G
Rome tells Anglicans: it's time to decide if you are Protestants or Catholics
- Status
**Apropos of nothing very much: why should the C of E be expected to cease to be Protestant
Protestantism in Anglicanism is not a “heritage”, in todays’s “worsened” sense, but a living faith; Anglicans can’t be expected to throw it out as though it were an ill-fitting & worn-out old jacket - there is a lot of wear in it yet.
C
Contarini
Guest
I agree that this is true for many Anglicans, though far more so in England than in the U.S.**Apropos of nothing very much: why should the C of E be expected to cease to be Protestant
Protestantism in Anglicanism is not a “heritage”, in todays’s “worsened” sense, but a living faith; Anglicans can’t be expected to throw it out as though it were an ill-fitting & worn-out old jacket - there is a lot of wear in it yet.? It is not a mere Popeless Catholicism, but a Protestant, reformed, Church: & a lot of its members are Protestants. They seem to be overlooked or forgotten at times - but they are as much Anglicans as any of their Romeophilic fellow-Anglicans. **
I do not hope, in the end, that more than a portion of Anglicanism will ever be reunited to Rome. However, at least from the U.S. perspective (CofE evangelicals are more stridently Protestant, I think) there’s good hope for a reunion that would include more than traditional Anglo-Catholics.
I basically agree with Fr. Louis Bouyer–or at least I would dearly like to–that what is positive in Protestantism can be united to Catholicism, and that the “negations” of Protestantism can be separated from what is genuinely of value.
Edwin
T
thirdn6
Guest
This is kind of interesting to me so I have to get back to it. I’d like to imagine how much time and effort was put by those who penned these Articles of Faith supposedly for all Anglicans to believe(?) and profess and then just consider them as historical artifacts?
How about the documents coming out of the Lambeth conferences after the ramblings and divisiveness among the bishops(?)- are they at all binding or be also thrown out to the fire because they are only as useless?
T
thirdn6
Guest
There are THINGS that are irreversible. CAN NOT be undone. That is why Anglicans have to sort it out and make decisions.
It may call for some changes or reforms BUT these changes has to happen in Anglicanism not in Roman Catholicism and full conversion is still necessary NOT re-unification.
I can’t imagine Abp R Williams sitting next to Pope B16 telling him, “Hey, I am now a pope, too!”
Like I’ve said… just my imagination
.
G
GKC
Guest
You need to understand why the Articles were written. They are statecraft crafted as religion; how Elizabeth directed the governance of her fractious Church, to (mainly) restrain the Puritan side, as well as the more Catholic trends (a relative term at the time). I suggest googling the Six Articles, the Ten Articles and so forth, to see how Henry tried to do it. No one cares about them, either. Stop trying to think of them as a Confession, a la Augsburg. Anglicanism is creedal, not confessional.This is kind of interesting to me so I have to get back to it. I’d like to imagine how much time and effort was put by those who penned these Articles of Faith supposedly for all Anglicans to believe(?) and profess and then just consider them as historical artifacts?
How about the documents coming out of the Lambeth conferences after the ramblings and divisiveness among the bishops(?)- are they at all binding or be also thrown out to the fire because they are only as useless?
The articles are inmposed, only on the CoE Ordinands ( who often ignore the fact), by virtue of the CoE being an Erastian Church. For Anglicans in general, no one really cares how Elizabeth chose to direct her Church.
And remember that all member jurisdictions of the Anglican Communion are self-governing. Yes, any Lambeth pronouncements may be ignored. The only possible consequences are a declaration of broken communion, and/or a vote to eject a rebellious jurisdiction from the Communion. Which (theoretically) is what TEC is toying with, with respect to the gay clergy issue.
GKC
C
Contarini
Guest
No, that’s not necessarily true. There are all sorts of changes and reforms that may be needed in the Roman Communion as well. You have had reforms many times before. Both Trent and Vatican II led to major reforms. I’m not talking about changing defined dogmas.
However, as Anglicans we don’t presume to tell you how to change the way things are ordered within the Roman Catholic Church strictly defined. If you want to give us the same kind of status that the Eastern Catholic Churches have, then by all means go on doing things within the Roman Catholic Church (strictly so called) just as you are (if you really want to). I don’t think this would be the ideal, though. I think the ideal would be to give more autonomy to regional churches within Catholicism and let those churches decide matters of discipline for themselves. Thus, the Catholic Church of England would no doubt be influenced by Anglican traditions of liturgy and organization and devotion (if the current C of E was united to the Catholic Church), and so on.
How are you distinguishing these things? What does it mean in your view that the Pope has explicitly rejected “ecumenism of return” in his 2005 ecumenical address at Cologne?
