G
GKC
Guest
Correct. To a RC, an Anglican priest is not a priest, but a layman, per *Apostolicae Curae.
*
I beg your pardon; I can’t resist.
GKC
- Status
*
I beg your pardon; I can’t resist.
GKC
G
Gregory_I
Guest
Bingo Anna.
However, there are two interesting cicumstances where this is not true:
But if the consecrated Bishop Confers Consecration to the Episcopate on another priest according to the Anglican formula, it is invalid, because the form is defective.
However, there are two interesting cicumstances where this is not true:
- When an Anglican Communion Bishop was ordained either by a Bishop of the Orthodox Church (Which has actually happened a few times)
- When an Anglican Bishop is consecrated by a Bishop of the Old Catholics.
But if the consecrated Bishop Confers Consecration to the Episcopate on another priest according to the Anglican formula, it is invalid, because the form is defective.
K
KathleenGee
Guest
Hi Anna,
I studied ecumenism under a bishop who was on the commission of Ecumenism at Vatican II many years ago.
He said that Orthodoxy is separated from us, and others have shared with you, we can receive the sacraments…if we are out of town, and there are no Catholic churches, we can go to an Orthodox church, introduce ourselves to the pastor, identify ourselves and ask his permission to receive the sacraments.
The Orthodox have issues with the Filoque, do not believe Mary was assumed body and soul into heaven, but call her Mary, Theotokis, Mother of God, which the Catholic church will not…but we have her icon of Theotokis in our churches, mine included…and the Orthodox will not forgive the Latin church for what the Normans did to the Greeks, and the RC condemned the practice of Orthodox priests for wearing beards and so on…it is like clan rivalry to me…There are other points as well, and the Orthodox consider us the schismatics. Latin Catholics are called to reach out beyond their ethnic groups to identify with Christ’s humanity in all people, and so we do not have such beautiful and profound ethnic liturgies the Orthodox have…their other complaint.
Bishop said the more a Christian community drops the sacraments, the farther it is away from us. He ranked first the Catholic Church, and then our separate Orthodox…then the next in rank as maintaining the designation of ‘church’ are the Anglicans. The problem is essentially not accepting the pope. (I do not like that English word because it sounds derisive…Holy Father is better…or ‘Papa’ among the Latin…)
He instructed that the Anglicans are a church because they have a bishop…but the apostolic line of succession has been broken…and the papacy represents the union of all of us believers. There are other issues that have come up – women’s ordination as one, that are setting back progress. There are Anglican married priests who are leaving to come to the Catholic Church.
He said the other congregation that is considered as church are the Lutherans…and here I know there are different divisions and but not much about them but what is shared here. They have issues of being saved…the Catholic church has always taught it is the grace of faith that saves us. There was a thread here on indulgences and it got no where…we still have indulgences, but I would say only certain Catholics draw on them or understand the blessings they are in the mystical life drawn from the sacraments…enough said there.
A recent interview on EWTN with a former Anglican priest who Catholicized was because every word he teaches as a Catholic priest is absolute, non-arbitrary…when we say we eat this bread and drink this blood, we are indeed receiving Jesus Christ…all our teachings are absolute and do not change.
And when a person is a faithful Catholic, they are fed and bound to the Church. There are times when I felt like not going to Resurrection Sunday Mass, and the Lord’s binding of me just gently pulled me, His grace…and I would go. And the Lord through the strength of being a member of His Bride also helps me be faithful to the people I am called. I do not change, I do not dump him or her but the strength of the sacraments maintains me in my fidelity, and also the faith and prayers of my fellow Catholics, many of whom I do not even know.
The issue of Mary’s assumption into heaven was not a shot gun dogma…The Church needed to reflect on how the Holy Spirit has moved through generations of people, of saints and mystics, and the spiritual life…and the consistency of many charisms not only always ending up bearing the Good Fruit of Jesus Christ, but also that we must all walk the way of the spiritual life – and it is the same for every one who has sinned.
But for Mary who did not sin, she was able to most completely follow the path of Jesus into heaven…and ancient witnesses of her death spoke of a most shocking and miraculous event they never articulated…So, in essence it took the Church about 2,000 years to finally state through the Holy Father with conviction --with no facts expressed through the writings of the Apostles-- that indeed Mary, Conceived without Sin, aka Lourdes, the mid 1850’s, followed Christ, her body without sin not knowing the wages of sin, was taken and assumed into heaven.
