Just whose side are the Anglicans on?

[GKC]

## I hope you realise you’ve just disordained thousands of Roman-Rite Catholic priests

Pius XII in 1947 altered the matter of the sacrament, implicitly correcting the Tridentine Catechism of 1566 in the process of doing so. He implicitly corrected the Council of Florence too (specifically, Eugenius IV in the Decree for the Armenians); for both the Council and the Catechism had said (taught ?) that the *‘porrection of the instruments’ *= the handing over of chalice & paten to the ordinand] was the essential matter of the Sacrament of Order. According to Pius XII in Sacramentum Ordinis in 1947, the laying on of hands is the essential matter of that sacrament; and the post-Conciliar Roman Ordinal continues this; which incidentally brings Rome into accord with the Church of England - for the error corrected in 1947 goes back to the 9th century or so: the Church of England’s teaching was more “traditional” that Rome’s had become by the time of the Reformation. ##

Greetings, Gottle,

True, true,as to matter. But remember it was form and intent that *Apostolicae Curae * faulted the Ordinal on.

A curious point is that Anglo-Catholics often include the porrection of the instruments in the ordinations/consecrations, as well as the imposition of hands, and other things. I have seen it a number of times. More on this point, and others of interest to those following this thread, may be found at Accipe Postestatem, here:

angelfire.com/nj/malleus/

It’s run by an extremely knowledgeable and loyal RC gentleman, who can twist me into knots on the subjet. And who has some interesting views.

GKC

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Madaglan:

Wow, it seems like there are lots of different groups in the Anglican church. Can somebody maybe just give me a list of all the major groups so that I can remember them all! So far you’ve mentioned the Anglo-Papalist, the Anglo-Catholics, the Anglican Communion, the Traditional Anglican Communion, the Episcopal church, etc. What other groups are there? Any help would be great. Thanks!

:yup:

Dear Madaglan:

This article gives a little detail on the various types of Anglicans who are NOT in Communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury:

The Complexity of the Anglican Communion
theroadtoemmaus.org/RdLb/32Ang/Ang/CmplxAng.htm

This next one will give you a list of the various Churches and Links to the Churches who are NOT in Communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury:

The Anglican Church in America -ÊOther Traditional Anglican Sites (Listed Alphabetically)
acahome.org/submenu/links.htm

These following are the links to the The Anglican Church in America and to the Traditional Anglican Communion

acahome.org/acamain.htm
acahome.org/tac/index.htm

Usually “High Church” “Anglo-Catholics” are going to be more receptive towards the idea of unity with The See of Peter (or Orthodoxy - Note the Western Rite of the Antiochan Orthodox Church). “Low Church” “Evangelicals” are going to be more Protestant in their outlook.“Broad Churchmen” tend to more “accomodationist”, and may not necesarily believe anything at all.

One problem are “HIgh Church” “Anglo Catholics” who seem to believe that they can stay in ECUSA, be in Communion with Women “Bishops” and still have valid Sacraments. Even if the Anglican Church hadn’t invalidated their own Orders in the 17th Century by taking out the words, “Arise, thou Priest in the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church,” insisting on the ordaination of women to the Sacerdotal priesthood and to the Episcopate would have.

That automatically invalidates their “Sacraments”. I can only feel sorry for them and pray for them. I 've found they often don’t want to hear what I’ve just told you.

In answer to the already asked and soon to be re-asked question: The Holy See has already verified most of the Orders in the TAC. I’ve been advised that the Priests in my parish have theirs through the Polish National Catholic Church, that the Sacraments are valid and that I should stay put in Holy Obediance for the time being.

And, now for some humor:

EPISCOPAL CHURCH U.S.A. SEEKS DIRECTOR OF COMMUNICATIONS. I APPLY
A Satirical Essay by David Virtue
trushare.com/Virtue%20applies%20for%20a%20job.htm

FYI, David Virtue is the editor and chief of Virtuosity Online, an online news service for “orthodox” Anglicans. He’s an “Anglo-Catholic” in real life, who wouldn’t be caught dead working for ECUSA.

I hope these all answer your questions.

May God bless you and your family,

In Christ, Michael

 

[GKC]

Traditional Ang:

Dear Madaglan:

This article gives a little detail on the various types of Anglicans who are NOT in Communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury:

The Complexity of the Anglican Communion
theroadtoemmaus.org/RdLb/32Ang/Ang/CmplxAng.htm

This next one will give you a list of the various Churches and Links to the Churches who are NOT in Communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury:

The Anglican Church in America -ÊOther Traditional Anglican Sites (Listed Alphabetically)
acahome.org/submenu/links.htm

These following are the links to the The Anglican Church in America and to the Traditional Anglican Communion

acahome.org/acamain.htm
acahome.org/tac/index.htm

Usually “High Church” “Anglo-Catholics” are going to be more receptive towards the idea of unity with The See of Peter (or Orthodoxy - Note the Western Rite of the Antiochan Orthodox Church). “Low Church” “Evangelicals” are going to be more Protestant in their outlook.“Broad Churchmen” tend to more “accomodationist”, and may not necesarily believe anything at all.

One problem are “HIgh Church” “Anglo Catholics” who seem to believe that they can stay in ECUSA, be in Communion with Women “Bishops” and still have valid Sacraments. Even if the Anglican Church hadn’t invalidated their own Orders in the 17th Century by taking out the words, “Arise, thou Priest in the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church,” insisting on the ordaination of women to the Sacerdotal priesthood and to the Episcopate would have.

That automatically invalidates their “Sacraments”. I can only feel sorry for them and pray for them. I 've found they often don’t want to hear what I’ve just told you.

In answer to the already asked and soon to be re-asked question: The Holy See has already verified most of the Orders in the TAC. I’ve been advised that the Priests in my parish have theirs through the Polish National Catholic Church, that the Sacraments are valid and that I should stay put in Holy Obediance for the time being.

