The Traditional Anglican Communion...I'm a tad confused

[Domnall]

We all know that there are some “Traditional Anglicans” who have the intention of joining the greater Catholic Church. Honestly, this makes me abundantly happy.

However, my question is about valid sacraments. Will the Anglican priests have to be consecrated as Catholic Priests since the Anglican communion technically doesn’t have valid sacraments? Or, will they just be able to continue saying their Mass as they have been?

Thanks for any information!

 

[MarkBrown]

We all know that there are some “Traditional Anglicans” who have the intention of joining the greater Catholic Church. Honestly, this makes me abundantly happy.

However, my question is about valid sacraments. Will the Anglican priests have to be consecrated as Catholic Priests since the Anglican communion technically doesn’t have valid sacraments? Or, will they just be able to continue saying their Mass as they have been?

Thanks for any information!

Anglican Priest who come into the Church, will have to be Ordained as Catholic Priest.
The Church does not recognize Anglican Ordination. At this time, Anglican Priest who are coming into the Church have been instructed to continue to provide pastoral care to include the sacraments to thier parish.

The timeline for the transition from Anglican Priest to Catholic Priest has not been set in stone by Rome. My sources tell me it will NOT be as long as is usual with the Pastoral Provision as Rome believes that would be a death knell to the Ordinariate. With the movement of Anglican groups accepting and asking for the establishment of Ordinariates in Canada, England (not CoE other Anglican groups), Scotland preparing, Australia asking and at least one Bishop in the States, my source (part of the committee to establish here in the states) believes it could be setup by the end of the year.

Nothing is as of yet finalized. Or at least public knowledge.

Peace

Fr. Mark

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

I have read posts from TAC priests claiming that since the position of Apostolicae curae is not in the CCC (which is the document to which they must assent as part of their reception) they do not have to accept the invalidity of their orders - apparently at least some of them, if not all, believe they are providing valid sacramental ministration.

Nonetheless, the norms accompanying Anglicanorum coetibus stated that all the Anglican priests accepted into the Catholic priesthood would be ordained absolutely. So if that continues to govern relations (Rome could always decide to go case by case depending on who may have been ordained through a rogue line), there will not even be any “if you are not already ordained” business. As far as Rome is currently concerned, they are laymen - they will need to be ordained priests.

 

[WetCatechumen]

I know personally an Anglo-Catholic priest who traces his ordination back to the Dutch Touch. What would his situation be like he if converted to Catholicism?

 

[MarkBrown]

I know personally an Anglo-Catholic priest who traces his ordination back to the Dutch Touch. What would his situation be like he if converted to Catholicism?

One of the issues Rome is working on. From the viewpoint of Rome there can be NO
doubt about an ordination due to the cure of souls. Not many Anglicans can satisfy this doubt for either Catholics or Orthodox. If any.

Cardinal Newman, a famous Anglican Priest who converted to Rome…soon to be a Saint in the Church was not considered ordained and had to be ordained into the Catholic priesthood. This was prior to Apostolic Curae. Converted 1845 and died 1890. Six years
prior to Apostolic Curae which declared Anglican orders null and void (1896). So if Anglicans prior to AC had to be ordained, Anglicans after AC will be ordained. “Dutch touch” or not, at least that is an opinion I have formed reading about ordination before and after. Rome rarely makes an acception.

peace

Fr. Mark

 

[HCC]

Are we, Latin Rite Catholics, permitted to attend an Anglican Rite-Roman Catholic Mass?

 

[Spirithound]

Are we, Latin Rite Catholics, permitted to attend an Anglican Rite-Roman Catholic Mass?

Yes, provided, as you said that it is a Catholic Mass, with a Catholic priest.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Rome has never spoken definitively about the Dutch Touch reinfusion of apostolic lines into Anglicanism. I suspect they don’t talk about it because they know by their Augustinian definitions of how orders are transmitted, to avoid inconsistency and hypocrisy they’d have to acknowledge the Anglicans DO have valid orders thanks to the Dutch Touch and Polish Pat. It would make Apostolicae Curae look passe and irrelevent as well. I think they know better…

 

[ConstantineTG]

Are we, Latin Rite Catholics, permitted to attend an Anglican Rite-Roman Catholic Mass?

I believe its called Anglican Use. There is no Anglican Rite, the Anglican Use is a “sub-rite” of the Roman Rite. So when this happens and the Anglican Use has wider usage, the Roman Rite will now have 3 forms, the OF, EF and Anglican Use.