I studied ecumenism under a bishop who was on the commission of Ecumenism at Vatican II many years ago.
He said that Orthodoxy is separated from us, and others have shared with you, we can receive the sacraments…if we are out of town, and there are no Catholic churches, we can go to an Orthodox church, introduce ourselves to the pastor, identify ourselves and ask his permission to receive the sacraments.
The Orthodox have issues with the Filoque, do not believe Mary was assumed body and soul into heaven, but call her Mary, Theotokis, Mother of God, which the Catholic church will not…but we have her icon of Theotokis in our churches, mine included…and the Orthodox will not forgive the Latin church for what the Normans did to the Greeks, and the RC condemned the practice of Orthodox priests for wearing beards and so on…it is like clan rivalry to me…There are other points as well, and the Orthodox consider us the schismatics. Latin Catholics are called to reach out beyond their ethnic groups to identify with Christ’s humanity in all people, and so we do not have such beautiful and profound ethnic liturgies the Orthodox have…their other complaint.
Bishop said the more a Christian community drops the sacraments, the farther it is away from us. He ranked first the Catholic Church, and then our separate Orthodox…then the next in rank as maintaining the designation of ‘church’ are the Anglicans. The problem is essentially not accepting the pope. (I do not like that English word because it sounds derisive…Holy Father is better…or ‘Papa’ among the Latin…)
He instructed that the Anglicans are a church because they have a bishop…but the apostolic line of succession has been broken…and the papacy represents the union of all of us believers. There are other issues that have come up – women’s ordination as one, that are setting back progress. There are Anglican married priests who are leaving to come to the Catholic Church.
He said the other congregation that is considered as church are the Lutherans…and here I know there are different divisions and but not much about them but what is shared here. They have issues of being saved…the Catholic church has always taught it is the grace of faith that saves us. There was a thread here on indulgences and it got no where…we still have indulgences, but I would say only certain Catholics draw on them or understand the blessings they are in the mystical life drawn from the sacraments…enough said there.
A recent interview on EWTN with a former Anglican priest who Catholicized was because every word he teaches as a Catholic priest is absolute, non-arbitrary…when we say we eat this bread and drink this blood, we are indeed receiving Jesus Christ…all our teachings are absolute and do not change.
And when a person is a faithful Catholic, they are fed and bound to the Church. There are times when I felt like not going to Resurrection Sunday Mass, and the Lord’s binding of me just gently pulled me, His grace…and I would go. And the Lord through the strength of being a member of His Bride also helps me be faithful to the people I am called. I do not change, I do not dump him or her but the strength of the sacraments maintains me in my fidelity, and also the faith and prayers of my fellow Catholics, many of whom I do not even know.
The issue of Mary’s assumption into heaven was not a shot gun dogma…The Church needed to reflect on how the Holy Spirit has moved through generations of people, of saints and mystics, and the spiritual life…and the consistency of many charisms not only always ending up bearing the Good Fruit of Jesus Christ, but also that we must all walk the way of the spiritual life – and it is the same for every one who has sinned.
But for Mary who did not sin, she was able to most completely follow the path of Jesus into heaven…and ancient witnesses of her death spoke of a most shocking and miraculous event they never articulated…So, in essence it took the Church about 2,000 years to finally state through the Holy Father with conviction --with no facts expressed through the writings of the Apostles-- that indeed Mary, Conceived without Sin, aka Lourdes, the mid 1850’s, followed Christ, her body without sin not knowing the wages of sin, was taken and assumed into heaven.
G
GKC
Guest
I occasionally hear of joint Anglican/Orthodox consecrations of Anglican bishops, I have yet to hear of a particular case, outside of obvious cases of vagantes.
OTOH, the joint consecrations of Old Catholic/Utrecht, and Anglican bishops are documented, beginning in 1932, after the Agreement of Bonn. And the same with PNCC bishops in 1946.
But the form used was the Anglican. The supposed defect in the Ordinal was cured in 1662, due to issues unrelated to this topic.
While logically, and IOW what is stated in Ott, this would infuse valid, but illicit episcopal lines into Anglicanism, which would then propagate, assuming form, matter and intent were valid, this has not officially been commented on by Rome.
GKC
A
Anna_Scott
Guest
Kathleen,
Thank you. Eloquently spoken.