And, now for some humor:

EPISCOPAL CHURCH U.S.A. SEEKS DIRECTOR OF COMMUNICATIONS. I APPLY
A Satirical Essay by David Virtue
trushare.com/Virtue%20applies%20for%20a%20job.htm

FYI, David Virtue is the editor and chief of Virtuosity Online, an online news service for “orthodox” Anglicans. He’s an “Anglo-Catholic” in real life, who wouldn’t be caught dead working for ECUSA.

I hope these all answer your questions.

May God bless you and your family,

In Christ, Michael

Traditional Ang,

The first site you gave a link to is a pretty good summary of the jurisdictional divisons in the current Anglican scene, with a few hints at the interacting historical doctrinal differences. And I note with sorrow the passing this month of Fr. Tarsitano. His AN OUTLINE OF AN ANGLICAN LIFE was used in my catechism class.

Could you expand on your statement about “Arise, thou priest…” and the reference to the 17th century? Is this related to Apostolicae Curae? It is something I don’t recall seeing, but my memory is poor.

And your statement about the TAC orders is earthshaking (in our little world, anyway). Are you sure of this?

GKC

 

[Traditional_Ang]

## I hope the inverted commas around the words Anglican Communion aren’t intended to imply that the Communion in question has ceased to include the Church of England - one problem with English Evangeicalism is that those within that tradition sometimes write off churches as “dead” - ISTM that God alone can make that judgement. As for scandals within a Christian body, how does one judge whether or not such a such a scandal or an abundance of them unchurches a Christian body ?

Geer:

I’m using the Quotation marks in an attempt to differentiate 2 Communions with very similar names. I’ve found that people easily confuse the 2 Communions in conversations.

You may not talk about the subject matter very offtne, but Ido, and I’m very tired of having people confuse the 2 Communions and Claim that I belong to the “Anglican Communion” that:

1. Just sat idly by as one of the national Churches Consecrated a man as Bishop who left his wife and young Children to move in with his gay LOVER. (take out the word “Gay” and NO one would defend it);
2. Has Ordained and Consecrated women, gay and lesbian “Priests” and “Bishops” contrary to Sacred Scripture and the Tradition of the Church;
3. Blessed Same-Sex Unions (Started with ECUSA) and supported a “Woman’s right to Choose” to have an Abortion" (Archbishop Dr. Rowan Willinms PRIVATELY opposes abortion);
4. Surveys by the Daily Telegraph have shown that 30% of of the CLERGY believe in the essential doctrines of the Church (Christ’s Divinity, His Virgin Birth and His Saving Death and Resurrection).
   One third of clergy do not believe in the Resurrection
   By Jonathan Petre, Religion Correspondent (Filed: 31/07/2002)
   telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2002%2F07%2F31%2Fncreed31.xml

The Anglican Communion in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury may not be dead, but it is moribund, and the leaders don’t even know it!

CHURCH HEAD FINDS REPORT FROM CANTERBURY ÒHURTFULÓ, COMMUNION TO SEEK UNITY WITH ROME
acahome.org/tac/news/pr041018.htm

Foreword By The Most Reverend Dr Robin Eames
Archbishop of Armagh, Chairman of the Lambeth Commission The index is on the side, or you can download the PDF - This is the introduction)
anglicancommunion.org/windsor2004/index.cfm
Gottle of Geer:

As with the logical teaser, how many grains can one take from a heap of grains before the heap ceases to be a heap?: how many scandals and of what kind are too many for a Church (or church) to remain a Church (or church) ? Christians can hardly treat death in the same way as non-Christians: so why not apply this to churches ? If they die, maybe that is allowed only so that they can be raised from death. The Church of England, like the CC, is always surviving its obituaries - because God is faithful, not because it is. And because churches live by God’s faithfulness & not theirs, scandals in a Church scandals take on a different aspect ISTM. We can only despair of churches if they are dependent ultimately upon us - since we are saved by grace, they cannot be

.

The C of E and ECUSA have gone into previously uncharted territory Doctrinally and Morally. Plus they have called faithful Anglicans “Schismatics” for deciding that the Salvation of their Souls required that they leave the “Anglican Communion”.

The final straw is that report I linked for you, The Windsor Report 2004. The report essentially said the heresy and immorality of the C of E and ECUSA had NO effect on the Church or on Christian Unity. Geer, when the C of E was in trouble before, they didn’t go around claiming that everything was fine and that they were doing the right things. They knew they were in trouble - They just didn’t know what to do about it.

That’s usu. how God’s Grace works - But It rarely works on people who don’t know just how much trouble they’re in.
Gottle of Geer:

BTW - how traditional is traditional Anglicanism ?

Most of them are doctrinally and Ecclesiastically where the Anglicans were 40-60 years ago. They hold to the teachings of the 1st 7 Councils of the Church, the Ancient Creeds of the Church, the Plain meaning of Sacred Scripture as interpreted through the Church Fathers, as well as people such as the Anglo-Catholics of the Oxford Group. That’s CLASSICAL Anglicanism, and what the C of E has pretty much left except in language.

As you know from this Forum, some 400,000-500,000 members of the Traditional Anglican Communion, led by their Primate, Archbishop John Hepworth, are in negotiations with Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger to form the “Anglican Catholic Church” in Union with and Submitted to His Holiness, Pope John Paul II.

In Christ, Michael

 

[Traditional_Ang]

GKC:

Traditional Ang,

The first site you gave a link to is a pretty good summary of the jurisdictional divisons in the current Anglican scene, with a few hints at the interacting historical doctrinal differences. And I note with sorrow the passing this month of Fr. Tarsitano. His AN OUTLINE OF AN ANGLICAN LIFE was used in my catechism class.

Fr. Tarsintano has been in the prayers of my paish and of many in the TAC. MY Pastor and one of the other Priests were friends of his. We will be saying Requeims for him.