The Archbishop of Canterbury wouldn’t want to be another Pope. He would just want to be Archbishop of Canterbury, as was the case before the schism!I can’t imagine Abp R Williams sitting next to Pope B16 telling him, “Hey, I am now a pope, too!”
Edwin
T
thirdn6
Guest
Ok it seems getting clear… But in the mean time, how is the Holy Communion be addressed… by priests that are not re-ordained? One group of Anglicans are receiving valid Eucharist while the others are not?
S
SIA
Guest
I conform to the authority of Christ.
C
Contarini
Guest
I don’t follow this. Do you mean right now? Obviously we Anglicans think that our priests are celebrating real sacraments now. But even if you failed to persuade us that we were mistaken, a conditional reordination would settle the matter.
Edwin
M
mercygate
Guest
A propos of the question of a segment of the Anglican Communion coming to Rome en masse, Peter Geldard in his Journey Home interview was emphatic in asserting that Rome will not accept any such arrangement, as she does not wish to be divisive. So at least for now, it’s by parishes under the Pastoral Provision, or one man at a time.
T
thirdn6
Guest
Yes, sir! I mean now. Or to be more specific from 1527(?) up to this very moment. Have they been receiving valid sacraments- i.e., reconciliation and holy communion? Can an Anglican priest absolve sins and consecrate bread and wine to become true body and blood of the Lord Jesus Christ?
If you believe you have valid priests- why re-ordain? Are you trying to please Rome? To be re-ordained in the Catholic Church is to become a bona fide catholic like some I already know.
Does this also mean that Cardinal Kasper doesn’t know what he’s talking about? Why would he ask Anglicans to decide whether they be Protestants or Catholics?
T
thirdn6
Guest
This is what I always believe. Because the good Lord seeks obedience, the humbleness of a person, the sincerity of the heart, the purity of the conscience.
May the Holy Spirit touch each one of them and finally call them home. God bless everyone.
C
Camron
Guest
These are good questions that I would like to hear an answer to.
How does this not eventually lead directly back to an “Ecumenism of Return”?
Keep in mind that, technically speaking, you can’t return to something unless you first have left it. Almost all non-Catholic Christians were brought up as non-Catholics. They never have been Catholics. If they were to become Catholics now, they would not be “returning” to the Church. They would be entering for the first time. :hug3:
Keep in mind too that in Unitatis Redintegratio the Council chastises Catholic faithful for not living a Christian life as we should. And it states quite clearly that there can be no ecumenism without a change of heart.
Perhaps this same kind of change of heart must take place among the separated brethren as well.This isn’t like two hearts beating as one. This would be two beats of the very same heart
– one systolic and the other diastolic. And this seems reasonable to me. :idea:
M
mercygate
Guest
Good, GOOD point. For Anglicans, the term “return” may be a little more tenable since they have so much that is Catholic in their thinking and practice – and the catholic wing of the church KNOWS that they are “separated” and they KNOW that without Peter in their house of bishops, the key piece is missing.These are good questions that I would like to hear an answer to.
How does this not eventually lead directly back to an “Ecumenism of Return”?
Keep in mind that, technically speaking, you can’t return to something unless you first have left it. Almost all non-Catholic Christians were brought up as non-Catholics. They never have been Catholics. If they were to become Catholics now, they would not be “returning” to the Church. They would be entering for the first time. :hug3:
Keep in mind too that in Unitatis Redintegratio the Council chastises Catholic faithful for not living a Christian life as we should. And it states quite clearly that there can be no ecumenism without a change of heart.
This isn’t like two hearts beating as one. This would be two beats of the very same heart
Truth to tell, for many decades it has been much “easier” to live a catholic FORM of life as an Anglican than as a Catholic. Certainly, when I came into the Church, I was kind of a “freak” because I was “more” “katholick” than most Catholics.
Did I ever tell you how I used to instruct Catholics on the importance of Humanae vitae? Lemme tell ya: the Catholic Church was not all that thrilled to see me coming. They’re not all crazy-out-of-their-minds welcoming of people who REALLY believe ALL that the Church teaches.
Sorry. That was off topic.
S
sharon_rose
Guest
Seriously, are denominations all that important? I think what matters most is putting your faith in Jesus Christ as your saviour. He’s our best friend! Protestants and Catholics are all Christians. No point belonging to a Baptist, Roman Catholic, Anglican church, adhering to the practices and all, etc etc, but not making Jesus Lord of your Life. God sees if you’re true to him, not whether you’re a Quaker, Calvinist, Lutheran, Methodist, blah blah. I’m a Christian. I put my faith in Jesus Christ, Lord and Saviour of my life. He’s also my very best friend. 
