it to decide. But, attitudes come and go, and the politics cannot be kept out, and as such the answer never satisifies any but the most worldly. Our faith is revealed and that means that the answer ultimately must lie in revelation. And that doesn’t support women priests, even though common sense, reason, logic, equal rights or any other of a number of human concepts may and often do. In the end, for me, it is as St. Augustine said “As for myself I would not believe in the Gospel, had not the authority of the Catholic Church already moved me.”

 

[Daedelus76]

I’m not in favor of women’s ordination. Mostly beacuse I think this is based on a humanistic, rationalistic, willfull attitude that doesn’t have alot of place in the Christian religion. I don’t see any good evidence to override tradition. The priest is a different role than a Protestant (or non-Anglican) “pastor”. The priest isn’t suppossed to be about personality or ego, he represents Christ as the servant, not as a leader… Even my Methodist grandmother got it right, you don’t go to church for the preacher.
At the same time, this isn't completely the same as sayig that a woman's place is to be barefoot in the kitchen or that women can't be involved in religious life at all (or even instruct men), but I don't see how women are being cheated from being kept out of the priesthood. However, I consider this a lesser matter compared to the graver matter of ordaining a practicing homosexual bishop. Perhaps they aren't totally unrelated, though. It seems every denomination that goes this route eventually embraces humanistic thinking.

 

[masuwerte]

1.) The Old Covenant became obsolete with God fulfilling His promise to send a Messiah, Jesus Christ. Judaism is an obsolete religion.

2.) The Apostles, in the Acts, decided Gentiles do not have to become Jews FIRST to become Christians. They become Christian by BAPTISM and circumcision is not necessary any longer.

3.) Those Apostles at the Last Supper were baptized males AND THEREFORE CHRISTIANS and Bishops/priests.

4.) The Apostles CONSECRATED bishops, priests, and deacons, “everywhere they went” Those consecrated were not all Jews. They also evangelized Africa.

5.) St. Paul was the Apostle to the Gentiles. Many became priests through him.

---

The actions of the Apostles prove that your logic is faulty THEOLOGICALLY.

A woman cannot stand in place of Christ behind the altar. There wasn’t a woman at the Last Supper instituting the Eucharist nor hanging on the cross.
A woman cannot be married to a bride, the Church.

Thank you for your reply. I don’t necessarily agree with you, but at least you provided some reasoning.

 

[adrift]

There is no such thing as a female priest. The notion is simply a mockery of the true priesthood founded by Christ himself.

Wordnetwet
Noun

* S: (n) priestess (a woman priest)

Main Entry:
priest·ess Listen to the pronunciation of priestess
Pronunciation:
\ˈprēs-təs\
Function:
noun
Date:
1654

1 : a woman authorized to perform the sacred rites of a religion 2 : a woman regarded as a leader (as of a movement)
It is curious to me that those who promote women ordination object to the accurate word priestess. There is something in their conscience that acknowledges that this is wrong otherwise they wouldn’t object. It is like saying “no no there are no postmistresses only female postmasters”

 

[SpiritMeadow]

There is no such thing as a female priest. The notion is simply a mockery of the true priesthood founded by Christ himself. A female wearing a collar is chilling, but one wearing a miter is horrendous:

Your opinion is noted. I don’t agree with it, and shockingly millions of others don’t either.

Prove it. Show me the biblical and Traditional proof of a “female priesthood” Also show me where Christ approved of homosexual acts, gay marriage, and abortion while you are at it.

Paul referred to a female deacon and a apostle Junia which is a woman and was considered a woman by your church for 1000 years before it was changed to be a man. Problem is there is no such male name in the history with that name. There are cave paintings where Paul and a female are both painted, each giving the sign of teacher. Paul speaks of women prophesying as men do. The rest of your remarks have zero to do with his conversation.

I stand firm that there is no such thing as a female priesthood.

You can. It changes nothing of course. You can stop your ears, close your eyes and roll on the floor. There are still hundreds of women priests happily going about their business of preaching and confecting the bread and wine.

Christ gave that Authority to His APOSTLES, the first Bishops of the Catholic Church, who were all males. They, in lock step with Christ, ordained males. Women have zero consecration power given by Christ and His Apostles. Only baptized males do.

Yes we are aware what your church teaches. That does not of course make it necessarily true. We don’t think it is.

Because many Catholics like me can’t understand why people call themselves Christians and yet go against the Gospel and Apostolic Teaching because of modern day nonsense.

Well, so now you take it upon yourself to declare anyone who disagrees with you not a Christian. I would like to hear you explain that one to the Lord.

 

[adrift]

The deaconess (usually trotted out to prove women ordination) mentioned by Paul was not ordained to the priesthood. Nowhere is there evidence of ordination. They were helpers to women who were being baptized. No where is their evidence that they served any other role. The scripture about Junia is rendered

who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.

NOT that she was an apostle but that she was known to the apostles. It does not matter what her sex was. She was not being called an apostle. Women did not serve as priestesses and there is no legitimate source that says they did.

 

[Contarini]

The deaconess (usually trotted out to prove women ordination) mentioned by Paul was not ordained to the priesthood.

No one thinks that deacons of either sex are (by virtue of their diaconate) ordained to the priesthood.

Nowhere is there evidence of ordination.

There’s no evidence of an ordination rite for many of the male presbyters and deacons mentioned in the NT, but somehow that doesn’t stop Catholics from believing that they were ordained nonetheless.

They were helpers to women who were being baptized. No where is their evidence that they served any other role.

I think you have to torture Paul’s words about Phoebe to make them bear this sense. There’s no evidence that this was even a role she played, let alone her only one. I think you’re wrong that later female deacons played no other role, but I don’t have evidence offhand.

At any rate, even if this was their only role, that doesn’t prove that they were not ordained in the same sense that male deacons were.

The scripture about Junia is rendered NOT that she was an apostle but that she was known to the apostles.

That’s a matter of debate concerning the fine points of Greek grammar. You mistakenly present it as something that has been settled. I think that your position is actually in the minority these days, though of course that might well be for ideological reasons.

It does not matter what her sex was. She was not being called an apostle. Women did not serve as priestesses and there is no legitimate source that says they did.

I am also inclined to think that there is no evidence for female presbyters in the early Catholic Church. But I have not examined every piece of alleged evidence in detail.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

It is curious to me that those who promote women ordination object to the accurate word priestess. There is something in their conscience that acknowledges that this is wrong otherwise they wouldn’t object. It is like saying “no no there are no postmistresses only female postmasters”

As SpiritMeadow has pointed out before, the trend in our culture is away from such female endings, which to contemporary ears sound diminutive and demeaning. Of course this trend has an ideological basis, as does your resistance to it. But as a matter of fact your analogy carries no weight, since the trend extends way beyond the word “priest.”

In all courtesy, you ought either to call female priests what they wish to be called or find some neutral term. Of course, you may have ideological reasons for casting courtesy to the winds. I can respect that. I sometimes call members of your Communion “Roman Catholics” even when it offends them, because in certain contexts I deem it to be necessary in order to express what I am trying to say. And I routinely call radical greatgrandchildren of the Reformation (and fellow Anglicans, for that matter) “Protestants” even though they object strenuously to the label.

Edwin