Thank you for the compliment. I try to keep a stock of links in good working order on a variety on subjects. Hopefully, anybody using those two links would have all of their basic questions answered.

GKC:

Could you expand on your statement about “Arise, thou priest…” and the reference to the 17th century? Is this related to Apostolicae Curae? It is something I don’t recall seeing, but my memory is poor.

It’s been explained to me that “Apostolicae Curae” has pretty much boiled down to demonstrated intent, and that phrase (a rather bad translation of the Latin) which was completely missing in Latin and/or English in the Anglican Ordinals under the Puritans.

GKC:

And your statement about the TAC orders is earthshaking (in our little world, anyway). Are you sure of this?

GKC

As you know, after the publication of “Apostolicae Curae”, many Anglican Priests sought to “Beef-up” their orders by going to various “Old Catholic” and Eastern Catholic Ordinands. The same thing thing was done by their Anglican Bishops at the same time who would often have at least one Bishop from one of these Churches whose orders are recognized by the Catholic Church at the Consecration. This was esp. common among “Anglo-Catholics”.

As I understand it, that has been the norm in many parts of “The Continuoum” (That includes APCK).

It’s just that Cardinal Ratizinger and friends have had 2 years to check out and verify the validity of the Orders of most of the Priests and Bishops in the TAC, and many of these Orders, because of the habits enumerated above, have turned out, in the opinion of Cardinal Ratzinger’s people, to be valid.

The Priest and Bishops of the TAC will probably undergo “Conditional Ordination”, but that wiill be as much for the Catholic faithful as to assure validity of Orders.

I’m sorry if it was a shock - it was one to me, too.

May God bring us all together.

In Christ, Michael

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Gottle of Geer:

An added note - every I say about the Anglican Communion (ECUSA) that is in Communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury is said with great sadness.

That’s the Church my mother and father were married in. That’s the Church I was born and raised in, that I was Baptized and Confirmed in, and that I served as Acolyte for 6 years.

My family and I left PECUSA (that was before the name change) when they irrevocably committed themselves to ordaining women, gay and lesbian “Priests”. I was 18.

I’ve told you what happened to my father’s parish - They’re now Orthodox. And, I’ve told you what happened to me a few years later, and God had to do to bring me back.

Never has the Anglican Communion strayed so far from the TRUTH they received. Never have they rebelled so strongely and persistently against the Commandments of God as contained in the Scriptures and in the Tradition of the Church, and never have they been so blissfully unaware of their separation from orthodox or traditional Anglicanism. It would be one thing if they had left Prostestantism for Catholicism, but they haven’t.

Their situation now isn’t like before the Methodist Revivals, when the C of E needed to be awakened, or before the Oxford Movement, when the C of E needed to be reminded what they were missing. The situation now is far more grave, because the Anglican Communion is in real heresy and real schism from the rest of the body of Christ, both East and West, and have irrevocably purposed to do things neither the Orthodox nor the Catholic Churches can accept.

Thw Archbishop of Canterbury and Bishop Griswald use the LANGUAGE of the Gospel, but without its SUBSTANCE!

Part of Ecclesiology is that there is a larger Body of Christ than just ECUSA or the C of E, and NO one and NO parish has an obligation to stay in a situation which would clearly be an impediment to the salvation of their Souls. It would be like staying in under an Arian Bishop when an Orthodox one is available.

Please read the Windsor Report that I linked, and read the whole thing as well as Archbishop Hepworth’s reply.

May God bless you.

In Christ, Michael

 

[GKC]

Traditional Ang,

“It’s been explained to me that “Apostolicae Curae” has pretty much boiled down to demonstrated intent, and that phrase (a rather bad translation of the Latin) which was completely missing in Latin and/or English in the Anglican Ordinals under the Puritans.”

That is true, in that the forms in the Edwardine Ordinal are not in themselves objectively different from many rites that the RCC does consider as conferring valid orders. Intention is the key, as Clark’s book title (see my post above) suggests. But the intention that Apostolicae Curae hinges on is generally taken to be the ministerial intention in a particular case, that of the consecration of Parker by Barlow, Scory, Coverdale and Hodgkin, in 1559, a chokepoint in the history of the Anglican episcopate. It was the judgement of AC that those consecrating bishops, through the use of the Ordinal, in that particular historical circumstance, failed to demonstrate the requisite ministerial intention (in the Thomistic and formal sense) “to do what the Church does” (facere quod facit ecclesia) necessary for the confection of any sacrament (i,e., Holy Orders). This produced a break in the Anglican Episcopate, rendering the subsequent ordinations null and void. All of which is to say that the phrase you quoted is one I’m not familiar with, and that the issue involved the 16th, not the 17th century (AFAIK, that is). This point is one that is debated in the books I recommend above, among many other such titles.

"As you know, after the publication of “Apostolicae Curae”, many Anglican Priests sought to “Beef-up” their orders by going to various “Old Catholic” and Eastern Catholic Ordinands. The same thing thing was done by their Anglican Bishops at the same time who would often have at least one Bishop from one of these Churches whose orders are recognized by the Catholic Church at the Consecration. This was esp. common among “Anglo-Catholics”.

As I understand it, that has been the norm in many parts of “The Continuoum” (That includes APCK).

It’s just that Cardinal Ratizinger and friends have had 2 years to check out and verify the validity of the Orders of most of the Priests and Bishops in the TAC, and many of these Orders, because of the habits enumerated above, have turned out, in the opinion of Cardinal Ratzinger’s people, to be valid.

The Priest and Bishops of the TAC will probably undergo “Conditional Ordination”, but that wiill be as much for the Catholic faithful as to assure validity of Orders.

