What's the differences between the Roman Catholic Church and the Episcopal Church?

[Contarini]

Henry was not Ordained, therefore the sacraments could not follow him. Those that did lost there powers in the process of leaving the CC.

Again, you need to check this with an orthodox Catholic scholar. I am confident thaqt they will tell you that you are wrong. Bishops who go into schism do not lose their orders by doing so. They become, from your perspective, illicit. But they are still valid bishops.

Of cource the Orthodox recogonize the CC as having VALID sacraments.

Ask them. You will be surprised. They generally say that the concept of “validity” makes no sense outside the communion of the Church. They do not usually make a distinction between your orders and ours.

But don’t take my word for any of this. Just don’t take your own word either–check up on it!

Edwin

 

[manualman]

Catholics are no less vulnerable than other humans to wanting to oversimplify things. If we paused to peel back the onion layers on every issue encountered in life, nobody would ever get ANYthing done! Simplifications have their place, but it certainly is best if people recognize that they’ve settled for a simplified explanation rather than claiming to know the whole story.

The catholic simplified version of this issue is that Anglicanism as a whole went beyond schism and by virture of rejecting the reality of priestly ordination as a genuine infusion of grace that marks the priest as fundamentally different and empowered to confect the sacraments for a generation, actually LOST apostolic succession. The eastern orthodox never abandoned this embrace of sacramental Holy Orders and thus did not lose it. A.C. explains this fairly clearly even for a mere engineer like me (not renowned for our communications prowess!).

The simplified version, however, doesn’t address the complexities. What AC is too old to address and Rome has carefully ignored for decades is what effect the participation of OTHER schismatic bishops in the ordination rites of Anglican priests or bishops might have. Anglicans rightly point out that AC doesn’t address the issue and Rome seems to be taking the approach that if they wait long enough, the Anglican communion will explode into secular humanist and evangelical protestant splinters and the few theologically catholic survivors might be willing to be plucked out of the water and into the Barque of Peter, making the whole thing a moot point. That would seem a rather callous approach, but I can’t deny that it does seem to fit the facts on the ground…

In any case, I agree that catholics should not presume that the act of schism automatically severs the schismatic group from the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church. Edwin makes a point about this being rather awkward for the kind of catholic apologist who like to thump his chest in self-congratulation about the “one” part of that statement. But then, God never has been the sort to encourage chest thumping in the first place and Edwin seems the sort to me to be less inclined to accept only the appearance on the outer layer of the onion! So what’s the issue again??

 

[Eutychus123]

Catholics are no less vulnerable than other humans to wanting to oversimplify things. If we paused to peel back the onion layers on every issue encountered in life, nobody would ever get ANYthing done! Simplifications have their place, but it certainly is best if people recognize that they’ve settled for a simplified explanation rather than claiming to know the whole story.

The catholic simplified version of this issue is that Anglicanism as a whole went beyond schism and by virture of rejecting the reality of priestly ordination as a genuine infusion of grace that marks the priest as fundamentally different and empowered to confect the sacraments for a generation, actually LOST apostolic succession. The eastern orthodox never abandoned this embrace of sacramental Holy Orders and thus did not lose it. A.C. explains this fairly clearly even for a mere engineer like me (not renowned for our communications prowess!).

The simplified version, however, doesn’t address the complexities. What AC is too old to address and Rome has carefully ignored for decades is what effect the participation of OTHER schismatic bishops in the ordination rites of Anglican priests or bishops might have. Anglicans rightly point out that AC doesn’t address the issue and Rome seems to be taking the approach that if they wait long enough, the Anglican communion will explode into secular humanist and evangelical protestant splinters and the few theologically catholic survivors might be willing to be plucked out of the water and into the Barque of Peter, making the whole thing a moot point. That would seem a rather callous approach, but I can’t deny that it does seem to fit the facts on the ground…

In any case, I agree that catholics should not presume that the act of schism automatically severs the schismatic group from the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church. Edwin makes a point about this being rather awkward for the kind of catholic apologist who like to thump his chest in self-congratulation about the “one” part of that statement. But then, God never has been the sort to encourage chest thumping in the first place and Edwin seems the sort to me to be less inclined to accept only the appearance on the outer layer of the onion! So what’s the issue again??

Thank you for a well balanced short explanation about the validity of Anglican orders.

 

[Contarini]

In any case, I agree that catholics should not presume that the act of schism automatically severs the schismatic group from the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church. Edwin makes a point about this being rather awkward for the kind of catholic apologist who like to thump his chest in self-congratulation about the “one” part of that statement. But then, God never has been the sort to encourage chest thumping in the first place and Edwin seems the sort to me to be less inclined to accept only the appearance on the outer layer of the onion! So what’s the issue again??