M
mercygate
Guest
This is what we would call “relativism”. THe reasoning can be extended to say, “What difference is it if you are are Buddhist, Taoist, Hindu, Muslim . . . ?”Seriously, are denominations all that important? I think what matters most is putting your faith in Jesus Christ as your saviour. He’s our best friend! Protestants and Catholics are all Christians. No point belonging to a Baptist, Roman Catholic, Anglican church, adhering to the practices and all, etc etc, but not making Jesus Lord of your Life. God sees if you’re true to him, not whether you’re a Quaker, Calvinist, Lutheran, Methodist, blah blah. I’m a Christian. I put my faith in Jesus Christ, Lord and Saviour of my life. He’s also my very best friend.
“Denominations” DO matter since Christ COMMANDED that we all be one. He told us that HE is “the Truth.” So Truth matters; and while there is no argument that making Christ the Lord of your life is at the heart of life in Him, it is needful to know Who He Is. When denominations break away from the Church, they fragment the Body. Schism is a very grave sin against the Body of Christ.
T
thirdn6
Guest
Part of the Papal Bull- Apostolicae Curae on Anglican Orders
36. Wherefore, strictly adhering, in this matter, to the decrees of the pontiffs, our predecessors, and confirming them most fully, and, as it were, renewing them by our authority, of our own initiative and certain knowledge, we pronounce and declare that ordinations carried out according to the Anglican rite have been, and are, absolutely null and utterly void.
- We decree that these letters and all things contained therein shall not be liable at any time to be impugned or objected to by reason of fault or any other defect whatsoever of subreption or obreption of our intention, but are and shall be always valid and in force and shall be inviolably observed both juridically and otherwise, by all of whatsoever degree and preeminence, declaring null and void anything which, in these matters, may happen to be contrariwise attempted, whether wittingly or unwittingly, by any person whatsoever, by whatsoever authority or pretext, all things to the contrary notwithstanding.
Why not just split? Call the Protestant-part Anglican priests and the Catholic-part (to be in full communion?) genuine RC priests?
G
GKC
Guest
Once again, as I have felt before in this thread, I suspect there is miscommunication going on. Let me try to clarify.
To address your first para: The point from which *Apostolicae Curae *assumes that Anglican orders became invalid would be from the point that the Anglican episcopate was dependent on the lines flowing from Archbishop Parker, who was consecrated in 1559, using the Edwardine Ordinal. It is this that is the breakpoint in Anglican orders, in Rome’s eyes (see Clark, ANGLICAN ORDERS AND DEFECT OF INTENTION). And to answer your other question in para 1, from the Anglican standpoint, yes, Anglican orders are valid, and Anglicans receive valid Absolution and the very Body and Blood of Our Lord. You seem to have the idea that it is Anglicans (or some of them) who believe Anglican Orders are invalid. That would be the RCC.
No Anglicans are being or have been reordained, within Anglicanism, for any reason whatever, including trying to please Rome, a thought that rarely occurs to even the most Anglo-Catholic Anglican. Anglicans know (as do RCs) that one cannot be “re-ordained”. Receiving Holy Orders imparts an indelible mark, and Orders, like Baptism, is not a sacrament that can be repeated. Since Anglicans do not accept the logic (and a few other determining factors involved) of *Apostolicae Curae *, they are aware that their priesthood is valid and confects valid sacraments, including the Eucharist and Absolution.
The RCC has a different opinion on this. When an Anglican priest converts, and wishes to become a RC priest, he would be ordained absolutely, not “reordained”, according to the RC opinion of Anglican orders. Remember, one cannot be “re-ordained”. I’ll pass over for now the technical issue of ordination *sub conditione *, which has affected at least 2 Anglican priests, now RC priests.
What might be causing you some confusion is the fact that, *Apostolicae Curae *aside, many Anglican bishops were consecrated in joint consecrations with bishops of the Old Catholic Church/Utrecht (starting in 1932) and the PNCC (starting in 1946). This were not "reconsecrations; one cannot repeat a consecration either. What this implies (though there is no RC definitive statement on it) is that since the OCs and the PNCC possess valid, though illicit, Orders (in Rome’s eyes), these Orders were transmitted by the imposition of hands to the Anglican bishops. Who then transmit them, in turn, in a spreading web, each time they consecrate or ordain. Hence, a large portion of Anglicanism possesses valid but illicit Orders (in Roman eyes. Rome follows the Augustinian theory of tranmission of Orders). The rector of my parish for example, was ordained by a bishop who was consecrated by a bishop whose own consecration involved the PNCC. Hence, even assuming *Apostolciae Curae *was correct (something Anglicans do not assume), there logically exist many, many Anglican priests who possess valid Orders, via the OC/PNCC episcopal lines infused into Anglicanism over the past 80 years. It was this fact that (I think) Contarini was referring to in saying some Anglican priests must possess valid Orders, even in Rome’s eyes.