I’m sorry if it was a shock - it was one to me, too"

Well, shock isn’t exactly it. It’s that this line of argument has been a staple of the Anglican position for years, and never, except in individual cases such as Leonard+ and Hughes+, got much of a hearing by the RCC corporately. If it is now doing so, the implications for not only the Continuum (specifically because of +Chambers Old Catholic lines), but for a fair number of Anglican clergy in general, are…umm…interesting.

I await more official announcments, with eagerness. Keep us advised.

GKC

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

GKC:

Greetings, Gottle,

True, true,as to matter. But remember it was form and intent that *Apostolicae Curae *faulted the Ordinal on.

A curious point is that Anglo-Catholics often include the porrection of the instruments in the ordinations/consecrations, as well as the imposition of hands, and other things. I have seen it a number of times. More on this point, and others of interest to those following this thread, may be found at Accipe Postestatem, here:

angelfire.com/nj/malleus/

It’s run by an extremely knowledgeable and loyal RC gentleman, who can twist me into knots on the subjet. And who has some interesting views.

GKC

Thanks for the comments ​

FWIW, the post was concerned less with the dispute over the status of Anglican Orders, than with the reasoning sometimes used on the “RC” side - given that the history of the sacrament is less straightfoward than some of the arguments seem to presuppose (which is admittedly a failing not peculiar to RC apologists).

On the subject of Apostolic succession: can a notion of it that is concerned with “ecclesiastical functionaries” alone, be a complete one ? Surely the “Christian people” are as much in that succession as their shepherds, if with a different share in it. If this is so, then ecumenical discussion is going to be much more complicated -because it would then be possible (and necessary ?) to argue that Churches with credentials that might be dubious if one looks only at succession of their functionaries are apostolic if one considers the faith of the people.

But I expect that this idea is already quote hackneyed.

On a different topic entirely: do you know of a site with information on settings of the “Te Deum”, in English, by Anglican composers, or at least for Anglican worship ? Thanks in advance.

Even more off-topic: is anyone else finding that it takes an age to post anything on this site ? ##

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Traditional Ang:

Geer:

I’m using the Quotation marks in an attempt to differentiate 2 Communions with very similar names. I’ve found that people easily confuse the 2 Communions in conversations.

You may not talk about the subject matter very offtne, but Ido, and I’m very tired of having people confuse the 2 Communions and Claim that I belong to the “Anglican Communion” that:

1. Just sat idly by as one of the national Churches Consecrated a man as Bishop who left his wife and young Children to move in with his gay LOVER. (take out the word “Gay” and NO one would defend it);
2. Has Ordained and Consecrated women, gay and lesbian “Priests” and “Bishops” contrary to Sacred Scripture and the Tradition of the Church;
3. Blessed Same-Sex Unions (Started with ECUSA) and supported a “Woman’s right to Choose” to have an Abortion" (Archbishop Dr. Rowan Willinms PRIVATELY opposes abortion);
4. Surveys by the Daily Telegraph have shown that 30% of of the CLERGY believe in the essential doctrines of the Church (Christ’s Divinity, His Virgin Birth and His Saving Death and Resurrection).
   One third of clergy do not believe in the Resurrection
   By Jonathan Petre, Religion Correspondent (Filed: 31/07/2002)
   telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2002%2F07%2F31%2Fncreed31.xml

The Anglican Communion in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury may not be dead, but it is moribund, and the leaders don’t even know it!

CHURCH HEAD FINDS REPORT FROM CANTERBURY ÒHURTFULÓ, COMMUNION TO SEEK UNITY WITH ROME
acahome.org/tac/news/pr041018.htm

Foreword By The Most Reverend Dr Robin Eames
Archbishop of Armagh, Chairman of the Lambeth Commission The index is on the side, or you can download the PDF - This is the introduction)
anglicancommunion.org/windsor2004/index.cfm

.

The C of E and ECUSA have gone into previously uncharted territory Doctrinally and Morally. Plus they have called faithful Anglicans “Schismatics” for deciding that the Salvation of their Souls required that they leave the “Anglican Communion”.

The final straw is that report I linked for you, The Windsor Report 2004. The report essentially said the heresy and immorality of the C of E and ECUSA had NO effect on the Church or on Christian Unity. Geer, when the C of E was in trouble before, they didn’t go around claiming that everything was fine and that they were doing the right things. They knew they were in trouble - They just didn’t know what to do about it.

That’s usu. how God’s Grace works - But It rarely works on people who don’t know just how much trouble they’re in.

Most of them are doctrinally and Ecclesiastically where the Anglicans were 40-60 years ago. They hold to the teachings of the 1st 7 Councils of the Church, the Ancient Creeds of the Church, the Plain meaning of Sacred Scripture as interpreted through the Church Fathers, as well as people such as the Anglo-Catholics of the Oxford Group. That’s CLASSICAL Anglicanism, and what the C of E has pretty much left except in language.

I hope this is not going to mean a fresh infusion of Fundamentalism - there is more than enough of that among Catholics as it is. The more I look at what seems to be implied in that notion of Anglicanism, the more it looks like an Anglican form of sedevacantism. ​

As you know from this Forum, some 400,000-500,000 members of the Traditional Anglican Communion, led by their Primate, Archbishop John Hepworth, are in negotiations with Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger to form the “Anglican Catholic Church” in Union with and Submitted to His Holiness, Pope John Paul II.

In Christ, Michael

Thanks for the information.​

Depressing as it would be, if one allowed oneself to dwell on these things.

The grass has a way of looking greener on the other side - but this is usually a trick of the light, depending on the time of day or the season of the year. Even dead grass is renewed, and can be seen to be, if one waits for the summer. And death is as important to life as is living, on earth at least.

Rome may look rosier, firmer, more authoritative, more vigorous - but even if it had no troubles of any kind, it would have them eventually; trouble seems to be one of the main conditions for a Church to grow. So swimming the Tiber is not going to mean an end to troubles - and there is no way of knowing whether the Anglican Communion is on the verge of a renewal or is on its death-bed. So why are people leaving the one for the other ? If people are Anglicans already, maybe that is where God wants them; if they leave behind the scandals they object to much - how are those scandals to be healed ?

