Saints and Heroes of the Christian Church in the Anglican Communion

  • Thread starter Thread starter A.Pelliccio
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
mortonsam said:
You are spot on Gurney. Apostolicae Curae was an absolute sham. It was not carefully examined and studied as it has so many times been touted. It was declared in haste and in my opinion in hate as well. I feel the same way about the Council of Trent. It was nothing more than feel good fluff for Rome to redeclare the foundation of the faithful while condemning Luther to hell
Click to expand...
Like all history, that of Apostolicae Curae is complicated and involves some politics, personalities, and theology, mixed. As always, I suggest Hughes’ ABSOLUTELY NULL AND UTTERLY VOID for the most detailed account of the history of what happened, from the first meeting of Portal and Lord Halifax, in 1890, to the issuing of the Bull in September 1896. The behind the scenes workings, esp. of Cardinal Vaughan, is instructive.

GKC
 
gurneyhalleck1 said:
You’re basing this argument on Apostolicae Curae by Pope Leo XIII. As we’ve discussed at length in this very forum for years now the “Dutch Touch” and “Polish Pat” as they are colloquially called, were co-consecrations that took place between the Anglican bishops and PNCC and Old Catholic bishops in the early Twentieth Century. These co-consecrations re-infused apostolic succession into Anglican lines even if, and I don’t agree with Leo XIII anyway, Anglican lines were previously “null and utterly void” as he put it so bluntly. Bottom line is the Catholic Church hasn’t commented on Anglican orders or their validity since Apostolicae Curae because there is a heap of reasonable doubt as to whether that determination still holds up after these developments. I personally believe in the priesthood of the Anglican Communion to be valid. And my own Bishop John David Schofield has told us of a powerful Eucharistic miracle that he encountered himself thirty years ago in an Anglican Church that changed his life. He actually encountered Christ in a very powerful way. I’ve told the story on here before. It changed him and he took a vow of celibacy and has been a phenomenal bishop.
Click to expand...
The reason the Anglican orders became invalid was not mainly due to the changing of the words of consecration but the change in the understanding of the priesthood. In order for an ordination (or any other sacrament for that matter) to be valid there needs to be the right intention; in this case a sacraficial priesthood seperate from the laity. The Protestant reformers rejected this notion the change in the form of ordination merely acknologed this change. I suppose the “Dutch Touch” or “Polish Pat” had the potential to restore validity of Anglican orders but part of the intention is also on the part of the one recieving it. due to the notion that the priesthood is not seperate from the laity there would still be no sacrament recieved.
 
Crusading_Canuk said:
The reason the Anglican orders became invalid was not mainly due to the changing of the words of consecration but the change in the understanding of the priesthood. In order for an ordination (or any other sacrament for that matter) to be valid there needs to be the right intention; in this case a sacraficial priesthood seperate from the laity. The Protestant reformers rejected this notion the change in the form of ordination merely acknologed this change. I suppose the “Dutch Touch” or “Polish Pat” had the potential to restore validity of Anglican orders but part of the intention is also on the part of the one recieving it. due to the notion that the priesthood is not seperate from the laity there would still be no sacrament recieved.
Click to expand...
Gurney knows.

It was due to the inter-related points of the change to the Edwardine Ordinal, using wording not in itself different from that in a number of Rites which the RC considers as conveying valid orders, and the presumption of the invalidity of intent, in the use of that form in particular sacramental actions, given how it had been historically constructed. That is, the use of the Ordinl, given its history, was taken to permit a determinatio ex adiunctus, to revel the otherwise hidden interior intention of those who used it.

It is an arguable point; see Hughes’ STEWARDS OF THE LORD. But it is not arguable that such is the official judgment of the RCC on Anglican orders and all RCs should so affirm.

GKC
 
I would reply here but GKC summed it up well so I defer to his post.
Crusading_Canuk said:
The reason the Anglican orders became invalid was not mainly due to the changing of the words of consecration but the change in the understanding of the priesthood. In order for an ordination (or any other sacrament for that matter) to be valid there needs to be the right intention; in this case a sacraficial priesthood seperate from the laity. The Protestant reformers rejected this notion the change in the form of ordination merely acknologed this change. I suppose the “Dutch Touch” or “Polish Pat” had the potential to restore validity of Anglican orders but part of the intention is also on the part of the one recieving it. due to the notion that the priesthood is not seperate from the laity there would still be no sacrament recieved.
Click to expand...
 
