Why do Anglicans think they are Catholic?

[WAYNE_LEYDS]

If you are NOT in communion with the Church and the Church does not consider you Catholic YOU ARE NOT. Period. You can think you are, you can want to be but your not. THAT is what infuriates me. I do not care how much more orthodox you are or are not. Otherwise we will just call Lutherans Catholic, after all they are “close”. Their history is “Catholic” to. However they broke away, just as the Anglicans did. According to The Vatican Anglicans have no standing in the Catholic Church- so why bother to pretend they do? It’s like a dog barking to get back in. ANNOYING.

we were once 1 family in Christ.but through matters of the flesh our brothers in Christ removed themselves from our communal home.i believe all Christians are ROMAN! whether they or we accept it or not.if RCC is trully the universal church then all true Christians are part of us.WE are 1 body Christ is our head.unless ofcos there are more bodies…Imagine a rebellious son who leaves his home is he not still a member of that family by the blood that flows in him and his family?in the same way Christ is in all who accept him.so although we are seperate we are still 1.

we must not become like the priests of the old Law.condescending and quick to remove the speck from our brothers eye when we have a log in ours!!!

 

[Matariel]

The official word is Priest though. Not Priestess.
It is more correct to say Priest.

Official word? I thought the “official” word is “presbyter”.

Besides, “priestess” is just a variant of “priest” which means “female sacerdote” or “female priest”. Since we’re talking about the issue of priestesses, this makes more sense, because we should say priestess or female priest so we know we’re talking about women functioning as clergy in some Anglican/Episcopalian churches.

 

[PJM]

Re: Why do Anglicans think they are Catholic?

Are we allowed to guess?

Eph.4: "
1I therefore, a prisoner for the Lord, beg you to lead a life worthy of the calling to which you have been called, 2 with all lowliness and meekness, with patience, forbearing one another in love, 3 eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. 4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call, 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6 one God and Father of us all, who is above all and through all and in all. 7 But grace was given to each of us according to the measure of Christ’s gift. 8* Therefore it is said, “When he ascended on high he led a host of captives, and he gave gifts to men.”

So this is true? Yes?

Then my guess is they know its both true and “THE TRUTH” and in seeking to be part of the truth they graviate to it’s source. Which on all matters of FAITH and or MORALS, is the RCC.

It is from this position, that God’s desire for ONE CHURCH, God willing, shall evolve.:clapping: Dear God, may it be soon!

 

[grampben]

Official word? I thought the “official” word is “presbyter”.

Besides, “priestess” is just a variant of “priest” which means “female sacerdote” or “female priest”. Since we’re talking about the issue of priestesses, this makes more sense, because we should say priestess or female priest so we know we’re talking about women functioning as clergy in some Anglican/Episcopalian churches.

Well very often is is priest/presbyter.
In my book of common prayer it often says ‘minister’. Generally it is ‘priesthood/presbyterate’.

I’m just saying it helps to use the official, or de facto official, wording in civil conversation. For example if one is talking about abortion, the pro lifer shouldn’t be calling their opponent a ‘pro baby slaughtering and merciless torture’ when ‘pro choice would suffice’ no matter how much you believe your definition to be correct.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I am often confronted with RCs who deny the use of the term “priest” to male Anglican clergy, based on the issue of form and intent, as reflected in the judgment in Apostolicae Curae. I don’t agree, but I have no problem with the concept, nor does it hurt my feelings. Similarly, Catholics, myself included, deny the use of the term to those who do not represent the proper, valid matter for the reception of the sacrament. Thus, there are no females who are priests, in the Vincentian sense the undivided Church recognized the sacrament of orders ab initio. There are no female priests, in the sacerdotal sense, though there are certainly female clergy persons in sacerdotal garments.

Neither of us agree with the RCC on the basic issue. But one may as well become used to it. Terminological exactitude is a virtue. I practice it myself a lot.