[continue…]

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

[cont’d/ended]

There’s another thing - what will become of the Anglican type of piety, if Anglicans “go Roman” ? Not all former Anglicans are able to form Anglican Use churches - not if the Catholic bishops object (as in England). What I’m afraid of, is that by becoming RC, Anglicans are going to have to cast off all Anglican qualities and become Romanised for ill as well as good. The CC gave up expecting Catholics in missions served by European missionaries to be Europeanised 90 years ago - I’m not sure the CC has yet got round to giving up requiring converts from other Christianities to become Romanised in piety or theology as well as in creed. There is far more to Anglicanism than its scandals - and it would be terrible if people became Catholics out of revulsion for their former churchmanship, and not for solidly good reasons. Of course, only the individual can know his own motives - he, and God.

About that “Telegraph” report on alleged disbelief in the Resurrection: I saw nothing which suggested the alleged disbelief. The UK press is hopeless in its coverage of theological matters, unfortunately. A great deal depends upon what is to be understood by the word “physical” - as Our Lord was raised “in the Spirit” (St.Paul) the erstwhile Bishop of Durham was surely entirely right to deny that it was a “conjuring trick with bones”. It was not; but he was almost universally accused of “denying the Resurrection”, when he had denied only a a less than New Testamental understanding of it - just as a bishop should. If the press is too dense to understand a few Christian basics, why should the clergy of the C of E be blamed ? And if the press can be so egregiously wrong on that point, where does that leave their ability to describe matters of the Church’s Faith ? I would not be in the least surprised if all that has been denied is a sub-Scriptural and unPatristic notion of the doctrines said to not to be believed. ##

 

[Contarini]

Windmill:

I would respectfully ask how those that accept the reality of papal authority can remain in the Anglican Communion?

Because we don’t think the Pope’s authority is as great as he claims it is.

And your story about the priest coming to “realize” that the Eucharist he was celebrating was invalid underlines why I have so far been unable to become Catholic. I cannot believe that Anglican, or even more broadly Protestant, celebrations of the Eucharist are invalid. Certainly not that they are a “sham” or a “farce.” I would fear blaspheming against the Holy Spirit if I were to say such a thing.

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[GKC]

Gottle,

Taking your last point first, oh, my, yes. For 2 days this week I quit trying to post or even read this site at all. It was taking me half an hour to open the site, the forum, the thread. Then it appeared to cure itself for a day, and now it’s back to impossibly slow. I’ll be waiting before trying this again, for faster times. Meanwhile, I’m posting a reply (or trying to) witout having read your (or Contarini’s) last posts here directly. I can’t get the thread to open all the way.

So here’s a cut and paste from the email notification:

“FWIW, the post was concerned less with the dispute over the status of Anglican Orders, than with the reasoning sometimes used on the “RC” side - given that the history of the sacrament is less straightfoward than some of the arguments seem to presuppose (which is admittedly a failing not peculiar to RC apologists).”

On rereading it, after I had posted, I saw that. I guess I was trying to be sure you didn’ appear to cut us too much slack.

"On the subject of Apostolic succession: can a notion of it that is concerned with “ecclesiastical functionaries” alone, be a complete one ? Surely the “Christian people” are as much in that succession as their shepherds, if with a different share in it. If this is so, then ecumenical discussion is going to be much more complicated -because it would then be possible (and necessary ?) to argue that Churches with credentials that might be dubious if one looks only at succession of their functionaries are apostolic if one considers the faith of the people.

But I expect that this idea is already quote hackneyed."

Not in my eyes it isn’t. Though I’m not sure I follow you. The Apostolic Succession is the guarantor of the validity of the sacraments so transmitted. The faith of the people doesn’t, it seems to me, do that. Can you expand on the idea?

“On a different topic entirely: do you know of a site with information on settings of the “Te Deum”, in English, by Anglican composers, or at least for Anglican worship ? Thanks in advance.”

Nay, not myself, But my parish music director is a well trained expert and a font of Anglican musicology. I shall enquire.

“Even more off-topic: is anyone else finding that it takes an age to post anything on this site ? ##”

And, as I said, this problem may mean I’m not posting again, for a while.

Now hitting “submit reply” and hoping for the best.

GKC

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Michael:

In Response to your Gottle of Geer # 28 & # 29:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=417299&postcount=28

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=417303&postcount=29

This isn’t “Anglican Use”. The Pope tried that, and various Bishops and National Councils of Bishops refused to allow it, in spite of some very clear requests from His Holiness Pope John Paul II to do exactly that.

The Pope has therefore decided to create and UNIATE BODY (You might want to go look at those 33 Articles of Brest that brought in the Ukranian Catholic Church and most of the other Eastern Catholic Churches that are in union with His Holiness Pope John Paul II.

If you do some study, you will see that one feature is that the various Bishops who hadd objections to this GET NO VOTE ON THE MATTER, because this is an agreement between the HOLY SEE and the Place the Name in the Blank CATHOLIC CHURCH.

That is what they did with all of these EASTERN (aka “Uniate”) CATHOLIC CHURCHES, and what the Pope and Cardinal Ratzinger plan to do with the TAC. IMO, This is how this Pope plans to convert England (an England that now sees the C of E as becoming increasingly Pegan) to the Catholic Church, and how he plans to do so in spite of the countervaling efforts of the English Bishops.

There was a survey which the telegraph article was quoting, and not very well. The survey happens to be not on the Web.

I was only trying to use something that I found that was web accessible to support 2 people whom I’ve found to be completely unimpeachable on these types of issues, one of these is a priest, the other one the Primate of the TAC. I’ve also heard this confirmed from other people anecdotally.