GKC said:
Gurney knows.

It was due to the inter-related points of the change to the Edwardine Ordinal, using wording not in itself different from that in a number of Rites which the RC considers as conveying valid orders, and the presumption of the invalidity of intent, in the use of that form in particular sacramental actions, given how it had been historically constructed. That is, the use of the Ordinl, given its history, was taken to permit a determinatio ex adiunctus, to revel the otherwise hidden interior intention of those who used it.

It is an arguable point; see Hughes’ STEWARDS OF THE LORD. But it is not arguable that such is the official judgment of the RCC on Anglican orders and all RCs should so affirm.

GKC
Click to expand...
Ok, so what is the Anglican understanding of Holy Orders
 
gurneyhalleck1 said:
I’m reading Diarmaid MacCulloch’s “The Reformation” again for the second time through. He has a pretty dim assessment of Trent as well.
Apostolicae Curae was ill-informed and ill-conceived IMO as well. The way the Church dealt with Elizabeth I in the 16th Century was another humdinger. Excommunicating her, openly encouraging her assassination with promises of immediate absolution for it in papal nuncios, encouraging the Spanish against England. It’s no wonder the English weren’t papal fans 🤷
Click to expand...
It is no wonder why England despised the pope. As you pointed out here, it was for very good measure. Archbishop Cranmer, Ridley and Latimer were the three blind mice (hence the nursery rhyme) that were led through the crowd blindfolded and then burned by the horrific Bloody Mary as well. Oh yeah, btw I am Anglican.
Click to expand...
 
GKC said:
Gurney knows.
It was due to the inter-related points of the change to the Edwardine Ordinal, using wording not in itself different from that in a number of Rites which the RC considers as conveying valid orders, and the presumption of the invalidity of intent, in the use of that form in particular sacramental actions, given how it had been historically constructed. That is, the use of the Ordinl, given its history, was taken to permit a determinatio ex adiunctus
Click to expand...
Beautiful job GKC!
Click to expand...
 
A.Pelliccio said:
Does anyone know why men like SS. Thomas More and Bishop Fisher and Blessed John Newman are commemorated as Saints in the Anglican Communion? It just seems queer to me that these men - two of them martyred in opposition to the break with Rome- are then hailed by an organization they would disdain.

Thank you,

Anthony
Click to expand...
And, if it hasn’t been asked already, which Anglican would have declared them Saints and when?

Was it by acclamation?
 
mark_a said:
And, if it hasn’t been asked already, which Anglican would have declared them Saints and when?

Was it by acclamation?
Click to expand...
Anglicans tend to stick saints in randomly, at the whim of varying jurisdictions, the only semi-exception being the aforementioned Charles II, King and Martyr.

GKC
 
Bluegoat said:
I rather think though that as Catholics you affirm that saints are in Heaven, and you even affirm particular people as being saints in Heaven. You might want to check that out.
Click to expand...
We believe they’re in heaven, we affirm they’re in heaven, we do not stop at thinking they’re in heaven. Does this make sense to you now?
 
As I mentioned, I’m reading “The Reformation” by MacCulloch right now and it’s funny how he talks about Mary being more emotionally-driven and not the sharpest tool in the shed. Elizabeth was the opposite.
 
gurneyhalleck1 said:
As I mentioned, I’m reading “The Reformation” by MacCulloch right now and it’s funny how he talks about Mary being more emotionally-driven and not the sharpest tool in the shed. Elizabeth was the opposite.
Click to expand...
Mary was a little passionate, true. Elizabeth had the facade of what Chesterton called her: the cold queen of England.

GKC
 
As you well know, I could care less what Chesterton said! 😛
GKC said:
Mary was a little passionate, true. Elizabeth had the facade of what Chesterton called her: the cold queen of England.

GKC
Click to expand...
 
And the pope’s actions toward her and the Catholic approach to her monarchy gave her the sympathy she needed from the English people. Perfect timing…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top