Genuflecting in Anglican Churches - Anglican Eucharist

[GKC]

Only if you are trying to hash out a a way to exist as a type of anglo-Catholic in the old PECUSA. I am not. That is your battle not mine. Good luck with it, but I have enough on my plate.

And neither am I. I appreciate your wishes, but I’m not in that game.

GKC

 

[catsrus]

ASimpleSinner, thanks for that explaination. Very interesting.
HOWEVER, one, or a denomination, can NOT be more or less Catholic.
If they wish to BE Catholic, then let them swim the Tiber.
If not, the fact remains, whether they like it or not and whether they use Catholic books, devotions or terminology, they are still protestant by definition.
Anyone who calls themselves an anglo-catholic is still a protestant. “A rose by any other name”…

 

[MusicMan]

Also provided proper form, intent and matter were appropriately present. at the episcopla consecrations and priestly ordinations…

I really hate to play the “are they/aren’t they?”/“isit/isn’t it?” game on matter of sacraments and priests…

I think that’s probably one of the reasons Rome unilaterally decreed their orders/Sacraments invalid years ago. Unfortunately, valid ordinations and lines of succession have snuck back in via different bishops through how they were ordained, and thus the legal-eagles are looking for validity based on potentially valid episcopal and priestly ordinations.

 

[MusicMan]

ASimpleSinner, thanks for that explaination. Very interesting.
HOWEVER, one, or a denomination, can NOT be more or less Catholic.
If they wish to BE Catholic, then let them swim the Tiber.
If not, the fact remains, whether they like it or not and whether they use Catholic books, devotions or terminology, they are still protestant by definition.
Anyone who calls themselves an anglo-catholic is still a protestant. “A rose by any other name”…

A great many Christian denominations will use the word “catholic” in the generic sense of “universal” in their beliefs about themselves. An anglo-catholic would believe themselves to be part of the universal Church of Christ, but just part of the anglo branch. In their thinking, being in Communion with the Pope is not necessary for membership in the universal Church, believing in Christ and that He is the head of the universal Church is sufficient.

Keep in mind that many Orthodox believe themselves to be Orthodox Catholic, because, although they are Orthodox, they are part of the universal Church of Christ.

If you review the Nicene Creed in almost every denomination that uses it, you will find the word “catholic” spelled without capitalization, thus meaning “universal,” not “(Roman) Catholic.” Even the Catholic Church does not currently capitalize the word “catholic” in the Creed.

 

[GKC]

A great many Christian denominations will use the word “catholic” in the generic sense of “universal” in their beliefs about themselves. An anglo-catholic would believe themselves to be part of the universal Church of Christ, but just part of the anglo branch. In their thinking, being in Communion with the Pope is not necessary for membership in the universal Church, believing in Christ and that He is the head of the universal Church is sufficient.

Keep in mind that many Orthodox believe themselves to be Orthodox Catholic, because, although they are Orthodox, they are part of the universal Church of Christ.

If you review the Nicene Creed in almost every denomination that uses it, you will find the word “catholic” spelled without capitalization, thus meaning “universal,” not “(Roman) Catholic.” Even the Catholic Church does not currently capitalize the word “catholic” in the Creed.

While those Anglicans, like myself, who use the 1928 American Book of Common Prayer, do capitalize it. As always.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus

 

[MusicMan]

I have a copy of the 1979 BCP. Rite I reads, “And I believe in one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.” Rite II reads, “We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.”

Go figure.

 

[ASimpleSinner]

I think that’s probably one of the reasons Rome unilaterally decreed their orders/Sacraments invalid years ago.

IF I can coin a phrase, there seems to be a “concurrent unilateralism” here… The EO generally have a negative view of the validity of the Anglican Orders with some nuance. Approaching the Holy Mysteries from a more Cyprianic (rather than Augustinian) view of validity, some speculate (and there is no official definiative teaching on this) that there is a potential for validity - based on (to be brief) faith and communion in addition to matters of "form & intent).