I don’t quite understand what you mean by “A less than New Testament understanding of the Resurrection” of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Are you saying that Jesus was not physically raised from the dead as the Church has taught for 2,000 years and as is taught in the Apostles’ and Nicene Creed?

And, could you please define what you mean by “Fundamentalists”? as well as “an Anglican form of ‘sedevacantism’”?

And, how are people supposed to effect any sort of change or healing in a situation where the people in power have written “The Windsor Report” that calls them worse than Schismatic and have said that the only change that needs to happen is with and to those who are the orthodox believers? How are these people to effect any changes or healing in a Church that now refuses to call what the Church has for 2,000 years called sin, and has instead condemned those who have the temerity to call those things sins?

And, what are they to do in the meantime in a Church whose Orders and, therefore, whose Sacraments, even if you do not accept “Apostolicae Curae”, must be called impaired at best because of that Church’s recent actions?

In the end, isn’t the purpose of a Church so that the “Sheep may the tended” and the “Lambs fed”?

Or, do you agree with the recent actions of the Anglican Communion and disagree with His Holiness Pope John II as expressed in “ORDINATIO SACERDOTALIS” and Pope Paul VI in * “HUMANAE VITAE”*?

At some junction, I have to wonder where this opposition to 500,000 believing Christians joining the Catholic Church for the Salvation of their souls is coming from.

Could you tell me where this opposition comes from? Or, are you just “playing Devil’s Advocate”?

May God bless you.

In Christ, Michael

PS: I am subject to eye strain - Could you not use the 1 point type? It’s hard to read.

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Gottle of Geer # 28

Michael:

the above post, I believe that you misrepresented the following article:

One third of clergy do not believe in the Resurrection
By Jonathan Petre, Religion Correspondent (Filed: 31/07/2002)

*A third of Church of England clergy doubt or disbelieve in the physical Resurrection and only half are convinced of the truth of the Virgin birth, according to a new survey.

The poll of nearly 2,000 of the Church’s 10,000 clergy also found that only half believe that faith in Christ is the only route to salvation…

Few bishops would now share the views of the former Bishop of Durham, the Rt Rev David Jenkins, who caused a scandal in the 1980s when he contrasted the Resurrection with a “conjuring trick with bones”.

Nevertheless liberal clergy, who represent about one in eight of the total, remain profoundly uncertain about the Church’s core doctrines.* In the survey, two thirds of them expressed doubts in the physical Resurrection and three quarters are unconvinced by the Virgin birth.

*Similar levels of belief were found in organisations such as Affirming Catholicism, a liberal Anglo-Catholic group of which the new Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, is a founding member.

Although Dr Williams holds firmly orthodox views on the Resurrection and the Virgin birth,* **the proportion of members of Affirming Catholicism who believe without question in the two doctrines is 35 and 24 per cent respectively.

Doubts are even greater among members of the Modern Churchpeople’s Union,** a liberal group whose president is the Bishop of Lincoln, the Rt Rev John Saxbee: only a quarter believe in the physical Resurrection and just eight per cent in the Virgin birth.

*The survey, carried out by Christian Research, did find that clergy were more orthodox on other doctrines.

More than 75 per cent overall accept the doctrine of the Trinity and a similar proportion believe that Christ died to take away the sins of the world. More than 80 per cent were happy with the idea that God the Father created the world.

Unsurprisingly, the organisations whose members were the most traditional were Reform, a conservative evangelical group, and Forward in Faith, a traditionalist umbrella body.

The Rev Robbie Low, a member of Cost of Conscience, the traditionalist organisation which commissioned the survey, said:* **"There are clearly two Churches operating in the Church of England: the believing Church and the disbelieving Church, and that is a scandal.

“Increasingly, positions of authority are being placed in the hands of people who believe less and less. It is an intolerable situation where the faithful are increasingly being led by the unfaithful.”** *He added that doubts about the core doctrines of the Church were higher among women priests and their supporters.

Only just over half of the admittedly small sample of female clergy in the survey said they believed in the bodily Resurrection and the figure fell to exactly a third when it came to the Virgin birth.*

telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2002%2F07%2F31%2Fncreed31.xml

The reporter who wrote this article also appears to have understood exactly what he was talking about. These are NOT “sub-Biblical” or “sub-Patristic” understandings of these Doctrines of the Undivided Church. On the contary, his understandings, and those of the people giving the survey and in Forward in Faith, are completely consistant with those of the Undivided Church and the Apostles and Nicene Creeds.

So, what is it that scares you about these people the Pope has now resolved to take into the Church?

God Bless.

In Christ, Michael

 

[HagiaSophia]

Traditional Ang:

PS: I am subject to eye strain - Could you not use the 1 point type? It’s hard to read.

 

[Traditional_Ang]

GKC:

Gottle,

Taking your last point first, oh, my, yes. For 2 days this week I quit trying to post or even read this site at all. It was taking me half an hour to open the site, the forum, the thread. Then it appeared to cure itself for a day, and now it’s back to impossibly slow. I’ll be waiting before trying this again, for faster times. Meanwhile, I’m posting a reply (or trying to) witout having read your (or Contarini’s) last posts here directly. I can’t get the thread to open all the way.

So here’s a cut and paste from the email notification:

“FWIW, the post was concerned less with the dispute over the status of Anglican Orders, than with the reasoning sometimes used on the “RC” side - given that the history of the sacrament is less straightfoward than some of the arguments seem to presuppose (which is admittedly a failing not peculiar to RC apologists).”

On rereading it, after I had posted, I saw that. I guess I was trying to be sure you didn’ appear to cut us too much slack.

"On the subject of Apostolic succession: can a notion of it that is concerned with “ecclesiastical functionaries” alone, be a complete one ? Surely the “Christian people” are as much in that succession as their shepherds, if with a different share in it. If this is so, then ecumenical discussion is going to be much more complicated -because it would then be possible (and necessary ?) to argue that Churches with credentials that might be dubious if one looks only at succession of their functionaries are apostolic if one considers the faith of the people.

