Should I stay or should I go?

[ASimpleSinner]

It appears that you have never considered the fact that the body and blood of Christ is something that he gave. It is not something owned by the Catholic church to be dispersed among whomever they wish. This is the reason why any baptized Christian can receive in our church. It is a sad sad thing that Catholics believe that only they are blessed in such a way.

Don’t insult me by telling me what it appears I have considered or not. You come here asking for our thoughts on the matter, than you respond to us in such a fashion that makes it rather clear you don’t agree and don’t want to hear it anyway.

But what is new?

You revile us so much for our consistent teachings in this matter, why do you come back at us? Why bother being here? Why bother worrying about what we thinkg except to denounce it?

We have, already been down this road before, Traveller1534

I have personally witnessed a miracle just prior to receiving communion in my church. I was Catholic for 34 years and through praying, saying the rosary and meditating on the Eucharist experienced nothing.

Traveller1534:

In my 34 years as a Roman Catholic I could never understand why all of the adoration, veneration and quite frankly the near worship of Mary…

You certainly wasted no time in getting back on the horse after being banned the first time around. (Or was that just the first screen name of yours I noticed?)

I was thinking the banning would lead to a kinder gentler Traveller1534. No such luck. ACbishop is building up all the same vitriolic momentum.

SO I ask you again…

Traveller - some basic netiquette dictates it is time to stand up or stand down.

In the scant 15 posts you have merrily spread accross CAF you have mostly written a sentence or two or three as to why you are NOT Catholic with gems like:

***Why does the Roman Catholic church really lack that zeal for fellowship and out reach?

---

***If faith alone were not true, then how could a man who sinned graveously his entire life be saved just breaths before death by our one and true savior himself? Jesus said today you will be with me in paradise, not if you say a set number of Hail Mary’s and such maybe you will make it through purgatory. ***

***There are many reasons why I left Catholicism and social behavior is just merely one of the smaller reasons. True tradition and doctrine would be two much larger ones.

---

I’m really sorry that you look at it that way. If you really and truly believe that God wishes you to be guilt ridden your entire life, than I think unfortunately you have missed the boat.

My favorite barb being the most recent:

I left the church when I realized that the truth cannot possibly remain to be the truth over time if you apply 100% Catholic logic to it. It is impossible!

And it makes it all the harder to see this comment as ANYTHING by disingenuous:

*** Very sad that we can’t consider each other at least somewhat in focus together.***

Traveler, if you want to discuss the Catholic Faith here great. If you want to discuss questions you had over matters that lead you to leave, very good. If you want to get a feel for Catholic sensibilities on certain matters beyond your parochial world-view of your individual experience, wonderful.

If you don’t share Catholic views - we can live with that. If you disagree with us and play nicely, that is spectacular - there is room for that. If you want to post thoughtful posts that are a little longer than three-sentences and have a back and forth dialogue rather than make broad claims like “the truth cannot possibly remain to be the truth over time if you apply 100% Catholic logic to it. It is impossible!”, well let’s talk.

But to pop in and out of threads it begs the question:

Are you hear to discuss difference, and ask questions, or to troll the forum with snide comments about how Catholocism got this that and the other thing wrong, and after 34 years you saw the light and became an Anglican?

What are you here to do?

Travelling AC, what say you?

 

[ASimpleSinner]

The more things change…

 

[ACbishop]

Don’t insult me by telling me what it appears I have considered or not. You come here asking for our thoughts on the matter, than you respond to us in such a fashion that makes it rather clear you don’t agree and don’t want to hear it anyway.

But what is new?

You revile us so much for our consistent teachings in this matter, why do you come back at us? Why bother being here? Why bother worrying about what we thinkg except to denounce it?

We have, already been down this road before, Traveller1534

You certainly wasted no time in getting back on the horse after being banned the first time around. (Or was that just the first screen name of yours I noticed?)

I was thinking the banning would lead to a kinder gentler Traveller1534. No such luck. ACbishop is building up all the same vitriolic momentum.

