L
Lepanto
Guest
With what part(s) of the article do you disagree?
Rome tells Anglicans: it's time to decide if you are Protestants or Catholics
- Status
M
mercygate
Guest
Once again, I encourage anyone posing these questions to listen to Fr. Peter Geldard’s excellent discussion on this week’s Journey Home.
C
Contarini
Guest
The change was one of nuance, and certainly boded well for ecumenical discussions. However, you misunderstood what I was saying–I was saying that we do not think that the Catholic Church fully subsists within *our *Communion, so of necessity we do not start from the same position in ecumenical discussion (this is why complains on our side that we “give up more than you do” are unreasonable–that’s not what it’s about anyway).Man… we went from “est” to “subsistit”, putting up with all kinds of **** from the radtrads about it, and you’re STILL not happy? Geez, there’s no pleasing you people!
My impression from that discussion and from others I’ve read is that “subsistit” does make a unique claim for the Roman Communion. Only in the Roman Communion (according to Vatican II) can all the marks of Catholicity be found. Other Christian churches may have some aspects, but the Catholic Church does not “subsist” in any other communion.
Anglicans, on the other hand, would argue that the Catholic Church “subsists” in several different communions–and it is presumably also true that elements of the Church also exist in religious bodies that do not embody the Catholic Church fully. When we get down to specifics, there are differences among Anglicans. Anglo-Catholics would argue that the Catholic Church subsists within churches that have apostolic succession, with elements of the Church existing in a more partial degree in other Christian churches. Other Anglicans would have a broader definition of the Catholic Church.
In Christ,
Edwin
C
chris_molter
Guest
Edwin,
I did misread your initial part about est vs subsistit. Apologies. We’re on the same page (though obviously by virtue of our respective communions, not in agreement). But hey, it’s a start.
I did misread your initial part about est vs subsistit. Apologies. We’re on the same page (though obviously by virtue of our respective communions, not in agreement). But hey, it’s a start.
M
mercygate
Guest
They use the Book of Divine Worship. It was developed with guidance from Fr. Peter Stravinskas.
T
thirdn6
Guest
Sorry but this is the only way I can participate in this forum- in between breaks! But thanks to everybody for your understanding and patience.
G
GKC
Guest
They came about because the Anglican Communion (generally) was led off the rails by those who would not, in any case, have worked for a close relationship between the RCC and Anglicanism, the aim of the ARCIC. Which, as I said, is not the work of the Holy Spirit. What is going on is not necessarily what might have been going on,. And the Holy Spirit wasn’t a player, leading Anglicanism toward apostasy.
GKC
G
GKC
Guest
Then do what Anglicans do, who are bothered by them. Ignore them. Or consign them to the “historical” section, as in the 1979 book. Or cut them out of the BCP and use them to kindle the New fire at Easter.
It is of no consequence to Anglicanism in general how Elizabeth I chose to govern her fractious Church, 450 years ago. Nor are the 6 Articles, the 10 Articles, the 42 Articles, the 39 Articles, or any other such listings, of interest in themselves, save as historical artifacts. The contents of those which are “mere Christianity” stand on their own authority, not that of the Elizabethan Parliament.
The BDW liturgy is basically the 1979 Rite I, with a stronger eucharistic prayer (s), including epiclesis, and some appropriate mention of the Pope. A better choice to adapt would have been the 1928 Book, IMO, but at least it was 79 Rite I, and not Rite II.
GKC
G
GKC
Guest
And I’m split between two houses, one without a computer. It will only get worse, for a while.
GKC
T
thirdn6
Guest
So the Articles are not really rejected but rather to be “edited” to conform to the historic (Catholic) Faith? The Protestant part of it will be removed? Great! But in the mean time the congregation will continue to receive literally bread and wine- and be deprived of the valid Eucharist? Is this what the priests/bishops(?) will be telling them? Why not avail of the pastoral provision set up for returning Anglicans, and… priests be re-ordained? And the misleading Articles be thrown out altogether?
Concessions would require compromising something, wouldn’t it? Doctrines… Church moral teachings, maybe?
Expression of commitment is as good as expression of good intention- it doesn’t promise any absolute conclusion.
T
thirdn6
Guest
I kept erring… I said Book of Common Worship! It is the Book of Divine Worship that’s in my mind. Anyway, that didn’t make the Church teachings false
!Thanks for your post, mercygate.
So, no one’s going to reply why they are not using the BCP?
T
thirdn6
Guest
As Contarini said in his post here, there might be some valid Anglican priests (I am bound not to believe). So then there are so many invalid Anglican priests, correct? And many in the congregation are taught to believing that the holy communion is but a symbol (Article XXVIII- Of the Lord’s Supper). Definitely no transubstantiation. Because invalid priests can not consecrate bread and wine to become the true flesh and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. Many are misled- that’s what bothers me, are you not?
Is it not a proper time to sort it out? To keep ahold of Protestant belief or to grab the reaching arms of the true Catholic Faith and be nourished as members of His body in the Holy Eucharist?
G
GKC
Guest
No, what Contarini meant was that by the logic of Apostolicae Curae, there may be valid, but illicit Anglican priests (and, ignoring the concept of invalid matter in consecrations/ordiantions (a problem AC did not have to address in 1896), it is hard to find an Anglican priest without some form of the Dutch Touch in his lines). OTOH, Anglicans do not accept the conclusions of Apostolicae Curae. A (otherwise) properly ordained Anglican priest, with the proper matter, intent and form, confects a valid eucharist (or other sacrament) and the communicants receive the very Body and Blood of Our Lord. RCs should deny this, of course.