But I expect that this idea is already quote hackneyed."

Not in my eyes it isn’t. Though I’m not sure I follow you. The Apostolic Succession is the guarantor of the validity of the sacraments so transmitted. The faith of the people doesn’t, it seems to me, do that. Can you expand on the idea?

“On a different topic entirely: do you know of a site with information on settings of the “Te Deum”, in English, by Anglican composers, or at least for Anglican worship ? Thanks in advance.”

Nay, not myself, But my parish music director is a well trained expert and a font of Anglican musicology. I shall enquire.

“Even more off-topic: is anyone else finding that it takes an age to post anything on this site ? ##”

And, as I said, this problem may mean I’m not posting again, for a while.

Now hitting “submit reply” and hoping for the best.

GKC

GKC,

I had many of the same problems with the site you did. It was really quite maddening. Luckly, today has mainly had to do with my lovely typing skills…

Someone may have gone for a Denial of Service attack, or we know have too many fellow posters. Either way, it was maddening to say the least.

I guess God must have decided that some of us needed to learn patience (Notice the steam coming out of my ears?).

I know that Henry VIII split the C of E from the Catholic Church in the early 16th Century, but I thought the problematic Ordinal came out of the Puritan Revolution, or that it was (at the very least) a Puritan creation, and that (in either circumstance, it still didn’t come until later.

I could be wrong on this (Remember, I’m a recent retread dragged in through the door by an Orthodox Rabbi), but I do know that the Change of Phrase from “Priest of the Holy Catholic Church” to ** “MINISTER OF THE GOSPEL OF CHRIST”** changed the intent of the ordination service from that of ORDAINING A PRIEST to ORDAINING A MINISTER.

At least that’s how Fr. Kingsbury and Fr. Wilcox explained it to me.

I’d have to leave the rest to those who understand the issue better than I do.

Blessings to you and your family.

In Christ, Michael

 

[GKC]

Traditional Ang:

GKC,

I had many of the same problems with the site you did. It was really quite maddening. Luckly, today has mainly had to do with my lovely typing skills…

Someone may have gone for a Denial of Service attack, or we know have too many fellow posters. Either way, it was maddening to say the least.

I guess God must have decided that some of us needed to learn patience (Notice the steam coming out of my ears?).

I know that Henry VIII split the C of E from the Catholic Church in the early 16th Century, but I thought the problematic Ordinal came out of the Puritan Revolution, or that it was (at the very least) a Puritan creation, and that (in either circumstance, it still didn’t come until later.

I could be wrong on this (Remember, I’m a recent retread dragged in through the door by an Orthodox Rabbi), but I do know that the Change of Phrase from “Priest of the Holy Catholic Church” to ** “MINISTER OF THE GOSPEL OF CHRIST”** changed the intent of the ordination service from that of ORDAINING A PRIEST to ORDAINING A MINISTER.

At least that’s how Fr. Kingsbury and Fr. Wilcox explained it to me.

I’d have to leave the rest to those who understand the issue better than I do.

Blessings to you and your family.

In Christ, Michael

Well, at least we are back to normal, now. For now.

The Ordinal in question is most assuredly the Edwardine Ordinal, complied in 1550, revised and reissued in 1552, with the second (Edwardine) Prayer Book. You will find it referenced in the first section of APOSTOLICAE CURAE, by name.

And I am fairly certain there is no such phrase as the one you mention cited anywhere in *APOSTOLICAE CURAE *. But I think I can identify the source of the confusion. Section 7 of AC is a discussion of the Ordinal, and contains some references to changes made to it in 1662, which added the words “for the office and work of a priest…” and “for the office and work of a bishop…” The conclusion stated in AC was that the Anglicans had noted a defect of form, by a failure to mention to these offices, and had attempted to supply the deficiency. In fact, that conclusion was an historical error, the words having been added due to an arguement with the more reformed Scottish branch of the CoE. This particular error is widely recognised even amongst the RC advocates of AC, including Clark. It was simply a misunderstanding, as Anglicans who pointed out that the title of each office is mentioned 5 or 6 times in the rite, were quick to say. This line of thinking is no more used to discuss the logic of the decision these days than is the Nag’s Head fable.

If that is not the source, both of the idea of changing the word “priest” to “minister”, and the idea of the 17th century, then I’m at a loss. As I said, I am fairly familiar with the arguments of both sides, and a quick review of AC doesn’t reveal those words at all. Again, I recommend the site I listed above (run by a throughly traditional RC layman), for more details. It’s quicker than running down all the relevant books, anyway.

I have put a couple of things together. You’re in Los Angeles, aren’t you?

GKC

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Gottle of Geer # 28

Michael:

the above post, I believe that you misrepresented the following article:

One third of clergy do not believe in the Resurrection
By Jonathan Petre, Religion Correspondent (Filed: 31/07/2002)

A third of Church of England clergy doubt or disbelieve in the physical Resurrection and only half are convinced of the truth of the Virgin birth, according to a new survey.

The poll of nearly 2,000 of the Church’s 10,000 clergy also found that only half believe that faith in Christ is the only route to salvation…

Few bishops would now share the views of the former Bishop of Durham, the Rt Rev David Jenkins, who caused a scandal in the 1980s when he contrasted the Resurrection with a “conjuring trick with bones”.

Nevertheless liberal clergy, who represent about one in eight of the total, remain profoundly uncertain about the Church’s core doctrines. In the survey, two thirds of them expressed doubts in the physical Resurrection and three quarters are unconvinced by the Virgin birth.

Similar levels of belief were found in organisations such as Affirming Catholicism, a liberal Anglo-Catholic group of which the new Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, is a founding member.