SO I ask you again…

Travelling AC, what say you?

I guess you could put me in the same category as the many other ex-Catholics that come on here and discuss matters of faith and such. If I’m not mistaken, this is the non-Catholic religions forum so I would be in the correct location.

 

[ASimpleSinner]

I guess you could put me in the same category as the many other ex-Catholics that come on here and discuss matters of faith and such. If I’m not mistaken, this is the non-Catholic religions forum so I would be in the correct location.

Discuss isn’t the verb I would use.

Ridicule more readily comes to mind.

You are flippant and dismissive of our responses to the questions you ask.

I can name a dozen non-Catholics who come here all the time and never do any such thing.

You have a real problem with the Catholic Church. Fine, you are not alone. But after having fled to the peace of TEC why do you come back under a new screen name - after being banned the first time - to lecture, ridicule, and dismiss our thinking.

You left us. What keeps drawing you back if you are at peace?

 

[GKC]

Our (CC) sacramental theology believe form matter and intent to be very important in the administration of the sacraments. It is the judgement of the Catholic Church and the Orthodox that the BCP’s theology and prayers for the consecration of bishops and ministers in the CofE does not a commitment to the sacrament of Holy Orders - therein lies the problem.

No valid orders means no sacraments available but marriage and baptism.

Yep. Most Anglicans agree, no valid orders, no valid sacraments except as noted.

But Anglicans don’t agree with the conclusions of
*Apostolicae Curae * (while not arguing for a moment that you do, and should). And AC doesn’t say that the BCP theology and prayers for the consecration of bsihops and ordination of “ministers” is defective. That judgement was made on the Edwardine Ordinal, changed these 350 years or so (ignoring for a moment the role of intent). And while the judgement of the Orthodox is not monolithic, those who make an adverse ruling on Anglican orders don’t do so for the reasons advanced in AC, but for the same reason Orthodox make adverse judgements on RC orders; they aren’t Orthodox.

It’s complicated.

GKC

 

[MariaG]

I guess you could put me in the same category as the many other ex-Catholics that come on here and discuss matters of faith and such. If I’m not mistaken, this is the non-Catholic religions forum so I would be in the correct location.

But I ask again, why you come and ask for the opinion of people at a Catholic forums? Even though you posted in non-Catholic religions, this is primarily a Catholic forums and you should expect the answers to be from mostly Catholics.

You clearly do not wish to hear the opinion that we think you should go to honor you mother and grandmother, nor have you actually commented on that aspect from hardly any of the posts, which is supposed to be the topic of this thread.

You instead seem to wish to heap anger and angst against the Catholic Church and try to convince us on how much more a spiritual person you now are and how much a better church you go to than the Catholic Church.

Again, I wonder why you did not ask on a board that was predominately your denomination rather than predominantly Catholic? Why did you seek our opinion in the first place?

 

[ACbishop]

Discuss isn’t the verb I would use.

Ridicule more readily comes to mind.

You are flippant and dismissive of our responses to the questions you ask.

I can name a dozen non-Catholics who come here all the time and never do any such thing.

You have a real problem with the Catholic Church. Fine, you are not alone. But after having fled to the peace of TEC why do you come back under a new screen name - after being banned the first time - to lecture, ridicule, and dismiss our thinking.

You left us. What keeps drawing you back if you are at peace?

New screen name you say? You must be referring to someone else. As for ridiculing, you seem to do your fair share of that in the way that you proclaim the sacrements of others as invalid and how you attempt to make the vast problems of the RC appear to be larger in other churches when we all know that this is just a smoke and mirrors act. Just look at what the Diocese of Baltimore has done in an attempt to stop the state from extending the statute of limitations for those molested by RC priests. Do you think others don’t see that?? Please.

 

[ASimpleSinner]

Yep. Most Anglicans agree, no valid orders, no valid sacraments except as noted.