Certainly some Anglicans believe that the Eucharist is only symbolic. One should properly catechize them. As I said, there is a range of doctrinal opinion in the Anglican world that streches through its history.
I certainly agree with your last paragraph.
GKC
G
GKC
Guest
I think I did. The Anglican Use uses a slightly modified form of Rite I from the 1979 Book of Common Prayer as used by TEC. It adds some mention of the Pope, and has stronger Eucharistic prayers. (in my parish the liturgy is often supplimented from the Anglican Missal, which amounts to the about the same thing).I kept erring… I said Book of Common Worship! It is the Book of Divine Worship that’s in my mind. Anyway, that didn’t make the Church teachings false
Thanks for your post, mercygate.
So, no one’s going to reply why they are not using the BCP?
GKC
M
mercygate
Guest
They are using a version of the BCP in The Book of Divine Worshp. Too bad they went with the 1979 BCP. I wasn’t in on that decision so I don’t know the rationale.I kept erring… I said Book of Common Worship! It is the Book of Divine Worship that’s in my mind. Anyway, that didn’t make the Church teachings false
Thanks for your post, mercygate.
So, no one’s going to reply why they are not using the BCP?
The best part is that the Eucharistic Canon of the BCP, which was theologically defective, has been replaced by the most GORGEOUS translation of the Roman Canon that you ever heard in your life.
The great irony there is that it was translated in the 16th Century by Miles Coverdale, whose rabid anti-Catholicism was so intense that after a period of exile during Queen Mary’s reign, the Church of England refused to re-install him as Bishop of Exeter. Coverdale had done the translation of the Psalter for “The Great Bible.” It is the Psalter of the BCP, and to my mind the most beautiful in English (although, ahem, by no means the most accurate).
Coverdale was a poetic heart, and couldn’t help writing magnificent prose. He had written a translation of the Roman Canon into English so that ordinary people could see for themselves what a poisonous, pernicious, godless thing it was.
If you attend an Anglican Use Mass today, that is the canon that will be used. Don’tcha love it?
M
mercygate
Guest
You are bound to no such thing. At least two Anglicans have been ordained to the Catholic priesthood “sub conditione” – which means that there is sufficient evidence for validity that ordination de novo would be sacrilege.
Yes.
Though Anglicans may not believe in transubstantiation, the 39 Articles do historically accept the Real Presence: (Article XVIII)
[T]he Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ; and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ.
The Anglican-Roman Catholic Joint Statement on Eucharistic Doctrine definitely gives permissive consent to the possibility of accepting the mode of Christ’s Presence as Transubstantiation – given that the 39 Articles, which specifically rejected Transubstantion (partly because it had led to superstition) are no longer binding:
**Communion with Christ in the eucharist presupposes his true presence, effectually signified by the bread and wine which, in this mystery, become his body and blood. **
The footnote to this statement reads:
The word transubstantiation is commonly used in the Roman Catholic Church to indicate that God acting in the eucharist effects a change in the inner reality of the elements. The term should be seen as affirming the fact of Christ’s presence and of the mysterious and radical change which takes place. In contemporary Roman Catholic theology it is not understood as explaining how the change takes place.
These things happen on different time schedules for different people. Stepping on the necks of people who have not yet reached the point of acceptance is hardly a way to welcome those who are still working their way through the process.
And don’t forget, the Catholic Church today in the average American suburb looks extremely, and almost offensively, Protestant to an Anglo-Catholic steeped in Palestrina, Mozart, Gregorian chant, Latin and exquisite Catholic liturgical forms scarcely known to the Catholic Church for the past 40 years.
C
chris_molter
Guest
Now, I’m a big fan of the use of Latin in the liturgy and I agree wholeheartedly! Just reading the Canon gets my eyes watering!
C
Contarini
Guest
I have no idea. We have yet to see a corporate reunion between any branch of Protestantism and the Roman Communion. (And yes, I do think that we Anglicans constitute a branch of Protestantism. This is historically indisputable, even though many Anglicans reject most Protestant theology.) I am saying that this is one possibility that would treat our heritage with integrity (as the Pope has called for) but would also not compromise the historic Catholic Faith. Furthermore, as GKC and I have been saying, many Anglicans do this anyway even apart from an agreement with Rome. We recognize that the sixteenth-century “Reformation” was just one moment in our history, and that the Reformers were fallible humans whose legacy is mixed at best.
I’m not sure what connection you see between our attitude to the Articles (which as I mentioned have a fairly low and contingent status in many sectors of Anglicanism already) and the question of validity. Obviously any reunion would need to involve conditional reordination to remove doubt (at least in the eyes of your ecclesiastical authorities) that our orders are valid. I think it would be reasonable to allow us to leave the question of Apostolicae Curae unresolved, since a conditional reordination would make the matter moot. What we would of course be required to do is accept the Eucharistic and sacerdotal theology of the Catholic Church (properly interpreted and explained). ARCIC, which you seem to despise, has made huge progress on this.
I’m not sure what you are talking about here, and I wish you would consider what rational basis you have for your suspicions. You can’t seem to give a specific example of something the Catholic Church would be asked to concede. Frankly I don’t get the impression that you know much about the ARCIC discussions. You can read their reports if you really care. You seem generally worried about ecumenism, but you haven’t given concrete grounds for this worry.
Edwin
- Status