There is a list of Anglican Use parishes in the US, these are individual Anglican parishes that have come home to the Catholic Church. The non-American TAC parishes will probably be the first parishes outside of the US to hold a Catholic Anglican Use Mass.

 

[FrDavid96]

Are we, Latin Rite Catholics, permitted to attend an Anglican Rite-Roman Catholic Mass?

Yes, but…it depends on exactly what you mean by the question.

At the present time, that would only apply to a situation where the priest is already a Catholic priest and a priest-in-good-standing with the local diocese (or visiting from his own diocese). There are only a few such parishes/priests scattered throughout the US right now. They are in every way Catholic priests.

It won’t be until after the Anglican Ordinariate(s) is established and after those former-Anglicans are validly ordained that Catholics will be able to attend, receive Communion, and fulfill their Sunday obligation.

In the meantime, you can always attend an Anglican service but you cannot take the bread, and it does not fulfill the Sunday obligation.

 

[FrDavid96]

We all know that there are some “Traditional Anglicans” who have the intention of joining the greater Catholic Church. Honestly, this makes me abundantly happy.

However, my question is about valid sacraments. Will the Anglican priests have to be consecrated as Catholic Priests since the Anglican communion technically doesn’t have valid sacraments? Or, will they just be able to continue saying their Mass as they have been?

Thanks for any information!

Yes. They will have to be ordained.

There’s no “technically” in regard to valid ordination–it either is or it is-not.

Here’s the relevant section from Anglicanorum Coetibus (the Constitution making all this possible)
VI. § 1. Those who ministered as Anglican deacons, priests, or bishops, and who fulfill the requisites established by canon law[13] and are not impeded by irregularities or other impediments[14] may be accepted by the Ordinary as candidates for Holy Orders in the Catholic Church. In the case of married ministers, the norms established in the Encyclical Letter of Pope Paul VI Sacerdotalis coelibatus, n. 42[15] and in the Statement In June[16] are to be observed. Unmarried ministers must submit to the norm of clerical celibacy of CIC can. 277, §1.

 

[stephraim]

I believe its called Anglican Use. There is no Anglican Rite, the Anglican Use is a “sub-rite” of the Roman Rite. So when this happens and the Anglican Use has wider usage, the Roman Rite will now have 3 forms, the OF, EF and Anglican Use.

Actually, I think there’s even a Use of Zaire (which country now goes under a different name) and, though I don’t know if they qualify as a different Use, the so-called “Indian Masses.”

 

[Domnall]

Thanks, this really answered my question. My girlfriend, who is Episcopalian, was asking how a group could have invalid sacraments, then suddenly have them considered “valid.” Well, I guess this isn’t the case and the new priests will have to be ordained. Thanks so much for your help.

By the way, what is this "Dutch Touch " that I hear you all speaking of.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

I have an Anglican friend whose parish will formally be received under the Anglican Use into the Catholic Church sometime in November and I’m invited to the event.

I love the Anglican Book of Common Prayer tradition and will have the opportunity for the first time to attend Mass and Communion in the Anglican Use.

I’ve also heard that the Anglicans coming into union with Rome are asking Rome to allow them to continue to liturgically venerate their saint, Bl. King Charles the Martyr, who was beheaded on January 30th 1649 under Oliver Cromwell for refusing to do away with episcopacy and other items of the Catholic character of Anglicanism. There shouldn’t be a problem with this either - both Cardinal Newman and Ronald Knox continued to venerate Blessed King Charles after their conversion to Catholicism and Knox even submitted the names of King Charles I and King Henry VI to Rome for formal canonization.

I am a Canadian member of the Society of King Charles the Martyr and also of King Henry VI.

An Anglican minister once sat with Pope John XXIII in Rome when he pulled out a picture of King Henry VI with a halo to show the Pope and to explain how the process of that king’s canonization came to a halt under Henry VIII.

Pope John then allowed the Cause of King Henry VI to be started anew and the group promoting his canonization has both Catholic and Anglican members (Henry VI was a favourite medieval pilgrimage at his shrine in St George’s Chapel in Windsor).

Some English Catholic churches have started the old practice of having candles before a portrait of King Henry VI (King Henry’ Light). And members of the association of King Henry VI have approval to publicly invoke him in prayer as “Blessed King Henry.”