Well, the practical issue for me is that I’m convinced that my present communion is gravely deficient, but I’m also convinced that I belong to a true Christian community. So the question of just what the Catholics and Orthodox think about communities not in full union with them is a very important one to me!

I don’t think I’m justified in abandoning a Christian community as long as it remains truly Christian. If we are in some sense part of the Catholic Church, I should remain in it and try to be an influence toward fuller Catholicity. But that’s an extremely frustrating position to be in given the circumstances of Anglicanism right now–not to mention the fact that I don’t know if I should be working primarily for union with Rome or with the East.

And then there’s the fact that if I were to join the Roman Communion, I’d want to move them closer to Orthodoxy in theology and practice, and if I were to become Orthodox, I’d want them to seek union with Rome. . . .

I’m just an ornery critter, I guess

Edwin

 

[manualman]

Ornery is usually less fun to talk to. Wrong word, I think!

Rome has developed a certain vocabulary to maintain precision in this issue, while trying not to be uncharitable at the same time. As you probably already know, Rome doesn’t refer to Anglican or other protestant communities as “churches” due to the catholic position that these groups have abandoned apostolic succession.

I think the term they came up with was “ecclessial communities” to describe groups that are clearly christians in the fundamentals, maintain access to the sacraments of baptism and marriage (since these are not totally reliant upon the sacramental priesthood) and have not added doctrines utterly in opposition to the Creed.

The idea appears to be to pastorally acknowledge the common ground we hold in Christ as believers while refraining from compromising the catholic definition of the word “church.”

To use the old ship analogy to the Church, if indeed there is only ONE Church, then what we currently have is that ONE ship (the catholic church) on which the eastern orthodox are holed up on the foredeck in a state of mutiny, the catholics retain the quarterdeck (and possibly the gundeck given the success of catholic evangelization in the last 500 years), and the protestants are those crewman who (for whatever reason) have fled the ship using the long boats. It’s a motley crew to be sure. Wouldn’t have needed a Savior otherwise!

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

What about the co-consecrations that reinfused apostolic succession into Anglican bishops known as the Dutch Touch and Polish Pat? Many of these bishops received apostolic succession AND have the anglo-catholic understanding that Roman Catholics and Orthodox bishops have about the priestly sacerdotal, sacrificial ministry of the the priesthood. What would you say to that? They are valid by your criteria.

Catholics are no less vulnerable than other humans to wanting to oversimplify things. If we paused to peel back the onion layers on every issue encountered in life, nobody would ever get ANYthing done! Simplifications have their place, but it certainly is best if people recognize that they’ve settled for a simplified explanation rather than claiming to know the whole story.

The catholic simplified version of this issue is that Anglicanism as a whole went beyond schism and by virture of rejecting the reality of priestly ordination as a genuine infusion of grace that marks the priest as fundamentally different and empowered to confect the sacraments for a generation, actually LOST apostolic succession. The eastern orthodox never abandoned this embrace of sacramental Holy Orders and thus did not lose it. A.C. explains this fairly clearly even for a mere engineer like me (not renowned for our communications prowess!).

The simplified version, however, doesn’t address the complexities. What AC is too old to address and Rome has carefully ignored for decades is what effect the participation of OTHER schismatic bishops in the ordination rites of Anglican priests or bishops might have. Anglicans rightly point out that AC doesn’t address the issue and Rome seems to be taking the approach that if they wait long enough, the Anglican communion will explode into secular humanist and evangelical protestant splinters and the few theologically catholic survivors might be willing to be plucked out of the water and into the Barque of Peter, making the whole thing a moot point. That would seem a rather callous approach, but I can’t deny that it does seem to fit the facts on the ground…

In any case, I agree that catholics should not presume that the act of schism automatically severs the schismatic group from the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church. Edwin makes a point about this being rather awkward for the kind of catholic apologist who like to thump his chest in self-congratulation about the “one” part of that statement. But then, God never has been the sort to encourage chest thumping in the first place and Edwin seems the sort to me to be less inclined to accept only the appearance on the outer layer of the onion! So what’s the issue again??

 

[GKC]

Again, you need to check this with an orthodox Catholic scholar. I am confident thaqt they will tell you that you are wrong. Bishops who go into schism do not lose their orders by doing so. They become, from your perspective, illicit. But they are still valid bishops.

Ask them. You will be surprised. They generally say that the concept of “validity” makes no sense outside the communion of the Church. They do not usually make a distinction between your orders and ours.

But don’t take my word for any of this. Just don’t take your own word either–check up on it!

Edwin

As I often point out, one might read Ott, p. 458, on schismatic, heretical ,etc, bishops.

And when the Orthodox say “Church” they don’t mean the RCC.

