Licit Sacraments

[Filioque]

The Dutch Touch is not unknown to me, I have however asked several Anglican clerics I know if the Old Catholic Bishops actually did lay hands on the bishops elect or if they simply attended. To date none have been able to find contemporary references. While I am sure they exist, I’m going to withold judgement for the time being.

This also begs the question of contrary intention. I have met more than one TAC/Continuing Bishop who has made public statements about the Eucharist that would make a Calvinist or Zwiglian blush. They deny anything but a symbolic presence in his sermons. How they could form a Catholic intention when they ordained baffles me.

I do hope and pray for re-union one day. There are some wonderful aspects of the English Use. While I do prefer Latin to English, the Knott missal does have some beautiful language, and Coverdale did have a way with words. I don’t think it will come under the leadership of Heppworth, or his confres. But then again, I’m not God, and can’t see into the hearts of the TAC or those in the Vatican.

 

[GKC]

The Dutch Touch is not unknown to me, I have however asked several Anglican clerics I know if the Old Catholic Bishops actually did lay hands on the bishops elect or if they simply attended. To date none have been able to find contemporary references. While I am sure they exist, I’m going to withold judgement for the time being.

A list of the Anglican bishops co-consecrated between 1932 and 1964, by OC bishops, along with the statement of the Old Catholic Bishop of Haarlem, at the first such consecration, 24 June 1932, as to the intent to confer the episcopacy in what he was about to do, can be found in Appendix II of Fr. J. J. Hughes’ book on the theological implications of Apostolicae Curae, STEWARDS OF THE LORD, pages 340-341. The statement is quite detailed, as to the intent of the action, and the reasons for the co-consecrations. Also in the appendix can be found a list of the Episcopal bishops who had PNCC co-consecrators, between 1946 and 1963. The matter is if no historical doubt whatsoever. The bishop who ordained my priest was himself consecrated by a bishop who had PNCC lines, from his consecration in 1962.

This also begs the question of contrary intention. I have met more than one TAC/Continuing Bishop who has made public statements about the Eucharist that would make a Calvinist or Zwiglian blush. They deny anything but a symbolic presence in his sermons. How they could form a Catholic intention when they ordained baffles me.

I have no comment on this. No Continuing bishop I have ever met has ever said anything remotely similar.

I do hope and pray for re-union one day. There are some wonderful aspects of the English Use. While I do prefer Latin to English, the Knott missal does have some beautiful language, and Coverdale did have a way with words. I don’t think it will come under the leadership of Heppworth, or his confres. But then again, I’m not God, and can’t see into the hearts of the TAC or those in the Vatican.

I prefer Latin, myself, and sometimes get some. Coverdale was a wonder, as, for that matter, was the silver-tongued schismatic, Cranmer.

I am a skeptic on the TAC story, but I bide my time. We shall see. Current rumors say listen closely, after Easter.

GKC

 

[Filioque]

Finally someone who can direct me to source material on the “Dutch Touch” I do have a couple of Fr. Hughes books, not this one however. I’ll have to look for it. I do thank you. Sad that after ten years of asking Episcopal and Anglican priests about the subject, all I got was, “I’m not sure about that, I don’t know where you could find that information.”

I’m hopeful that you trust that I’m not making up what I heard the Continuing Bishops say. One I am told by a couple of ACC priests even decided at a Clericus to use Coffee Cake for the celebration of Mass, because he had become bored with tasteless hosts. (Now I don’t deny that there have been more than a handful of RC priests who have used invalid matter and deny the fundamental truths of the Faith). But I just have trouble tales like this from a man who denied the real presence from the pulpit being able to formulate the minimal intention. Even if he was a RC bishop, I’d have trouble believing in his intention.

 

[GKC]

Finally someone who can direct me to source material on the “Dutch Touch” I do have a couple of Fr. Hughes books, not this one however. I’ll have to look for it. I do thank you. Sad that after ten years of asking Episcopal and Anglican priests about the subject, all I got was, “I’m not sure about that, I don’t know where you could find that information.”

I’m hopeful that you trust that I’m not making up what I heard the Continuing Bishops say. One I am told by a couple of ACC priests even decided at a Clericus to use Coffee Cake for the celebration of Mass, because he had become bored with tasteless hosts. (Now I don’t deny that there have been more than a handful of RC priests who have used invalid matter and deny the fundamental truths of the Faith). But I just have trouble tales like this from a man who denied the real presence from the pulpit being able to formulate the minimal intention. Even if he was a RC bishop, I’d have trouble believing in his intention.

Hughes’ two books on the Bull are, IMO, the best exposition of the Anglican position on the subject available. The other title, ABSOLUTELY NULL AND UTTERLY VOID addresses the history of the sad affair, while STEWARDS OF THE LORD engages much of Fr. Clark’s ANGLICAN ORDERS AND DEFECT OF INTENTION logic. And Fr. Hughes is a fascinating individual, himself.

You might also find Fr. C.B. Moss’ book THE OLD CATHOLIC MOVMENT, chap. XXVIII, of interest, on the Agreement of Bonn, which discusses the Anglican/OC formal intercommunion process. Moss takes care to state, with respect to several of the specific co-consecrations that “care was taken that the Old Catholic bishop should lay his hands on the head of the candidate and pronounce the words of consecration” (pp 348-349). He further states, immediately following, that bishops consecrated in such a way must not be assumed to be accepted as validly consecrated by Rome. Which was my point.

Whoever that bishop was, he is likely one of a kind, in my experience.

GKC

 

[Filioque]

Whoever that bishop was, he is likely one of a kind, in my experience.

I wish my I could say the same, however I’ve found a wide variety of beliefs regarding the Eucharist, sadly not just among Episcopalian clergy, or the TAC/Continuing, but also among more than one “Modern and Updated” RCC clergy. Some of the things I’ve heard from the new Pastor of my parish have been enough to drive me back to the Eastern Rite parish twenty times the distance from my house.

 

[GKC]

I wish my I could say the same, however I’ve found a wide variety of beliefs regarding the Eucharist, sadly not just among Episcopalian clergy, or the TAC/Continuing, but also among more than one “Modern and Updated” RCC clergy. Some of the things I’ve heard from the new Pastor of my parish have been enough to drive me back to the Eastern Rite parish twenty times the distance from my house.

That is sad. A range of opinion regarding the Eucharist, is, of course, historic in Anglicanism generally. But one would expect the episcopacy of the Continuum, mostly, and the TAC particularly, to have been more stratified on doctrine. Sad.

Your reaction to what you found in your parish is the sort of thing that brought the Continuum into being, 30 years ago. Sad, all around.

GKC