Anglicans who became Catholics in the 19th century, including Newman and Knox, venerated both kings highly and sought their formal canonization by Rome.

Alex

 

[FrDavid96]

I have an Anglican friend whose parish will formally be received under the Anglican Use into the Catholic Church sometime in November and I’m invited to the event.

I love the Anglican Book of Common Prayer tradition and will have the opportunity for the first time to attend Mass and Communion in the Anglican Use.

I’ve also heard that the Anglicans coming into union with Rome are asking Rome to allow them to continue to liturgically venerate their saint, Bl. King Charles the Martyr, who was beheaded on January 30th 1649 under Oliver Cromwell for refusing to do away with episcopacy and other items of the Catholic character of Anglicanism. There shouldn’t be a problem with this either - both Cardinal Newman and Ronald Knox continued to venerate Blessed King Charles after their conversion to Catholicism and Knox even submitted the names of King Charles I and King Henry VI to Rome for formal canonization.

I am a Canadian member of the Society of King Charles the Martyr and also of King Henry VI.

An Anglican minister once sat with Pope John XXIII in Rome when he pulled out a picture of King Henry VI with a halo to show the Pope and to explain how the process of that king’s canonization came to a halt under Henry VIII.

Pope John then allowed the Cause of King Henry VI to be started anew and the group promoting his canonization has both Catholic and Anglican members (Henry VI was a favourite medieval pilgrimage at his shrine in St George’s Chapel in Windsor).

Some English Catholic churches have started the old practice of having candles before a portrait of King Henry VI (King Henry’ Light). And members of the association of King Henry VI have approval to publicly invoke him in prayer as “Blessed King Henry.”

Anglicans who became Catholics in the 19th century, including Newman and Knox, venerated both kings highly and sought their formal canonization by Rome.

Alex

Interresting.

Both kings cannot be considered “blessed” because they haven’t been beatified by the Church–not yet at least. However, since their causes were introduced in Rome, they might be “Venerable.” What I mean by that is that the Church may have already declared them “Venerable” not that we can do so on our own. Since you’re obviously familiar with the history of both: have they been declared Venerable? It certainly reads that way from your post (at least Henry VI seems likely).

If they have been, then they could certainly be honored as “venerable” in parishes or places which have a particular devotion to their cause, and I think the future Anglican Catholic parishes would certainly qualify for this.

On a related topic, let’s all celebrate that in a few days we will have “Blessed John Henry Cardinal Newman”!

The future patron saint of some future Anglican Ordinariate? Could be…

 

[Saint_Macarius]

Actually, I think there’s even a Use of Zaire (which country now goes under a different name) and, though I don’t know if they qualify as a different Use, the so-called “Indian Masses.”

If I remember correctly from when I was in catholic school (it hasn’t been that long), there’s only 17 or 18 uses that are in use and/or allowed in the latin rite, including OF, EF, Anglican and African (formerly Saharan or Zaire), and I think about half were order/religious congregation specific. I remember that Iroquoi (I hope I’m spelling that right…the Indian Mass) was either banned or stopped being used after Vatican II.
I could be wrong though.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Bless, Father!

(This is how we Easterners salute Priests, in person, on the person and in correspondence).

Yes, among many (High Church) Anglicans, he is called “Blessed King Charles” and “Saint Charles, King and Martyr.” He is said to be the only saint canonized by Anglicanism and this was done by the convocation of the Canterbury and York provinces of the Anglican church. He would have to be beatified formally by Rome or at least equipollently. Father Charles Roux wrote an essay on why King Charles should be canonized by Rome - the Society of King Charles distributes copies of that essay.

And the same for King Henry - popular devotion called him “Blessed King Henry” and his cultus would have to be confirmed by Rome to allow for his liturgical veneration.

As you know, when groups of Eastern Rite Christians came into union with Rome, they were allowed to continue to venerate the saints glorified locally and nationally by the Orthodox Church (so long as the saint in question wasn’t “anti-Roman” in life). In 1904, in response to a petition to Rome by Metropolitan Andrew Sheptytsky, Rome approved for the liturgical veneration of the Russian Catholic Church all the Orthodox Saints of Russia. Rome also sometimes extends the cultus of an Orthodox saint into her own calendar e.g. St Gregory Palamas and St Seraphim of Sarov (who was canonized by Orthodoxy in 1903).