But Anglicans don’t agree with the conclusions of
*Apostolicae Curae * (while not arguing for a moment that you do, and should). And AC doesn’t say that the BCP theology and prayers for the consecration of bsihops and ordination of “ministers” is defective. That judgement was made on the Edwardine Ordinal, changed these 350 years or so (ignoring for a moment the role of intent). And while the judgement of the Orthodox is not monolithic, those who make an adverse ruling on Anglican orders don’t do so for the reasons advanced in AC, but for the same reason Orthodox make adverse judgements on RC orders; they aren’t Orthodox.

It’s complicated.

GKC

AC is a document stating the final position, without exhausting all other possible reasons to come to that same conclusion.

As we have noted before, the praxis of the EO has been to recieve Catholic priests as priests - with simple chrismation and vesting. (In some instances where Romans have married post-ordination, the EO saw that as a canonical impediment to priestly minsitry - tacitly recognizing validity of Roman orders.) Not so for TAC clergy.

Where did we discuss these before? We did so in the last month or so…

Hmmm.

-Simple

 

[ACbishop]

AC is a document stating the final position, without exhausting all other possible reasons to come to that same conclusion.

As we have noted before, the praxis of the EO has been to recieve Catholic priests as priests - with simple chrismation and vesting. (In some instances where Romans have married post-ordination, the EO saw that as a canonical impediment to priestly minsitry - tacitly recognizing validity of Roman orders.) Not so for TAC clergy.

Where did we discuss these before? We did so in the last month or so…

Hmmm.

-Simple

So

 

[ACbishop]

Again, this has nothing to do with me for I do not believe a bit of it nor do I beieve that God endorses it. Whatever you bind and loose on earth will will bound and loosed in heaven doesn’t mean make the rules up as you go along.

 

[ASimpleSinner]

So

So, it wasn’t written to you.

Read the context of the post and it should be clear.

 

[Mannyfit75]

New screen name you say? You must be referring to someone else. As for ridiculing, you seem to do your fair share of that in the way that you proclaim the sacrements of others as invalid and how you attempt to make the vast problems of the RC appear to be larger in other churches when we all know that this is just a smoke and mirrors act. Just look at what the Diocese of Baltimore has done in an attempt to stop the state from extending the statute of limitations for those molested by RC priests. Do you think others don’t see that?? Please.

How about this from baltimoresun.com/technology/bal-te.priests17dec17,0,3417194.story

It’s an old article but something is at least done.

The nation’s Roman Catholic bishops won Vatican approval yesterday for their revised sex abuse policy, requiring every diocese to bar priests who molest children from working in the church.

Vatican authorization makes the plan church law for the United States and, therefore, binding on Catholic officials. Bishops have acknowledged that allowing dioceses to set their own rules often left molesters in parishes and helped create this year’s many scandals.

The Holy See’s announcement came three days after Pope John Paul II accepted the resignation of Cardinal Bernard Law as archbishop of Boston, removing a central figure from the abuse crisis that rocked the archdiocese 11 months ago

 

[ASimpleSinner]

New screen name you say? You must be referring to someone else.

No, Traveller1534, that’s you. Same bio. Same writing style. Same vitriolic and tired attacks on the Catholic Church. Within a few days of being banned, this screen name was created, and the exact same MO started to appear.

Anyone wishing to read your old posts may do so by going here:

forums.catholic-questions.org/search.php?searchid=410883

I defy anyone to read Traveller1534 & ACbishop side by side and not come to the very same conclusion.

As for ridiculing, you seem to do your fair share of that in the way that you proclaim the sacrements of others as invalid and how you attempt to make the vast problems of the RC appear to be larger in other churches when we all know that this is just a smoke and mirrors act.

No, we are stating our historic theology on the matter. I am not going to Anglican boards to complain about the shape they are in or ridicule their theology. Here at the Catholic Answers forum, I am giving a Catholic Answer - I can’t acceded to the validity of Anglican Orders - and thereby the Eucharist - are not valid.

Traveller, what would you like to discuss?

 

[GKC]

AC is a document stating the final position, without exhausting all other possible reasons to come to that same conclusion.

