Ex-Anglican communities to become Catholic, Rome confirms

[colliric]

Except Anglican orders are invalid. Null and void according to the Church via the pronouncment of Pope Leo XIII.

papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13curae.htm

SFD

Which brings me to the obvious next question…

If this is so, does that mean that the Anglican church does infact not have Apostolic Sucession like they claim?

If Anglican orders are Null and Void, this should naturally clearly be the case, right?

 

[anon52328184]

i just joined the RCC from the episcopal church/anglican and i was told that they do not have apostolic succession, although i grew up believing that we did.

 

[SFD]

Which brings me to the obvious next question…

If this is so, does that mean that the Anglican church does infact not have Apostolic Sucession like they claim?

If Anglican orders are Null and Void, this should naturally clearly be the case, right?

No, they do not. It should be clear after reading Pope Leo XIII. Rome has spoken.

 

[RedSoxFan]

I’d blame cardinal woosley for that. Or Henry the 8th. I actually had a co-worker who was raised anglican and considered himself catholic. I was shocked. I just never knew that’s how them considered themselves.

I’m kinda wondering on the whole apostolic succession. I guess you can have it if you are in schism with the church like the orthodox, but not if you totally rebel like the lutherans and anglicans.

 

[anon52328184]

i guess growing up i sort of felt catholic too, just without the Pope and Church. now that i am in RCC i see that there was not the Real Presence in the Eucharist and you cannot compare the Archbishop of Canterbury with the Pope.

so i was not very well educated in what it really meant to be an episcopalian while growing up. no one taught me about protestants or catholics. i had to be in my 50’s to find out for myself.

the orthodox still have the tie with the Roman Catholic church with the early church fathers.

the later churches removed themselves with the early church fathers and john calvin, john wesley, martin luther are their church fathers.

 

[colliric]

I’d blame cardinal woosley for that. Or Henry the 8th. I actually had a co-worker who was raised anglican and considered himself catholic. I was shocked. I just never knew that’s how them considered themselves.

I’m kinda wondering on the whole apostolic succession. I guess you can have it if you are in schism with the church like the orthodox, but not if you totally rebel like the lutherans and anglicans.

Woosley, as is correctly insinuated by the superb play and film “A Man For All Seasons”, could not act and seemed to be stuck between two warring parties. He was perhaps just the wrong person in the wrong place at the wrong time. He really possibly cannot be held responsible because the circumstances were not of his control. Essentially he really had no power when placed in that situation, If he had of opposed the King he would have ended up dead, at the same time he was Catholic and in order to serve God best he could not give the king the decision the king wanted. He was stuck in a sticky situation.

His final line in the play/film seems to well sum that up, He laments not being Catholic enough to have turned the pressure around on the King, in his jail Cell he says something along the lines of “If I had of followed God and not King, I would not have been left to die in this horrid place.”

Actually while Henry the 8th is to be blaimed for the eventual cutting of ties(as yes the rot had set in because of his actions) he seems to take the focus off the real person who perminantly severed ties with Rome. Elizabeth the first is to me more responsible, she was the one who forced through the specific act that perminantly severed the ties with Rome. It was not entirly Henry himself and the Church in England was very much still saveable when Queen Mary took the throne.

I do not agree with the well done but not quite accurate portrayal of elizabeth as a “heroine” in the Cate Blanchett starring 1998 movie. It’s not that great history and blurrs it. At the time of her coronation England was NOT openly Anti-catholic(Until her Reign), and Queen Mary’s reign was NOT negatively accepted at the time by the majority of the English like the film seems to imply.

Mary had in fact sucessfully turned public opinion around and had reunited the Church in England to the Papacy(something the film glosses over in order to cater to the incorrect anti-catholic view of Queen Mary’s reign), but had not provided for the future(by having an heir) and had not compleatly quashed the effects of the reformation in england partly because of the way she had in fact swiftly turned around public opinion, especially toward the tail end of her reign when it was clear the next Monarch would not be Catholic.

I do not agree with her open(but at the time not entirly denounced by the public opinion until well after her Reign) persecution of Protestants(The sad flaw of her plan to return to Rome), but most certainly agreed with her intense Catholic faith and her zeal for reuniting the church with Rome.