The only case of a real Roman “expunging” of a saint venerated by an Orthodox Church was that of “Saint Pontius Pilate” from the calendar of the Ethiopian calendar when the Ethiopian Catholic Church was formed. (The Ethiopians hold to the tradition that Pilate converted to Christ and was sentenced to die by Tiberius in Rome for not protecting Christ - Origen does mention the letter Pilate wrote to Tiberius about the whole “incident” in Jerusalem and that Tiberius recalled Pilate to Rome to explain himself . . .).

The Anglican Use will be the first time a post-Reformation community will come into union with Rome with post-Reformation traditions. It may very well prove a “test case” to wet the growing appetite of other Anglicans, Old Catholics, Lutherans and even others who are starting to look to Rome for a way out of the liberalism they see as plaguing their denominations.

Blessed King Charles the Martyr and Blessed King Henry - pray for us and for the unity of Christ’s Church!

Kissing your right hand, I again implore your blessing (this is how we end our correspondence/speech with clergy).

Your servant,

Alex

 

[FrDavid96]

Bless, Father!

(This is how we Easterners salute Priests, in person, on the person and in correspondence).

Yes, among many (High Church) Anglicans, he is called “Blessed King Charles” and “Saint Charles, King and Martyr.” He is said to be the only saint canonized by Anglicanism and this was done by the convocation of the Canterbury and York provinces of the Anglican church. He would have to be beatified formally by Rome or at least equipollently. Father Charles Roux wrote an essay on why King Charles should be canonized by Rome - the Society of King Charles distributes copies of that essay.

And the same for King Henry - popular devotion called him “Blessed King Henry” and his cultus would have to be confirmed by Rome to allow for his liturgical veneration.

As you know, when groups of Eastern Rite Christians came into union with Rome, they were allowed to continue to venerate the saints glorified locally and nationally by the Orthodox Church (so long as the saint in question wasn’t “anti-Roman” in life). In 1904, in response to a petition to Rome by Metropolitan Andrew Sheptytsky, Rome approved for the liturgical veneration of the Russian Catholic Church all the Orthodox Saints of Russia. Rome also sometimes extends the cultus of an Orthodox saint into her own calendar e.g. St Gregory Palamas and St Seraphim of Sarov (who was canonized by Orthodoxy in 1903).

The only case of a real Roman “expunging” of a saint venerated by an Orthodox Church was that of “Saint Pontius Pilate” from the calendar of the Ethiopian calendar when the Ethiopian Catholic Church was formed. (The Ethiopians hold to the tradition that Pilate converted to Christ and was sentenced to die by Tiberius in Rome for not protecting Christ - Origen does mention the letter Pilate wrote to Tiberius about the whole “incident” in Jerusalem and that Tiberius recalled Pilate to Rome to explain himself . . .).

The Anglican Use will be the first time a post-Reformation community will come into union with Rome with post-Reformation traditions. It may very well prove a “test case” to wet the growing appetite of other Anglicans, Old Catholics, Lutherans and even others who are starting to look to Rome for a way out of the liberalism they see as plaguing their denominations.

Blessed King Charles the Martyr and Blessed King Henry - pray for us and for the unity of Christ’s Church!

Kissing your right hand, I again implore your blessing (this is how we end our correspondence/speech with clergy).

Your servant,

Alex

I’m learning some history here. Thanks.

The question I have is “have they been declared Venerable?” or to put that another way, have they been declared “Servant(s) of God”?

Your post was the first time I heard of Charles being considered for sainthood (at least in any serious conversation), and I never knew anything about Henry VI.

It seems to me, based on what you wrote, that Henry might have already been declared Venerable by the Church. Is that correct? It seems that way because, as you said, Bl. John XXIII re-introduced (or revived) the cause for canonization.

Can you point us to some web pages for this history, because I for one would like to learn more.

There might be some correlations between Orthodox canonizations and Anglican ones, but the essential difference is that the Orthodox are “Churches” not “ecclesial Communities” So it makes sense for the Church to recognize Orthodox canonizations–but I don’t see how the Church could recognize canonizations (or beatifications) done by the Anglican Community.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Bless, Father!

Certainly, in all cases Rome would have to approve the cultus of those venerated in Christian communities (coming into union with Rome) who have their request for continued veneration of those person approved by Rome. The fact of their popular veneration can meet the requirement leading to Beatification (as occurred with the English Martyrs and with Blessed Kateri Tekakwitha - whose miracles were not recorded, but her long-standing veneration was sufficient for her beatification).