Unfortunately, valid ordinations and lines of succession have snuck back in via different bishops through how they were ordained, and thus the legal-eagles are looking for validity based on potentially valid episcopal and priestly ordinations.

More accurately, some would say, the POTENTIAL for valid lines is extent due to Old Catholic & Mar Thoma episcopal participation in post 1898 consecrations in TAC. HOWEVER, matters of “intent, form & matter” still are present. For example, what rites were used bears investigating.

I don’t know that it could be as simple as saying “valid bishops stepped in and cleared that issue up making the concearn moot.” Rome would still demand (likely) more than a bishop/priest/deacon be able to point to a Ultrajectine in one’s “Apostolic pedigree.”

 

[CCM08]

The so called “bishop” Shelby Spong doesn’t even believe God exists, as such I think it would be difficult to make any comments on the Anglican communion as a whole. As it is currently it is a highly fractured group, though it is becoming increasingly hostile towards traditional Christian beliefs.

 

[GKC]

IF I can coin a phrase, there seems to be a “concurrent unilateralism” here… The EO generally have a negative view of the validity of the Anglican Orders with some nuance. Approaching the Holy Mysteries from a more Cyprianic (rather than Augustinian) view of validity, some speculate (and there is no official definiative teaching on this) that there is a potential for validity - based on (to be brief) faith and communion in addition to matters of "form & intent).

More accurately, some would say, the POTENTIAL for valid lines is extent due to Old Catholic & Mar Thoma episcopal participation in post 1898 consecrations in TAC. HOWEVER, matters of “intent, form & matter” still are present. For example, what rites were used bears investigating.

I don’t know that it could be as simple as saying “valid bishops stepped in and cleared that issue up making the concearn moot.” Rome would still demand (likely) more than a bishop/priest/deacon be able to point to a Ultrajectine in one’s “Apostolic pedigree.”

As most Anglicans can do. My own rector, for example was ordained by a bishop who was consecrated by an Anglican bishop whose own consecration in 1962 included a PNCC bishop. The Dutch Touch is widespread in Anglicanism, and records are kept.

As I understand it, the Orthodox hold the same “potentially valid” views of Roman orders.

As to intent, form and matter in Anglican ordinations/consecrations, I agree. A comparision of the 16th century Pontificale Romanum, the Edwardine Rite as used currently by many traditionalist Anglicans (including the restoration of the porrection of the instruments), and the current Roman rite, as is found here

accipepotestatem.com/

Is …instructive. There’s a lot of reading there, but the subject matter is intriquing. The author is the most knowledgeable layman on the subject of the theological aspects of *Apostolicae Curae *that I have met.

GKC

 

[Traveller1534]

If anyone would visit an Anglican church, I would personally find if offensive if you didn’t at least show a simple token of respect for God and those of us that worship there.

 

[ASimpleSinner]

As I understand it, the Orthodox hold the same “potentially valid” views of Roman orders.

Touché!

You are right, among some parties in EO this has been a positition taken on Roman orders. (Most certainly Old Calendar elements are very vocal about this!)

The common praxis, however, this has simply not been the case. Hundreds - perhaps thousands - of Catholic priests have been recieved into Orthodoxy as priests. Fr. Alex Toth (now canonized in the OCA) and the Johnstown Greek Catholic Carpatho-Russian Orthodox come to mind.

In at least a few circumstances, Roman Ordination followed by a marriage has been an ipediment to service in the EOC as a priest. In other words, the former ordination was considered valid enough to render the candidate ineligable for priestly ministry…

I am aware of no such impediment for Anglican clergy - although such a cicrumstance would be considerably less likely… And I know of no clear example of any priest, bishop or deacon in TAC being recieved as such into Orthodoxy. If it should have occured at some point anywhere, it would be notable for how unique an occurence it was.

In practice, I believe the CC are not as Augustinian (exlclusively) and the OC are not as Cyprianic (exclusively) as we sometimes think them to be.