GKC

And by all means when you are talking to those who are in your belief system then use the terms you all agree are appropriate to describe. But when you are talking publically, you should, it seems to me, use terms as they are used definitionally by all people. That would be the common dictionary definition, and expecially so when the effected community has expressed an interest in being identified in a certain way. That is but common curtesy which we extend to any group. Some people of Spanish descent prefer Latino, others Mexican and so forth.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Because I have no idea why people would get offended by an ordinary, everyday English word which simply means “a female sacerdote”. I fail to see how that is offensive.

Why should I avoid an everyday English word which aptly describes a subject we’re talking about?

How on Earth is it offensive?

To me, called a priestess a “priest” is like calling an actress and “actor”. It’s wrong, because it implies they are male when they’re not. So there is no reason for me to stop speaking English as it is normally spoken. I’m sorry, but I’ve no idea what all this fuss is about.

The term actor includes both male and female. The use of ess to designate women is falling into disuse in all its machinations. Being called an actor doesn’t connote being a man.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Well very often is is priest/presbyter.
In my book of common prayer it often says ‘minister’. Generally it is ‘priesthood/presbyterate’.

I’m just saying it helps to use the official, or de facto official, wording in civil conversation. For example if one is talking about abortion, the pro lifer shouldn’t be calling their opponent a ‘pro baby slaughtering and merciless torture’ when ‘pro choice would suffice’ no matter how much you believe your definition to be correct.

Well said, and furthermore, you cannot hope to change a mind that you start out by insulting. If a person wishes to be called X, then call them that. Perhaps they will in their gratitude actually listen to what you are saying. Of course I would assume all RC’s which to convince others that they are right about Catholicism.erhaps I am in error.

 

[grampben]

Well said, and furthermore, you cannot hope to change a mind that you start out by insulting. If a person wishes to be called X, then call them that. Perhaps they will in their gratitude actually listen to what you are saying. Of course I would assume all RC’s which to convince others that they are right about Catholicism.erhaps I am in error.

That’s certainly my experience from CAF.

 

[Matariel]

The term actor includes both male and female. The use of ess to designate women is falling into disuse in all its machinations. Being called an actor doesn’t connote being a man.

Tell that to the average person that I know. Besides, it just sounds wrong. “The use of “-ess” is falling into disuse”? I disagree. I hear it all the time, practically everyday.

My Mother corrected me at every turn whenever I said “actor”, “waiter”, “bartender” as a kid. She’d always say, “no, no, It’s actress, waitress, barmaid, etc.”.

Believe me, if I say the word “priest” to the average person, they’ll immediately assume it’s a male.

Besides, we are speaking exclusively of women here.

Well very often is is priest/presbyter.
In my book of common prayer it often says ‘minister’. Generally it is ‘priesthood/presbyterate’.

You’re right, since actually “priest” is a contraction of the word “presbyter”.

I’m just saying it helps to use the official, or de facto official, wording in civil conversation. For example if one is talking about abortion, the pro-lifer shouldn’t be calling their opponent a ‘pro-baby slaughtering and merciless torture’ when ‘pro-choice would suffice’ no matter how much you believe your definition to be correct.

Yeah, I do kind of agree with you here. I find it more convenient to use “priestess” because it more clearly defines the subject we’re talking about, since male priests are not the ones in question, as far as differences in Catholic holy orders and some Anglican jurisdiction’s use of clergywomen.

 

[Matariel]

Well said, and furthermore, you cannot hope to change a mind that you start out by insulting.

No one has explained to me how it’s insulting? Maybe incorrect by your standards (which I am unfamiliar with) but insulting?

 

[Peter_J]

SpiritMeadow,

In part I agree with you; in part I don’t.

I would disagree with the last paragraph on two grounds Peter:

1. I don’t frequent other forums that are Protestant. Why am I responsible to clean them up before getting better (civil) treatment here?

I agree that you (and many other posters) ought to get better/civil treatment here. The things is, I think that many if not most of the complaints I hear from Protestants are misleading. Specifically, I would say that the “bad treatment of Protestants on CAF” is just par for the web. But you wouldn’t think from the way the complaints are framed.