I do find it strange that the EO can disagree with Catholics on such major issues, yet they are acknowledged by CC as having “valid orders,” when Anglicans are not.
Anna
G
GKC
Guest
Correct, as to Apostolicae Curae. They are no more efficacious in confecting the sacrament than if you or I were to attempt to do so.
GKC
A
Anna_Scott
Guest
This is very interesting. I think gurney posted something about an “infusion” of authority into the Anglican Church.
Still, this whole authority issue drives me farther from the CC, instead of drawing me to it.
Anna
G
GKC
Guest
The issue, as defined in Apostolicae Cuare, relates to the 4 criteria for a valid sacrament: minister, matter, form, intent. The statements in AC relate to two points in Anglican history: the form of the Edwardine Ordinal, which was used to consecrate bishops, and the intent (this part is tricky, just let it slide for a moment) of those who used the Ordinal to consecrate Archbishop Parker, in 1559. Both points have to be taken together (more technical details), but the upshot was (according to AC), Parker was not validly consecrated. He is a sort of choke-point in the Anglican episcopacy, and the conclusion is that the line of Apostolic succession (essential for the transmission of orders, and for valid ministers of the sacrament) was broken at that point. While the Ordinal was changed, and the supposed defect remedied in 1662, there were no more valid bishops to use it (as Rome concluded). Hence, Anglicans lost valid orders, through losing apostolic succession, through use of an invalid form in a particular sacramental action (Archbishop Parker), and with invalid intent, in that action.
There are more details. But the result is, for any RC, AC must be affirmed, and the conclusion that Anglican orders, hence sacraments that rely on valid orders in the minister, are null and void.
Anglicans see it otherwise.
Also, note that the Orthodox are views as possessing valid orders, in that their line of Apostolic succession was not broken, but their orders are illicit, in that the Orthodox are not in communion with Rome.
Let us not start talking about what the Orthodox think. It is a maze.
GKC
G
GKC
Guest
A
Anna_Scott
Guest
GKC,
I do realize that. And it’s not a result of the posts on this thread. It’s the result of more than a year on the forums, and also private study. There are periods of time, when I think CC is right for me; but the deeper I go into study and discussion, the less I’m convinced of the CC claims to sole authority.
Anna
G
GKC
Guest
Consider it thoughtfully. If you cannot affirm all Rome requires you to affirm, maybe it is not for you. But look into deeply, as you decide. And if you can make a submission and statement of faith, then go for it.
GKC
G
GKC
Guest
I wouldn’t agree. It is a function of what all we Catholics (DUCK!!) affirm relative to the priesthood: they act in persona Christi. And are set apart, by virtue of ordination and authority of the Apostolic succession, to do that. And the confecting of the Eucharist is one of the things this authority includes. It is not given to you or me. If this seems to be out of kilter to you, you will find it, in the RC, the Orthodox, and all but the most outre of Anglicans. The priesthood is a sacrificing priesthood, and only the priesthood has authority to do it. Valid orders are required for a valid minister, in 5 of the sacraments.
GKC
K
KathleenGee
Guest
Orthodox, on Filoque have issues of Which Person of the Trinity came forth out of God the Father…was it the Holy Spirit of Jesus…
The Heavenly Father created the world through HIs Spirit…Catholicism teaches that God greated the world, by His Word…and the Word IS Jesus Christ through which the universe is made.
For me, God is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit…time and space is irrelevant, but is a human interpretation of choice of being…God is one. Whether Spirit goes or Christ goes, is irrelevant because God Is Who Is.
The difficulty of orthodox denominations is that they are culturally bound and do not have the universal perspective we Catholics have…our parish priest said a Protestant minister attended Mass and was surprised by how much diversity we have under one roof. If we don’t like the place, we simply move to another parish. The minister says when someone does like theirs, they go to another denomination. He also said in the Lutheran churches, they are quite homogenous.
To top it off, said our pastor, in the parish you also have about 1,200 different opinions. So, this is another sign of the binding we have that was given to Peter from Christ. Baptized Catholics are leaving for emotions and particularly personalized Scripture studies at denominational communities, where as Evangelical Christians are coming into the Church for history, intellect as a few.
The Heavenly Father created the world through HIs Spirit…Catholicism teaches that God greated the world, by His Word…and the Word IS Jesus Christ through which the universe is made.