GKC

 

[GKC]

Catholics are no less vulnerable than other humans to wanting to oversimplify things. If we paused to peel back the onion layers on every issue encountered in life, nobody would ever get ANYthing done! Simplifications have their place, but it certainly is best if people recognize that they’ve settled for a simplified explanation rather than claiming to know the whole story.

The catholic simplified version of this issue is that Anglicanism as a whole went beyond schism and by virture of rejecting the reality of priestly ordination as a genuine infusion of grace that marks the priest as fundamentally different and empowered to confect the sacraments for a generation, actually LOST apostolic succession. The eastern orthodox never abandoned this embrace of sacramental Holy Orders and thus did not lose it. A.C. explains this fairly clearly even for a mere engineer like me (not renowned for our communications prowess!).

The simplified version, however, doesn’t address the complexities. What AC is too old to address and Rome has carefully ignored for decades is what effect the participation of OTHER schismatic bishops in the ordination rites of Anglican priests or bishops might have. Anglicans rightly point out that AC doesn’t address the issue and Rome seems to be taking the approach that if they wait long enough, the Anglican communion will explode into secular humanist and evangelical protestant splinters and the few theologically catholic survivors might be willing to be plucked out of the water and into the Barque of Peter, making the whole thing a moot point. That would seem a rather callous approach, but I can’t deny that it does seem to fit the facts on the ground…

In any case, I agree that catholics should not presume that the act of schism automatically severs the schismatic group from the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church. Edwin makes a point about this being rather awkward for the kind of catholic apologist who like to thump his chest in self-congratulation about the “one” part of that statement. But then, God never has been the sort to encourage chest thumping in the first place and Edwin seems the sort to me to be less inclined to accept only the appearance on the outer layer of the onion! So what’s the issue again??

Apostolicae Curae, in its conclusions, doesn’t take into consideration a couple of points, the infusion of valid/illicit lines occurring around 35 years later being one of them (naturally). But there are other points, as to what, precisely, the Anglicans might have rejected. I often suggest Hughes’ STEWARDS OF THE LORD, on this point.

GKC

 

[GKC]

Well, the practical issue for me is that I’m convinced that my present communion is gravely deficient, but I’m also convinced that I belong to a true Christian community. So the question of just what the Catholics and Orthodox think about communities not in full union with them is a very important one to me!

I don’t think I’m justified in abandoning a Christian community as long as it remains truly Christian. If we are in some sense part of the Catholic Church, I should remain in it and try to be an influence toward fuller Catholicity. But that’s an extremely frustrating position to be in given the circumstances of Anglicanism right now–not to mention the fact that I don’t know if I should be working primarily for union with Rome or with the East.

And then there’s the fact that if I were to join the Roman Communion, I’d want to move them closer to Orthodoxy in theology and practice, and if I were to become Orthodox, I’d want them to seek union with Rome. . . .

I’m just an ornery critter, I guess

Edwin

I agree with Edwin. Mostly.

GKC

 

[GKC]

Ornery is usually less fun to talk to. Wrong word, I think!

Rome has developed a certain vocabulary to maintain precision in this issue, while trying not to be uncharitable at the same time. As you probably already know, Rome doesn’t refer to Anglican or other protestant communities as “churches” due to the catholic position that these groups have abandoned apostolic succession.

I think the term they came up with was “ecclessial communities” to describe groups that are clearly christians in the fundamentals, maintain access to the sacraments of baptism and marriage (since these are not totally reliant upon the sacramental priesthood) and have not added doctrines utterly in opposition to the Creed.

The idea appears to be to pastorally acknowledge the common ground we hold in Christ as believers while refraining from compromising the catholic definition of the word “church.”

To use the old ship analogy to the Church, if indeed there is only ONE Church, then what we currently have is that ONE ship (the catholic church) on which the eastern orthodox are holed up on the foredeck in a state of mutiny, the catholics retain the quarterdeck (and possibly the gundeck given the success of catholic evangelization in the last 500 years), and the protestants are those crewman who (for whatever reason) have fled the ship using the long boats. It’s a motley crew to be sure. Wouldn’t have needed a Savior otherwise!

Motley crew, eh?

GKC

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

You didn’t word this post as you usually do so I’ll step up and do it for you…“But as a Catholic I would expect you to agree with Apostolicae Curae to be a good Catholic. All Catholics should affirm it. I as an Anglican do not. But keep in mind that we Anglicans are a motley crew. Apostolicae Curae happens to be a hobby of mine along with Hanks great matter!”

Apostolicae Curae, in its conclusions, doesn’t take into consideration a couple of points, the infusion of valid/illicit lines occurring around 35 years later being one of them (naturally). But there are other points, as to what, precisely, the Anglicans might have rejected. I often suggest Hughes’ STEWARDS OF THE LORD, on this point.