 

[GKC]

ASimpleSinner,

I thank you for the additional information, esp. re: married clergy. I don’t know of any such instance of Anglican clergy being received either. And your last paragraph is also what I have surmised.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicicus

 

[ASimpleSinner]

RE

accipepotestatem.com/

I don’t read anglo-Catholic citing Michael Davies just every day! How very interesting!

 

[GKC]

RE

I don’t read anglo-Catholic citing Michael Davies just every day! How very interesting!

Thanks. I read the late Mr. Davies, with profit, some years back.
But the site, and the articles, are those of a RC cyber-friend, of considerable erudition, and, IMO, correct logic. I supplied some small (name removed by moderator)ut to the data base.

And I acknowledge your grasp of the theological issies in Apostolicae Curae. For an Anglican, there are also the historical and personal considerations. But I find no fault with what I read in your posts.

Thanks again.

GKC

 

[GKC]

I have a copy of the 1979 BCP. Rite I reads, “And I believe in one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.” Rite II reads, “We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.”

Go figure.

You are touching on the essential difference between Rite l and Rite ll, there.

The 1928 book is perferable, for us traditionalists. The 79 book is sort of Anglican NO.

GKC

 

[ASimpleSinner]

Thanks. I read the late Mr. Davies, with profit, some years back.
But the site, and the articles, are those of a RC cyber-friend, of considerable erudition, and, IMO, correct logic. I supplied some small (name removed by moderator)ut to the data base.

And I acknowledge your grasp of the theological issies in Apostolicae Curae. For an Anglican, there are also the historical and personal considerations. But I find no fault with what I read in your posts.

Thanks again.

GKC

Actually I appreciate the opportunity to be frank about faith without being snide or polemic. Thank you as well.

One of my closer online friends is a fella in Serbia with a phenominal command of English. We instant message frequently and while we strong disagree, we are able to do so civally.

Some here could take note of this - IT is possible to disagree with points of contention regarding the CC without coming here to post inflamatory remarks with wild abandon.

Just my opinion.

SS

 

[GKC]

Actually I appreciate the opportunity to be frank about faith without being snide or polemic. Thank you as well.

One of my closer online friends is a fella in Serbia with a phenominal command of English. We instant message frequently and while we strong disagree, we are able to do so civally.

Some here could take note of this - IT is possible to disagree with points of contention regarding the CC without coming here to post inflamatory remarks with wild abandon.

Just my opinion.

SS

And mine. I never try to make an RC think like an Anglican. But sometimes I’ll try to show how an Anglican thinks.

Hope we speak again, sometime, if the occasion arises.

Pax, frater.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus

 

[ASimpleSinner]

And mine. I never try to make an RC think like an Anglican. But sometimes I’ll try to show how an Anglican thinks.

Hope we speak again, sometime, if the occasion arises.

Pax, frater.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus

GKC (and I appreciate the initials)

Shall we start a new thread? I am rather curious and inquisitive to learn more about your theological perspective and why, with the plethera of denominational/church options available to you, you have opted to plant your flag where you have.

Simple

 

[GKC]

GKC (and I appreciate the initials)

Shall we start a new thread? I am rather curious and inquisitive to learn more about your theological perspective and why, with the plethera of denominational/church options available to you, you have opted to plant your flag where you have.

Simple

Ok by me. I planted it before there was a place to put it, actually, some 45 years ago.

But I crave indulgence. I have some legal matters that take some time each day, and I am not the most efficent of executors. But ask and I’ll either answer or tap dance.

The initials, BTW, arise from part of where I came from, to get here. And reflect the fact that I have collected Chesterton for over 45 years, and own, roughly, everything published in book form over his name, save a couple of the recent Ignatius Press collections of the ILN columns.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus

 

[lak611]

While those Anglicans, like myself, who use the 1928 American Book of Common Prayer, do capitalize it. As always.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus

I have a copy of the 1979 BCP. Rite I reads, “And I believe in one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.” Rite II reads, “We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.”

Go figure.

I had a question about the Book of Common Prayer on this thread. forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=2111506#post2111506. Could you kindly help me out with my question? Thanks. Now all may resume your regularly scheduled thread. Sorry for the temporary interruption.