For me, God is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit…time and space is irrelevant, but is a human interpretation of choice of being…God is one. Whether Spirit goes or Christ goes, is irrelevant because God Is Who Is.
The difficulty of orthodox denominations is that they are culturally bound and do not have the universal perspective we Catholics have…our parish priest said a Protestant minister attended Mass and was surprised by how much diversity we have under one roof. If we don’t like the place, we simply move to another parish. The minister says when someone does like theirs, they go to another denomination. He also said in the Lutheran churches, they are quite homogenous.
To top it off, said our pastor, in the parish you also have about 1,200 different opinions. So, this is another sign of the binding we have that was given to Peter from Christ. Baptized Catholics are leaving for emotions and particularly personalized Scripture studies at denominational communities, where as Evangelical Christians are coming into the Church for history, intellect as a few.
K
KathleenGee
Guest
I read Rick Warren’s book with my Nazarene neighbors. There were 3 of us Catholics. Many had paper and pencils. They brought their Bibles. We heard the Scripture. We ended up sitting together on the sofa and it was not intentional…it just happened. I like Rev Warren’s book and it drew true to my experience.
First, though, what was different was how the Protestants there related to the Word and how the Catholics didn’t appear to.
The Protestants would read the text and look up the meaning of words they read in Scripture and use the Webster dictionary to reflect on the various understandings of the same English words. We Catholics sat together…and I began thinking and feeling and pondering the word spoken in my heart and soul…the next thing was I wanted to get up and get going and live out the Word…I also became aware of the presence of the Eucharist leading me and guiding me…He incorporated in me…Then I began to recollect where I was at the present, and began wondering what my Catholic neighbors were experiencing…I then started reflecting to them sitting on both sides of me…and I felt they were in the same place…and they were looking straight ahead at the wall ready to go, too…I assume…but the emotions, attitude and posture were the same as mine…and it was as if the Protesants were still searching for meaning when we got ours at Mass.
First, though, what was different was how the Protestants there related to the Word and how the Catholics didn’t appear to.
The Protestants would read the text and look up the meaning of words they read in Scripture and use the Webster dictionary to reflect on the various understandings of the same English words. We Catholics sat together…and I began thinking and feeling and pondering the word spoken in my heart and soul…the next thing was I wanted to get up and get going and live out the Word…I also became aware of the presence of the Eucharist leading me and guiding me…He incorporated in me…Then I began to recollect where I was at the present, and began wondering what my Catholic neighbors were experiencing…I then started reflecting to them sitting on both sides of me…and I felt they were in the same place…and they were looking straight ahead at the wall ready to go, too…I assume…but the emotions, attitude and posture were the same as mine…and it was as if the Protesants were still searching for meaning when we got ours at Mass.
C
crazzeto
Guest
Anna,
It’s a question of form and intent durring the Sacrament. Indeed, it was a very early Church decession that even if a Bishop (or priest) was personally in a state of mortal sin, indeed even if they are heretics (as is the case with Arian’s), that the sacraments would still be valid provided:
Proper form,
Proper Matter,
Proper intent.
The Church maintains that the Orthodox have a valid priesthood because at no point, despite schism, despite various heresies, never altered form, matter or intent and most particularly they never altered these with regard to the ordination to Holy Orders.
It’s another story with the Anglicans, it was found that indeed the Anglicans had altered at a minimum form, if not intent (see 39 articles for instance) durring the ordination of Bishops. Because of this discovery, the Pope had no choice but to issue his bull.
It should be noted, this bull halted the potential reunification of the Anglican and Catholic Churches, something our side was not happy about.
K
KathleenGee
Guest
The next thing I recognized as true coming from Rev Warren was that he would not discuss worship, that worship was to be chosen by us.
The other issue is indeed worship.
Thinking about ancient Jewish worship, drawing now from my source, Mike Aquilina’s book, ‘The Mass of the Early Christians’, he drew on the image of the altar. ‘For some Israelites of Jesus’ day, the bread and wine perpetually offered for praise and thanksgiving were the very image of the awaited Kingdom on earth.’
Mike quotes St. Augustine: ‘The Holy Spirit is the Soul of the Catholic Church’. I depend on the Holy Spirit to complete understanding our ecclesiastics and clerics can not perfectly teach.