As we have noted before, the praxis of the EO has been to recieve Catholic priests as priests - with simple chrismation and vesting. (In some instances where Romans have married post-ordination, the EO saw that as a canonical impediment to priestly minsitry - tacitly recognizing validity of Roman orders.) Not so for TAC clergy.

Where did we discuss these before? We did so in the last month or so…

Hmmm.

-Simple

AC states the reasons for its conclusions, on the Edwardine ORdianl, not on the BCP, post 1662, occasionally a little fuzzily, without suggesting there are others. Are you aware of any such? It was structured carefully to address the issue as Cardinal Vaughan wished it addressed.

And those Orthodox who treat RCs as you say do not exhaust the Orthodox positions, which can include the judgement that both RC and Anglican orders are empty. It’s been addressed in threads in other fora here.

Yep. I think it’s all been said before.

All of which does not mean that I want you or any other RC to fail to affirm AC. Not all Anglicans are touchy about it, even if they are knowledgeable about it.

GKC

 

[MelanieAnne]

With all due respect, the anger of the original poster, by whatever name, is evidence enough of some harm done at some point, even if it was only perceived harm. Does that mean that this person is correct in their anger, that it is “righteous anger”? We don’t know.

One thing I think anyone can tell for sure is that this anger is simmering, at some times explosive, and by no means is going away. Where the anger comes from is hard to say.

Another thing that I think any serious minded person can agree to is that a PERSON even if that person is a priest, shouldn’t be the reason anyone is run out of a faith. If the faith is valid and true, even if fallible persons make grievous mistakes, it doesn’t invalidate the faith.

The original poster asked about attending a service. The answers have been given. The rest of any beating up on this person is not pertinent, whoever they may be. Whether or not his/her current faith practices are right or wrong in anyone’s opinion is not pertinent to the original question. Attacks of any kind are not helpful.

 

[ASimpleSinner]

AC states the reasons for its conclusions, on the Edwardine ORdianl, not on the BCP, post 1662, occasionally a little fuzzily, without suggesting there are others. Are you aware of any such? It was structured carefully to address the issue as Cardinal Vaughan wished it addressed.

And those Orthodox who treat RCs as you say do not exhaust the Orthodox positions, which can include the judgement that both RC and Anglican orders are empty. It’s been addressed in threads in other fora here.

Yep. I think it’s all been said before.

All of which does not mean that I want you or any other RC to fail to affirm AC. Not all Anglicans are touchy about it, even if they are knowledgeable about it.

GKC

The best article I had for resources on this matter is posted at a website that is in transition from server to server… Sorry about that. Give me a few weeks - when the owner gets back from Ireland - to see if it is stll available.

At the end of a very long day I am having trouble folding my own laundry, let alone making a coherent reply on this complicated matter…

Can you rephrase you first paragraph a bit - I have re-read it about half a dozen times and I am not sure the question. You and I both write sentences that are way too long, too often!

 

[GKC]

The best article I had for resources on this matter is posted at a website that is in transition from server to server… Sorry about that. Give me a few weeks - when the owner gets back from Ireland - to see if it is stll available.

At the end of a very long day I am having trouble folding my own laundry, let alone making a coherent reply on this complicated matter…

Can you rephrase you first paragraph a bit - I have re-read it about half a dozen times and I am not sure the question. You and I both write sentences that are way too long, too often!

I’m the worst offender, chronically. The main problem , I think, in the first para, was that I added a sentence that didn’t fit well.

Wha I tried to say was that AC made a particular judgment on a particular document, the Edwardine Ordinal. It gave particular reasons for pronouncing that: (A). The RCC had had a consistent verdict on Anglican Orders from early days and that (B) there was no reason to alter that. This was the question, as Cardinal Vaughan, in causing the commission to be formed in the first place, wanted it phrased. This judgement was not passed on the BCP of 1662; rather, the only oblique reference to that Book was historically incorrect, as is generally admitted. And the judgement on the Ordinal was said to be based on the defect of form, when coupled with a rather inexactly defined defect of intention. Inexact, as it is not clear whose intention was at fault. Clark, in ANGLICAN ORDERS AND DEFECT OF INTENTION, suggests half a dozen or so possible “intentions” that might be meant, and settles on the defect of intention in the consecrators of Archbishop Parker.