Perhaps this will prove true for King Charles and King Henry. And I don’t know what King Henry’s status currently is other than the fact that members of his society can publicly invoke him as “Blessed King Henry” (whatever that means in the long run).

Here is the link for what was the Society of King Henry VI and is now “Eton Cambridge and Associates, Henry VI:”

www.ecah.co.uk

And the Society of King Charles the Martyr:

www.skcm.org

In the case of King Henry, that is a “straight” Cause for Catholic canonization.

In King Charles’ case, it would be a Roman approval for continued veneration of King Charles by the Anglican Use people coming into union with Rome. Rome has issued nothing on this matter to date, but I know that this is being worked on at Rome as these High Church Anglicans could not conceive of their spiritual life without Blessed Charles (as they call him).

Certainly, there have been and are many Catholic saints who are not approved by Rome but who are locally venerated in Italy and elsewhere as a result of their having been beatified locally at some point in history by a bishop or regional bishops acting together - and this after the bull promulgated by Pope Urban VIII by which he reserved beatifications to Rome alone.

Blessed John Duns Scotus was locally beatified by an Italian bishop and was venerated as “Blessed John” for years before the Ven. Pope John Paul beatified him.

I’ve come across four volumes of photographs of such saints in a university library - “Blessed Peter Lombard” is among them.

The case of “Blessed Jerome Savonarola” is particularly fascinating, given the Dominican Order’s historic promotion of his cultus with medals and relics. St Philip Neri, when he died, was found with a relic-medal of Savonarola’s around his neck and when this was reported to the Pope during his canonization cause, the Pope told them to pass over it and proceed. Moreover, I found that one of Savonarola’s students left Italy and went to Russia where he became a Russian Orthodox monk who spent a good deal of his life writing against the “spiritually corrupt West.” He was himself canonized by the Orthodox Church in 1988 as “St Maximus the Greek” and in his service, Savonarola is referred to by the Orthodox as “Blessed Jerome.”

Getting back to the Anglicans, the High Church Anglicans are quite serious about their canonizations, local as they are. In Lincolnshire, I believe, there is the cult of “Edward King, Bishop and Saint” honoured on May 8th and there is a statue of him alongside those of St Hugh of Lincoln and others (he suffered greatly for his devotion to Catholic forms of worship and articles of faith). There is “St Arthur Cripps” of Central Africa, “Blessed James DeKoven” in the U.S. around whom a religious community has been organized (The Solitaries of DeKoven), the former community of Christ the Sower who honoured “St Nicholas Ferrar of Little Gidding,” Blessed Charles Lowder of the Society of the Holy Cross (honoured on September 9th) who organized charitable works in London for the poor victims of industrialization in the 19th century (he held High Church services in the streets and was pelted with rocks and fruit for being “popish”).

Near where I live is an Anglican community of nuns that works in hospitals founded by Hannah Grier Coombe and they have an icon of her in their chapel. The Anglican Benedictine Holy Cross Order founded by James Otis Sargent Huntington honours their founder as a saint and invokes him in their public litanies (there is a monastery of theirs here in Toronto).

Reading the lives of these Anglican worthies, who were Catholic in every which way, defended (and suffered for) the Immaculate Conception of our Lady, Eucharistic Adoration, veneration of the Crucifix, the sacrificial nature of the Mass, celibacy and even the primacy of honour of the pope of Rome - they seem to me to be very deserving of continued veneration by those of their church who see them as true temples of the Holy Spirit.

As one French Catholic priest once put it, “The Anglicans I know are very devoted to Eucharistic Adoration - and even if they do not have a valid Eucharist, they really do pray to our Eucharistic Lord as that is their intention.”

Enough out of me, Father!

Alex

 

[ConstantineTG]

Actually, I think there’s even a Use of Zaire (which country now goes under a different name) and, though I don’t know if they qualify as a different Use, the so-called “Indian Masses.”

Yes, there are many other Forms or Rites of the Mass in the Latin Church. Some religious orders have their own. I’m just saying that the OF and EF are the only ones widely used. Currently the Catholic Anglican Use is only valid in the US and only in a number of parishes. But the TAC is international and once the all achieve full communion with the Pope, Anglican Use will be more widely available. In fact the third most available form of Mass in the Roman Church.