Mike goes on, ‘What makes Tradition “living” is the Spirit’s indwelling presence in the Church, and it is in the Mass that Christians worship “in the Spirit on the Lord’s day” (Rev1:10). In the Mass, the Church is most alive because, there, the body and soul are truly one.’
Many posters are lately going back to using history and people to explain the origins of Christianity and the foundations of Catholicism. But they keep talking mostly about hte people…It is really about the Holy Spirit because without Him, nobody would have become brave, be able to communicate, be able to discern for the universal Church what was to be compiled in the Bible, or without the Holy Spirit, people being able to live out their own individual charisms that would bear the same living reality of Jesus irregardless of the times, race or peoples’ regions.
I like to study Scripture best at the Mass. Here we are in prayer and praying to learn theology is the first degree rather than learning it through the second degree, the intellect. Here at Mass I am with my fellow church members. And we share with the priest who has laid down the historical times and context. So I know I am learning Scripture in the spirit of the apostles. And The Word is made perfect and fulfilled when I receive Body and Soul, Blood and Divinity of Jesus Christ.
‘The first Christians saw the Mass as a sacrament, sacrifice, the New Passover, the re-presentation of the Paschal Mystery, the communion of God with man, the revelation of heavenly worship, and the source and summit of the Church’s life and unity.’…Aquilina…
That is alot what happens at the Mass.
And it is the daily Sacrifice. And we can go every day to receive immense graces, of course, depending upon where you live. I should go more often.
So how was Mass said?
The other issue is indeed worship.
Thinking about ancient Jewish worship, drawing now from my source, Mike Aquilina’s book, ‘The Mass of the Early Christians’, he drew on the image of the altar. ‘For some Israelites of Jesus’ day, the bread and wine perpetually offered for praise and thanksgiving were the very image of the awaited Kingdom on earth.’
Mike quotes St. Augustine: ‘The Holy Spirit is the Soul of the Catholic Church’. I depend on the Holy Spirit to complete understanding our ecclesiastics and clerics can not perfectly teach.
Mike goes on, ‘What makes Tradition “living” is the Spirit’s indwelling presence in the Church, and it is in the Mass that Christians worship “in the Spirit on the Lord’s day” (Rev1:10). In the Mass, the Church is most alive because, there, the body and soul are truly one.’
Many posters are lately going back to using history and people to explain the origins of Christianity and the foundations of Catholicism. But they keep talking mostly about hte people…It is really about the Holy Spirit because without Him, nobody would have become brave, be able to communicate, be able to discern for the universal Church what was to be compiled in the Bible, or without the Holy Spirit, people being able to live out their own individual charisms that would bear the same living reality of Jesus irregardless of the times, race or peoples’ regions.
I like to study Scripture best at the Mass. Here we are in prayer and praying to learn theology is the first degree rather than learning it through the second degree, the intellect. Here at Mass I am with my fellow church members. And we share with the priest who has laid down the historical times and context. So I know I am learning Scripture in the spirit of the apostles. And The Word is made perfect and fulfilled when I receive Body and Soul, Blood and Divinity of Jesus Christ.
‘The first Christians saw the Mass as a sacrament, sacrifice, the New Passover, the re-presentation of the Paschal Mystery, the communion of God with man, the revelation of heavenly worship, and the source and summit of the Church’s life and unity.’…Aquilina…
That is alot what happens at the Mass.
And it is the daily Sacrifice. And we can go every day to receive immense graces, of course, depending upon where you live. I should go more often.
So how was Mass said?
I
inkaneer
Guest
The difference between the Orthodox and the Anglicans is that the Orthodox have maintained the Apostolic Succession through a valid ordination of bishops. The Anglicans very early on altered the ordination of bishops so as to make their ordination null and void thus severing the Apostolic line of succession. That is the position of the Catholic Church and to expect it to change anytime between now and the Second Coming of Christ is foolhardy at best. As I said before and this goes for protestants and Orthodox as well as Anglicans; You left the Catholic Church. We did not leave you. If you want union then you come back to the Catholicism you left. But don’t expect us to meet you half way. The Holy Spirit will not permit it.
1
1holycatholic
Guest
The Dormition of the Theotokos (aka The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary) is believed by Catholics and various Eastern Orthodox. About the only difference is that the Catholic Church has not stated a position on Mary’s death in relation to the Dormition.
Mary is called the Theotokos repeatedly during the Divine Liturgy celebrated in the Eastern Catholic Churches near me.
- Status