I read your comment that the Bull enumerated 2 problems with the Ordinal and Anglican orders, while suggesting there might be other, unlisted ones. I wondered what these hypotheticals might be.

I will await your link, while wondering if it might possibly have been written early in this century. If so, I might know it.

And did I ever provide a link to Acippe postestatem, the site run by a RC friend of mine?

I hope I’m around in a few weeks. I have undertaken a massive project involving, oh, the ordering of the rest of my life, and it’s going to be a backbreaker, for a couple of years.

Ah, heck, I’ll probably be around

GKC

 

[Zooey]

I think you are mistaken here. This is not her funeral, it is just a mass being said on her behalf. She actually died about 5 years ago.

Your Friendly Neighborhood Methodist would go & pray with your mother.
I would not presume to take Holy Communion because those are the rules. I know, not much of a reason, but coming from where I sit, over here in the Methodist Amen Corner, I think that all too many pastors in all too many non-Catholic Christian denominations (including my own) are altogether too lax about letting people come to receive. So, I would honor the restriction for being what I consider a sensible one, even when it put me without the ability to receive the Sacrament.

But that’s just me, with my eternal :twocents: …

 

[ASimpleSinner]

With all due respect, the anger of the original poster, by whatever name, is evidence enough of some harm done at some point, even if it was only perceived harm. Does that mean that this person is correct in their anger, that it is “righteous anger”? We don’t know.

One thing I think anyone can tell for sure is that this anger is simmering, at some times explosive, and by no means is going away. Where the anger comes from is hard to say.

Another thing that I think any serious minded person can agree to is that a PERSON even if that person is a priest, shouldn’t be the reason anyone is run out of a faith. If the faith is valid and true, even if fallible persons make grievous mistakes, it doesn’t invalidate the faith.

The original poster asked about attending a service. The answers have been given. The rest of any beating up on this person is not pertinent, whoever they may be. Whether or not his/her current faith practices are right or wrong in anyone’s opinion is not pertinent to the original question. Attacks of any kind are not helpful.

Melanie Ann,

I am inclined to agree with you in your thinking on Traveler1534/ACbishop’s situation. The hurt - real or percieved - is apparent across the board.

I am also inclined to agree that the original question has been addressed.

No one is beating up on him. I am simply asking, once again, what he is hoping to accomplish. On this and other threads he starts by asking simple questions and then ends up pointing out how wrong we are, how much better off he is now, and that our answers don’t matter because he is not Catholic.

If they don’t matter, why ask?

Traveller1534 let go of the pain - forgive us and move on if we are so bad, or start a dialogue with genuine appreciation for our answers and thinking on these matters.

 

[udoc89]

I was an Episcopalian for many more years than I’ve been Catholic–and in all those 40 years, no one ever told me I was expected to believe anything in particular about the Eucharist. Some people thought it was “just a wafer”, others that it was merely “symbolic.” Once I made it into the ranks of Anglo-Catholicism, there was a notion of something called “consubstantiation”–both body of Christ and bread. Close, but no cigar. Actually, it differs substantially from the Real Presence, in which you probably already know a Catholic is obligated to believe. In view of this fact, it is small wonder to me that Episcopalians have a “come one, come all” approach to communion. Why wouldn’t they? The only condition is that people coming forward must be baptized. This sounds good on the surface. But why would you want to dishonor what Catholics believe about the Eucharist, especially if you have no particular belief in it yourself? It is not a matter of form, or the nice thing to do; it is the central tenet of our faith. I have explained this countless times to my mother (still Episcopalian) and my sister (Lutheran.) They continue to view it as bad manners on the part of Catholics.

Go forward, cross your arms on your chest, and receive a blessing. It will honor both your parents. Your family will be in my prayers.