GKC

 

[GKC]

You didn’t word this post as you usually do so I’ll step up and do it for you…“But as a Catholic I would expect you to agree with Apostolicae Curae to be a good Catholic. All Catholics should affirm it. I as an Anglican do not. But keep in mind that we Anglicans are a motley crew. Apostolicae Curae happens to be a hobby of mine along with Hanks great matter!”

By George, I think he’s got it.

Did I ever mention that I’ve met…

GKC

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Please…please…no more! I’m still jealous trying to recover from the “I met George Romero” thing. I’m the biggest Dawn of the Dead, Day of the Dead, Night of the Living Dead fan. LOVE 'EM! George is the master! John Carpenter and George Romero are my boys! I have Carpenter’s autograph but got it through a letter to him in the mail, never met him face to face. I’ve mostly met sci-fi/Star Trek folks.

I’m pretty dang proud of my Vincent Price autograph! The greatest of all time!

By George, I think he’s got it.

Did I ever mention that I’ve met…

GKC

 

[gmcbroom]

Hey GKC, As the Anglican Communion is a rather Motley Crew (yes I said it) would you care to hazard a guess as to which camp has the biggestest population? ie the evangelicals, anglo catholics, or some other group? Is there a way to find out the numbers?

PS- I can’t decide whether I like Kick start my heart or Dr Feelgood better.

 

[GKC]

Hey GKC, As the Anglican Communion is a rather Motley Crew (yes I said it) would you care to hazard a guess as to which camp has the biggestest population? ie the evangelicals, anglo catholics, or some other group? Is there a way to find out the numbers?

PS- I can’t decide whether I like Kick start my heart or Dr Feelgood better.

I would guess that the once mighty Anglo-Catholics are a small minority, the reformed/evangelical side the largest self-identified bunch, and probably the bulk of the folk are sort of an undifferentiated bland brand. No idea how to count noses. But my parish is strongly Anglo-Catholic, in a moderate sense. Not that we are in the Anglican Communion.

GKC

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

You’re showing your age, Jim. You didn’t get his Dr. Feelgood joke LOL

I would guess that the once mighty Anglo-Catholics are a small minority, the reformed/evangelical side the largest self-identified bunch, and probably the bulk of the folk are sort of an undifferentiated bland brand. No idea how to count noses. But my parish is strongly Anglo-Catholic, in a moderate sense. Not that we are in the Anglican Communion.

GKC

 

[GKC]

You’re showing your age, Jim. You didn’t get his Dr. Feelgood joke LOL

Does it have something to do with music, or at least structured noise?

I was going to say, met Gunnar Hansen.

GKC

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

First of all yes, “Dr. Feelgood” was one of Motley Crue’s songs in the early 90’s, a lousy one by the way IMO LOL! I was never much of a Crue fan. I did like “Home Sweet Home” I have to admit. I was more of an Iron Maiden fan. I liked the rougher stuff!

And ha ha ha ha! I already met Gunnar Hanson. I met him in 1987 at the Fangoria Weekend of Horrors. I have a picture with him and a Leatherface autograph from him! LOL…nothing like meeting a chainsaw killer actor. I’m proud of that one!

I also met Angus Scrimm from Phantasm at that horror con, got two autographs and a pic. I was only 13. I was ear to ear happy. Loved that guy. Then as you know I talked to Bill Thornbury, the main hero in Phantasm on the phone last year and got two autographs from him. He only lives about an hour away from here up in Fresno. The guy is just awesome!

My Peter Falk autograph is pretty cool, too! Columbo rules!

Does it have something to do with music, or at least structured noise?

I was going to say, met Gunnar Hansen.

GKC

 

[GKC]

Doug Bradley.

First of all yes, “Dr. Feelgood” was one of Motley Crue’s songs in the early 90’s, a lousy one by the way IMO LOL! I was never much of a Crue fan. I did like “Home Sweet Home” I have to admit. I was more of an Iron Maiden fan. I liked the rougher stuff!

And ha ha ha ha! I already met Gunnar Hanson. I met him in 1987 at the Fangoria Weekend of Horrors. I have a picture with him and a Leatherface autograph from him! LOL…nothing like meeting a chainsaw killer actor. I’m proud of that one!

I also met Angus Scrimm from Phantasm at that horror con, got two autographs and a pic. I was only 13. I was ear to ear happy. Loved that guy. Then as you know I talked to Bill Thornbury, the main hero in Phantasm on the phone last year and got two autographs from him. He only lives about an hour away from here up in Fresno. The guy is just awesome!

My Peter Falk autograph is pretty cool, too! Columbo rules!

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Pinhead the Cenobite. I remember him well. Hellraiser, great flick. I read the book. Scary. But Clive Barker is a loon I’ll tell ya that. He’s in the Diarmaid MacCulloch club if you know what I mean

Doug Bradley.