Although Dr Williams holds firmly orthodox views on the Resurrection and the Virgin birth, the proportion of members of Affirming Catholicism who believe without question in the two doctrines is 35 and 24 per cent respectively.

Doubts are even greater among members of the Modern Churchpeople’s Union, a liberal group whose president is the Bishop of Lincoln, the Rt Rev John Saxbee: only a quarter believe in the physical Resurrection and just eight per cent in the Virgin birth.

The survey, carried out by Christian Research, did find that clergy were more orthodox on other doctrines.

More than 75 per cent overall accept the doctrine of the Trinity and a similar proportion believe that Christ died to take away the sins of the world. More than 80 per cent were happy with the idea that God the Father created the world.

Unsurprisingly, the organisations whose members were the most traditional were Reform, a conservative evangelical group, and Forward in Faith, a traditionalist umbrella body.

The Rev Robbie Low, a member of Cost of Conscience, the traditionalist organisation which commissioned the survey, said: "There are clearly two Churches operating in the Church of England: the believing Church and the disbelieving Church, and that is a scandal.

"Increasingly, positions of authority are being placed in the hands of people who believe less and less. It is an intolerable situation where the faithful are increasingly being led by the unfaithful." He added that doubts about the core doctrines of the Church were higher among women priests and their supporters.

Only just over half of the admittedly small sample of female clergy in the survey said they believed in the bodily Resurrection and the figure fell to exactly a third when it came to the Virgin birth.

telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2002%2F07%2F31%2Fncreed31.xml

The reporter who wrote this article also appears to have understood exactly what he was talking about. These are NOT “sub-Biblical” or “sub-Patristic” understandings of these Doctrines of the Undivided Church. On the contary, his understandings, and those of the people giving the survey and in Forward in Faith, are completely consistant with those of the Undivided Church and the Apostles and Nicene Creeds.

So, what is it that scares you about these people the Pope has now resolved to take into the Church?

God Bless.

In Christ, Michael

**## And you. **

**I would answer, but I’m so disgusted and nauseated and repelled by the behaviour of people who undermine their own bishops and then expect to become RCs, that I can’t give you the replies you ask for. I’m not “scared” - I’m revolted. I don’t want even to think about them. **

**In answer to your last question - you wrote: **

---

---

[continue…]

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

[continued, ended (for now)]

---

**
Traditional Ang:

Michael:

**
In Response to your Gottle of Geer # 28 & # 29:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=417299&postcount=28

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=417303&postcount=29

This isn’t “Anglican Use”. The Pope tried that, and various Bishops and National Councils of Bishops refused to allow it, in spite of some very clear requests from His Holiness Pope John Paul II to do exactly that.

---

**## I don’t see why they should be cossetted like this. Most other converts to Catholicism from Anglican Christianity have to muck in, and take the Liturgy they are given, whether they like it or not. I had to, and friends of mine had to, just like every other Catholic in the UK. So why the special treatment ? **

---

Making exceptions in this way simply undermines episcopal authority and causes discontent and ill-feeling among us. If they can’t obey the same laws as the rest of us have to, they had better not become Catholics. ##

---

**

The Pope has therefore decided to create and UNIATE BODY (You might want to go look at those 33 Articles of Brest that brought in the Ukranian Catholic Church and most of the other Eastern Catholic Churches that are in union with His Holiness Pope John Paul II.

**
If you do some study, you will see that one feature is that the various Bishops who hadd objections to this GET NO VOTE ON THE MATTER, because this is an agreement between the HOLY SEE and the Place the Name in the Blank CATHOLIC CHURCH.## I think that is unspeakable -I’ve no words for it: “If bishops object, ignore them” ? This is scandalous, whether the bishops being ignored be Catholic or Anglican. ##

**

That is what they did with all of these EASTERN (aka “Uniate”) CATHOLIC CHURCHES, and what the Pope and Cardinal Ratzinger plan to do with the TAC. IMO, This is how this Pope plans to convert England (an England that now sees the C of E as becoming increasingly Pegan) to the Catholic Church, and how he plans to do so in spite of the countervaling efforts of the English Bishops.

**## This is perfectly adapted to awaken all the old fears of Popery and Romanism and Roman assaults on the English Church and nation. The Bishop of Rome may not think that the Anglican bishops are the successors of the Apostles and the vicars of Christ in their dioceses, but they do - and their theological claims are as valid in Anglican eyes as are his in Roman eyes. So it is infamous that he should trample over Anglicanism like this. It puts Catholic ecumenism in a very bad light: for many Christians suspect that ecumenism is a mere ruse by Rome to gain by deceit what it cannot gain by open force - and this sort of thing justifies that suspicion up to the hilt

---

It’s also most unconvincing, since in the Pope’s own diocese about 10% of Catholics go to Mass. So he is in no position to lecture Anglicans on “paganism”. I suggest he get his own house in order first - then he might be in a position to lecture others. There is plenty of paganism, witchcraft, Christo-paganism, and syncretism among us: this is one of the complaints of those who object to Catholic feminism. Read “Ungodly Rage” for a very even-temprered survey by one critic.

---

So you’ll understand, I hope, why I’m unimpressed by anti-Anglican complaining. ##

 

[teresas1979]

*I have taken this from a website which covers in simple form the articles of belief of the Church of England/Episcopal Church:episcopalian.org/efac/39articles/39art.htm

*6. The Sufficiency of Scripture for salvation
Holy Scripture contains all things necessary for salvation. Consequently whatever is not read in Scripture nor can be proved from Scripture cannot be demanded from any person to believe it as an article of the faith. Nor is any such thing to be thought necessary or required for salvation. By holy scripture is meant those canonical books of the Old and New Testaments whose authority has never been doubted within the church

This is why they only uphold Baptism and the Lord’s Supper as necessary sacraments as these are the only ones Jesus insisted upon in Scripture