G
GKMotley
Guest
Anglicans are more motley than that.
I’m not sure I agree with this. speaking from the RCC view. When the Anglican turned Catholic offers Mass is he at consecration doing what the RCC intends?like I said it is one of the rare exceptions where a priest might somehow have received the faculties to effect this. For example, maybe he was ordained a Catholic priest and left the Church to join the Anglicans.
First of all, when a Catholic priest is ordained, he “is a priest forever” and never loses the faculties he’s given, even if he leaves the Church or is laicized.I’m not sure I agree with this. speaking from the RCC view. When the Anglican turned Catholic offers Mass is he at consecration doing what the RCC intends?
just to be clear, you are stating what Roman Catholics believe.Despite what any Anglican believes we Catholics believe that their orders are invalid. … Because Anglicans do not have valid orders they cannot celebrate a Mass and validly confect the Eucharist. Therefore, what Anglicans receive is bread and wine.
Elizabeth’s concern wasn’t really about appeasing convinced Catholics. They were never going to be satisfied with anything less than what they had before. Her concern was the different Protestants in England. During Henry’s time, the prevailing Protestant views were Lutheran, but in Edward’s reign English Protestants were favoring an early form of Calvinism. Elizabeth was more conservative and was more attuned to Lutheranism. Her Settlement was an attempt to move the Church of England in a Protestant direction in a way that could keep both Reformed and Lutherans all in the same church. And if some church papists were mollified as well that was just a plus.When Elizabeth came to power she was dealing with a potential civil war so she pushed a sort of compromise where people left each other alone. She obviously couldn’t set the policy for the Catholic Church, but she could set policy for the kingdom of England and she could influence the Anglican Church. Arguments of “thou art doing it wrong,” were discouraged. That set the stage for a lot of drift.
That’s like saying the Bible isn’t a big part of Catholic theology: philosophy is immensely important to Anglican theology. The systematic enquiry into ontology and epistemology is a fundamental component of any cogent theological system, whether Catholic, Protestant or Orthodox.I think it would be fair to say that philosophy is not a big part of Anglican theology.
You will get different answers from different people. The standard Catholic answer, I think, will be that transubstantiation doesn’t happen in any Anglican communion service, even when the celebrant is one of those Anglicans who think it does happen.Would this therefore also be the case in an Anglican setting?
How can it be legitimate if disconnected from the Church?ust to be clear, you are stating what Roman Catholics believe.
Anglicans otoh believe their orders are valid, and have a legitimate line of succession back to the Apostles.
I think it’s fair to say philosophy isn’t a big part of Protestant Theology. Luther described Reason as “The Devil’s Whore”. Protestant universities are not known for Philosophy, as many Catholic ones are.That’s like saying the Bible isn’t a big part of Catholic theology: philosophy is immensely important to Anglican theology