But there is no re-ordaining. Can’t be done, anyway.
I don’t know if Cardinal Kaspar knows what he’s talking about or not. Some RCS seem to suggest that, in general, he doesn’t. But here he merely is recognising that Anglicanism is hard to pin down, and possesses some features, in some places, of both Protestantism and Catholicism.
I suspect there may be more questions.
GKC
G
GKC
Guest
Yes, as I said, Apostolicae Curae has been a hobby of mine for over 10 years; the words are familiar to me.Part of the Papal Bull- Apostolicae Curae on Anglican Orders
36. Wherefore, strictly adhering, in this matter, to the decrees of the pontiffs, our predecessors, and confirming them most fully, and, as it were, renewing them by our authority, of our own initiative and certain knowledge, we pronounce and declare that ordinations carried out according to the Anglican rite have been, and are, absolutely null and utterly void.
Simple question- IF there would be corporate reunion, should you still call your priests Anglican priests? Remember, Anglican Orders are always to be taken by RCs as invalid orders according to the Papal Bull. How would you get around it without compromising the RC position?
- We decree that these letters and all things contained therein shall not be liable at any time to be impugned or objected to by reason of fault or any other defect whatsoever of subreption or obreption of our intention, but are and shall be always valid and in force and shall be inviolably observed both juridically and otherwise, by all of whatsoever degree and preeminence, declaring null and void anything which, in these matters, may happen to be contrariwise attempted, whether wittingly or unwittingly, by any person whatsoever, by whatsoever authority or pretext, all things to the contrary notwithstanding.
Why not just split? Call the Protestant-part Anglican priests and the Catholic-part (to be in full communion?) genuine RC priests?
I think we have again failed to communicate. In my view, if there were to be any form of corporate reunion (which I don’t expect to happen) *sub conditione *ordination, as was used in the cases of Graham Leonard and John Hughes, would accomodate both Apostolicae Curae, and any Anglicans who were not convinced that their Orders were invalid. But since I don’t expect that to happen, I don’t expect a corporate reunion. A corporate reunion (it seems to me) could not imply two classes of priests, but (somehow) a single class, with unquestionably valid Orders. Unlikely to happen, IMO. But if it were to, *sub conditione *could accomplish it. Or, you could imagine a case where all Anglican priests accepted the RC dictum that their Orders were invalid and were ordained absolutely. Again, unlikely.
GKC
C
Contarini
Guest
The validity of the Henrician “Anglican” Church is unquestioned. The question concerns priests ordained under the Edwardian Ordinal (from 1549 on? but the real break is the accession of Elizabeth in 1558, at which point many of the bishops resigned).
If you think that reunion requires that Anglicans solemnly profess that they have not been receiving Christ’s Body for five hundred years, then you’re right that this is a serious problem. However, I see no reason to think that the Pope and bishops of the Catholic Church would make such a draconian requirement. Note for instance the way ecumenical relations with the non-Chalcedonian churches of the East are handled (and to avoid misunderstanding, let me clarify that I know that their orders are not in question–their Christology is). The Catholic Church does not, as I understand it, demand that these churches should confess that they have been Christological heretics all these centuries. Rather, it demands that they clarify that their belief *now *is compatible with that of the Catholic Church.
Similarly, I don’t see that a question as to the past (including the currently present) status of Anglican orders need prevent reunion. What matters, surely, is that the Catholic Church as it would exist after a reunion would not contain within it priests of questionably valid orders.
I’m speaking of conditional ordination. This is normal practice when there is doubt as to the validity of a sacrament. And yes, the point would be to “please” Rome in the sense of being able to unite with Rome. But more importantly, the point would be to please our Lord Jesus Christ who prayed that we would all be one. I find it ironic that Catholics hit us over the head all day long with this prayer, and then find it odd that some of us actually take it seriously. Surely the acceptance of a conditional reordination is a small price to pay for unity.
Look at what he actually says. What he says is that Anglicans need to decide whether their identity lies more with the pre-Reformation Catholic Church or with the churches of the Reformation. I fail to see how anything I’m saying would imply that the Cardinal doesn’t know what he is talking about. Quite to the contrary, I think he’s put his finger on the basic issue we have to resolve as Anglicans.
Edwin
- Status