That would depend on what sort of Anglcan is meant. There are types of Anglicans compared to which being a Pastarfarian would be more desireable.As above, just wanted to know why not?
Peace and love :signofcross
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
The spelling is correct. But technically, it was a Bull. Or an Apostolic LetterRita - Peace be with you.
Rita, I agree with you about some ahem! of the comments on this thread.
Some folks are trying to be cute – like the comment about Bp. Spong (which I thought was hilarious) – alas, sometimes it comes across in a very bad way. In such cases I apologize to you on behalf of the Church (uh, Catholic Church).We have our own Bp. Spongs – sadly.
For me – I would rather be Catholic. Why? Because as one poster alluded – it is the fullness of Truth in Jesus Christ. This is **not **saying the Anglican Church does not have *any *truth. On the contrary, the Catholic Church does indeed teach that those ecclesial communities which arose from the reformation **do have **some of that Truth. (See the Catechism of the Catholic Church #823, right in there)
Now, having said all of that – let’s go to liturgy.
There are *many *Anglicans who have such a hard time leaving their Church for the fullness of Truth because of bad worship in the Catholic Church (let’s not pussyfoot around here – take one look at the liturgy thread and you will see that we have some work to do in this dept. – and Benedict is making fine strides correcting the problems). Certainly, this is not saying that there are bad liturgies in the Anglican Church – it is there as well.
However, I really feel for those high church Anglicans who worship the Lord in such devout and reverent ways. It is a tough - tough call which I would not want to make if I were a life-long Anglican worshiping in such wonderful ways.
Ultimately though it comes down to the Truth and correct Holy Orders (you might want to check out Pope Leo XIII’s encyclical Apostalicae Curae[sp] about the validity of Anglican Holy Orders).
Peace to you Rita!
Um, to the contrary, Anglicanism existed in the British Isles since Joseph of Arimethea brought it there.
Um, actually, Apostolicae Curae wasn’t ex-cathedra, so it isn’t infallible.Ultimately though it comes down to the Truth and correct Holy Orders (you might want to check out Pope Leo XIII’s encyclical Apostalicae Curae[sp] about the validity of Anglican Holy Orders).
Peace to you Rita!
Um, actually, it was founded in the British Isles by Joseph of Arimethea, and King Henry merely separated it’s bishops from the Pope.
In other words - up until then, they were actually Catholic.
It’s still Catholic (at least the part of it which maintains apostolic succession, the Real Presence, and doesn’t ordain women “bishops”).In other words - up until then, they were actually Catholic.
Not so, Met.
No, like many others of the day, he needed a decree of nullity for dynastic reasons. It happened lliterally all the time. But not to the aunt of the Holy Roman Emperor.
It is part of the ordinary magisterium. A doctrine need not be
Yeah, but even if there were ordinations by a woman “bishop”, there are usually two other consecrators, so wouldn’t that still ensure continuance of Apostolic Succession, so long as those other two are properly ordained male bishops?
You stretch my knowledge here, but AFAIK, one non-bishop would not invalidate a consecration. But it does open the door to the issue of intent; whether it is certain that the intent of the act is valid, that is *facere quod facit ecclesia *. It least, it seems so to me.
Actually, that’s how it’s said in the Spanish Catholic Mass too: “una palabra Tuya bastara para sanarme.”
I did not take offense, I hope you haven’t I assumed you were after an honest answer so I gave it. sorry I can’t change English history to fit your notions.
There’s always traditional Continuing Anglicans, or CANA…