I believe Protestants’ complaints would be much better received if they were framed like “It’s really sad the way Catholics are treated on Protestant websites, and the way Protestants are treated on Catholic websites”.

1. Why should this site not want to be run in a manner that is Christian in nature, charitable to all, civil to all? They are not forced into the mud with the pigs so to speak. It would be a choice, and one would hope they would want to take the high road, given the pronouncements here of being the Best and First!

I just checked the home page of this site, but I couldn’t find any “Best and First” claim. I’m willing to allow, though, that Caffers by-and-large consider CAF to be a cut above the average religious-discussion-forum – as is perfectly natural, wouldn’t you say? Or do you think that if you went to e.g. a Lutheran forum, you wouldn’t find posters there who consider their forum to be a cut above average?

Should they not wish to set the example?

Yes, as should we all.

 

[GKC]

And by all means when you are talking to those who are in your belief system then use the terms you all agree are appropriate to describe. But when you are talking publically, you should, it seems to me, use terms as they are used definitionally by all people. That would be the common dictionary definition, and expecially so when the effected community has expressed an interest in being identified in a certain way. That is but common curtesy which we extend to any group. Some people of Spanish descent prefer Latino, others Mexican and so forth.

The common dictionary definitions may or may not comport with the theological ones. If not, the theological term prevails, in theological discussion. And terminological precision is appropriate. I have no particular wish to offend, but no over-riding compulsion not to, accuracy being the standard.

GKC

 

[emeraldcoast]

Tell that to the average person that I know. Besides, it just sounds wrong. “The use of “-ess” is falling into disuse”? I disagree. I hear it all the time, practically everyday.

My Mother corrected me at every turn whenever I said “actor”, “waiter”, “bartender” as a kid. She’d always say, “no, no, It’s actress, waitress, barmaid, etc.”.

Believe me, if I say the word “priest” to the average person, they’ll immediately assume it’s a male.

Besides, we are speaking exclusively of women here.

You’re right, since actually “priest” is a contraction of the word “presbyter”.

Yeah, I do kind of agree with you here. I find it more convenient to use “priestess” because it more clearly defines the subject we’re talking about, since male priests are not the ones in question, as far as differences in Catholic holy orders and some Anglican jurisdiction’s use of clergywomen.

Matariel,

I believe that you are a young woman of 19, and I can tell you as a woman of twice your age that having a woman priest in my life has truly been a blessing. Calling my female priest a “priestess” is rude. I hope that you understand.

God Bless!

 

[Contarini]

Tell that to the average person that I know. Besides, it just sounds wrong. “The use of “-ess” is falling into disuse”? I disagree. I hear it all the time, practically everyday.

Non sequitur. You may still hear it a lot, but the trend is toward not using it.

My Mother corrected me at every turn whenever I said “actor”, “waiter”, “bartender” as a kid. She’d always say, “no, no, It’s actress, waitress, barmaid, etc.”.

Right. But as SpiritMeadow said, that norm is changing.

Yeah, I do kind of agree with you here. I find it more convenient to use “priestess” because it more clearly defines the subject we’re talking about, since male priests are not the ones in question, as far as differences in Catholic holy orders and some Anglican jurisdiction’s use of clergywomen.

The question is really whether a “priestess” is something radically different from a [male] priest. Obviously those of us who believe in women’s ordination don’t think it is.
Obviously those who think it is are going to find a term to express this. I agree with GKC that accuracy is more important than not offending, so while the use of “priestess” grates on me, that’s just one of the consequences of hanging with people with whom I disagree. I have no grounds for complaint that people think (and therefore speak) differently than I do.

Edwin

 

[GKC]

Non sequitur. You may still hear it a lot, but the trend is toward not using it.

Right. But as SpiritMeadow said, that norm is changing.

The question is really whether a “priestess” is something radically different from a [male] priest. Obviously those of us who believe in women’s ordination don’t think it is.
Obviously those who think it is are going to find a term to express this. I agree with GKC that accuracy is more important than not offending, so while the use of “priestess” grates on me, that’s just one of the consequences of hanging with people with whom I disagree. I have no grounds for complaint that people think (and therefore speak) differently than I do.