One thing I did agree with in the Film was Geffory Rush’s portrayal and what I believe was the correct insinuation that his character(and by association Elizabeth herself) was so ruthless as to have rigged the vote of the Bishops of the then re-communicated Catholic Church in England.

 

[Chellow]

Here goes an interesting article on the whole issue.
insidecatholic.com

 

[SFD]

I’d blame cardinal woosley for that. Or Henry the 8th. I actually had a co-worker who was raised anglican and considered himself catholic. I was shocked. I just never knew that’s how them considered themselves.

I’m kinda wondering on the whole apostolic succession. I guess you can have it if you are in schism with the church like the orthodox, but not if you totally rebel like the lutherans and anglicans.

The orthodox have valid orders but they are not sent by the Church and hence they are not sucessors to the apostles (they have no jurisdiction to rule). Since Vatican Council I, they are heretics as well.

“For it has been clearly and expressly laid down in the canons that it pertains to the one Apostolic See to judge whether a person is fit for the dignity and burden of the episcopacy, and that complete freedom in the nomination of bishops is the right of the Roman Pontiff. But if, as happens at times, some other persons or groups are permitted to participate in the selection of an episcopal candidate, this is lawful only if the Apostolic See has allowed it in express terms and in each particular case for clearly defined persons or groups, the conditions and circumstances being very plainly determined.

Granted this exception, it follows that bishops who have been neither named nor confirmed by the Apostolic See, but who, on the contrary, have been elected and consecrated in defiance of its express orders, enjoy no powers of teaching or of jurisdiction since jurisdiction passes to bishops only through the Roman Pontiff as We admonished in the Encyclical Letter Mystici Corporis…” (Pius XII, Ad Apostolorum principis, 29 June 1958)

SFD

 

[robert_Ian_Will]

And the so called Traditional anglican Communion has five bishops who are divorced and re-married men and their presiding bishop who is a former Catholic priest and re-married divorcee!
Furthermore the core white membership is probablly less than 2,000.

 

[Cobbfmly]

And the so called Traditional anglican Communion has five bishops who are divorced and re-married men and their presiding bishop who is a former Catholic priest and re-married divorcee!

The whole issue of integrating the TAC clergy into the Catholic Church will be a challenge for the Vatican. Married bishops, regardless of divorce and remarriage (bishops can not be married in any rite in the Catholic Church) and divorced and remarried priests make this challenge even more complex. The best thing we can do is pray that the Holy Spirit guides the Church in matter.

Furthermore the core white membership is probablly less than 2,000.

What difference does this make? The Catholic Church is universal! Whites make up only a small fraction of all Catholics.

 

[rien]

The whole TAQC thing was overblown IMO. The very nature of many of their beleifs - divorce, marrie bishops, no position on contraception. This was never going to happen.

Plus the Lambethe nded surprisingly positive. EWTN had commentaries from Rowan and catholic pariticpants saying the prime goam is to keep the communion in tact and that may have happened at the conference. Though there is a long way to go.

The African Anglicans did not attand but they are evangelical/Protestant in spirit and many quite anti-Catholic on Biblical grounds. They were never going to come into the Catholic church from the getgo.

In the end all rumors and hopes for a mass Anglican exodus were smoke and mirrors IMO.

 

[piperspop]

Rien

There is a big difference between the TAC and the Anglican Communion.

Second, if you want Biblical, St Peter was married and a bishop.

Third, the TAC initiative is very much alive according to Cardinal Levada.

 

[robert_Ian_Will]

But Archbishop "Hepworth is an ex Ctholic priest, divorced and re-married…as are five other TAC bishops…!

 

[piperspop]

The TAC bishops have offered to step down, if necessary. But being put under Roman Bishops is not high on the list that the TAC laity is looking for.

 

[rjs1]

But Archbishop "Hepworth is an ex Ctholic priest, divorced and re-married…as are five other TAC bishops…!

I am very disturbed by these facts.
Have you any proof that 5 of the TAC bishops are divorced and remarried?
If this is the case then my support for the TAC has gone.

I can only hope that genuinely Catholic minded laity and clergy in the TAC will approach Rome separately from the bishops of the TAC.