Edwin

As you say, frater.

GKC

 

[Peter_J]

Well, I don’t know what you heard about “why this site was started”; but I’d like to propose to you a theory of my own. You’ve undoubtedly noticed that the list of forums of this website contains one titled “Traditional Catholicism”. What you may not have noticed is that it’s the largest traditionalist Catholic forum on the whole internet. (I’m going by total number of posts: the “Traditional Catholicism” forum on CAF has 160,317 posts. The “Fish Eaters” forum is a close second with 143,591 posts.)

Hence, I don’t think it’s at all surprising that there’s a certain amount of “spill over” onto other CAF forums, such as this one.

What I do think is unfortunate (to put it nicely) is the kind of tag-team effort between traditionalist-Catholics and Protestant posters that I sometimes see on this forum. E.g. when a traditionalist Catholic says “The real teaching of the Catholic Church is X” and then a Protestant responds “Thank you for being honest; the Pope and Vatican II tried to trick us into thinking that X isn’t the Catholic position.”

Peter I guess I’ve lost the train of the argument somewhere. I’ve never felt tricked by the RCC in any way. I just came to the conclusion that it’s logic wasn’t as logical as I thought. More specifically, I discovered that it’s logic which I believe is fundamentally internally consistent, is based on some faulty premises. But tricked? No. And I’ve not read any Protestant saying this, but I would find it curious if I did probably.

Alrightee. I trust you to know what you’ve seen and haven’t seen. All I can say is that I’ve seen, on a number of different occasions on the Non-Catholic Religion Forum, Traditionalist-Catholics and polemical Protestants “teaming up” to spread their common message, namely that “Traditionalist-Catholic beliefs” (I won’t try to enumerate the specific beliefs that fall into that category) are the “real” teachings of the Catholic Church.

 

[Matariel]

Non sequitur. You may still hear it a lot, but the trend is toward not using it.

Evidence?

Right. But as SpiritMeadow said, that norm is changing.

Evidence? Just 'cause some people wish for something to change, doesn’t mean it is. I don’t know why it would need to be changed to begin with.

The question is really whether a “priestess” is something radically different from a [male] priest.

Really, the only reason I use it is because the issue is not priests in general, but specifically female clergywomen.

The term actor includes both male and female. The use of ess to designate women is falling into disuse in all its machinations. Being called an actor doesn’t connote being a man.

Not true. People will assume you are talking of a male if you say “actor”. Using the word “actor” for an actress seems awkward and unusual, and I’ve never really heard anyone use it that way before.

…as a woman of twice your age that having a woman priest in my life has truly been a blessing. Calling my female priest a “priestess” is rude. I hope that you understand.

I will understand if someone will tell me how it’s rude. As of yet, people have just said, “oh, this and this is going out of vogue,” et cetera (which they still haven’t proven) and haven’t given a real reason yet why it is “rude”.

Because of this I am going to avoid the whole issue and just say “clergywomen”. Really, though, I don’t see what all these linguistic gymnastics’re all about…

 

[SpiritMeadow]

The common dictionary definitions may or may not comport with the theological ones. If not, the theological term prevails, in theological discussion. And terminological precision is appropriate. I have no particular wish to offend, but no over-riding compulsion not to, accuracy being the standard.

GKC

Yes I can see you have no particular wish to, …sigh…why bother. I think I had a college prof like you at least a time or two in my educational past.

 

[Matariel]

Yes I can see you have no particular wish to, …sigh…why bother. I think I had a college prof like you at least a time or two in my educational past.

Geez… ever heard of “sticks and stones… but words will never hurt me”? Really, it’s no big deal, unless we are talking about precise wording in a theological document issued by the Pope or some bishop.

Perhaps we should all lighten up.

 

[GKC]

Yes I can see you have no particular wish to, …sigh…why bother. I think I had a college prof like you at least a time or two in my educational past.

You were fortunate, if that unlikely circumstance occurred.

GKC