- Status
C
Claudius
Guest
Not according to the one whose oppinion really matters in all of this. The proof is solid. You can not re-validate your mass without a valid priesthood. Without a valid Eucharist, your priesthood becomes invalid, not to mention the fact that it was invalid after the Edwardian ritual replaced the Roman Ritual. Now, I can certainly feel for your situation. You want to have a valid Eucharist and a Valid priesthood. These are things that every Christian should have access to. I pray for the reconciliation between the Anglicans of good conscience and the Catholic Church. I will even go so far as to tell you that I pray and support the efforts of some Anglicans to form their own Sui Juris Church. The Anglican form, where it has been faithfully retained and passed on is of ancient origin and is to be respected and would be valid to this day with apostolic succession if it had not been for Elizabeth and Edward. Should there be a way for the Catholic Church to put validity back into your Church and reunion is done, then I do support your move to make your own Sui Juris Church and actually feel that would be the best thing for you. Notice though, I will not compromise on the Truth of the Eucharist or the Gospel. Being a member of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church is required to be a good Christain. I will not water down the truth to you because I respect you too much.As you well know, during the 1930’s and 40’s the Anglicans re-ordered their lines, thus re-validating there orders (except for the female “bishops”) But traditional Anglican national Churches do not ordain women. And almost all Continuing Anglican Churches have valid Apostolic Succession.
Now, should the Anglican actually form their own Sui Juris Church, then it would make a lot of sense for a lot of American and otherwise, English speaking Catholics to join. This would not be them leaving Catholicism anymore then if they were to join the Maronites. They simply are communing with a different ritual. As most Americans are English speakers it could be very helpful for some of them to be ministered to by priest of a “purely” English rite.
However, I still would not join even if a Sui Juris Church was formed. The reason is not out of prejudice at all. I am a Latin Catholic. I speak Latin, I read my bible in Latin, I pray in Latin and I teach Latin to others. I am a Latin Catholic and I love my rite, it is home to me. I would not join an Anglican Sui Juris any more then I imagine many Mexicans would ever join an Anglican Sui Juris. For the average English speaking American, this could be a good move spiritually, but not me.
If there is not reconciliation with the Catholic Church, then I must conclude that the Anglican Church does not hold the full means to salvation as the Catholic Church does. Again, I certainly can feel for you situation. You naturally want to have a valid Eucharist and to have a valid priesthood and it was a great crime committed against you that Elizabeth took that away. However, we must forgive her for this great offense and find a way to heal the wrongs of the past so that every Christian can have access to a Valid Eucharist and a Valid Priesthood.
I will keep you in my prayers as I ask you to keep me in yours.
G
GKC
Guest
Greetings, Claudius,
I believe you misunderstand what Metaron means. In 1932, with the Utrecht Old Catholics, and in 1946, with the Polish National Catholic Church, both of which possess episcopal lines which Rome recognises as valid, though illicit, Anglicans started a policy of full formal communion, with joint episcopal consecration. This results in an infusion of valid lines at the episcopal level, into Anglicanism. Which is then transmitted to the priesthood, and to subsequent Angilcan consecrations, propagating it throughout the Church.
The Edwardine Ordinal form which *Apostolicae Curae * declared invalid, was not declared invalid in itself, since there exist numerous rites which Rome recognises as conveying valid orders which possess the same form (or defect). It was declared invalid to convey orders when considered along with the use of it by persons for whom the use was said to demonstrate invalid intent, an intent not to do what the Church does (facere quod facit ecclesia), by virtue of using that form. The particular intent is said to be of those using the Ordinal to consecrate Archbishop Parker, in 1559, (intent relating to particular persons and specific actions). +Parker is a bottleneck in the Anglican episcopate The form was changed, for reasons peculiar to Anglicanism, in 1662, and has been adequate in itself ever since.
Rome has not ruled specifically on whether, in its eyes, this infusion of illicit, but valid lines does indeed result in Anglicans possessing valid orders, but that is the logic, and also figures in the few cases in which Anglican priests have been ordained sub conditione, when they convert.
Apostolicae Curae has a complicted and sad history. But certainly, all RCs should affirm that Anglican orders are ruled invalid by it. I certainly affirm that RCs should do so. But you will understand if Anglicans don’t concur. Anglicanism possesses valid Apostolic Succession (we will pass over for this discussion the use of invalid matter, of late), hence valid orders, hence validly confects all 7 sacraments. Of course you should deny that.
Your kind wishes are appreciated, and, as a father of a former Latin teacher, I salute you.
GKC
[Anglicanus Catholicus*
I believe you misunderstand what Metaron means. In 1932, with the Utrecht Old Catholics, and in 1946, with the Polish National Catholic Church, both of which possess episcopal lines which Rome recognises as valid, though illicit, Anglicans started a policy of full formal communion, with joint episcopal consecration. This results in an infusion of valid lines at the episcopal level, into Anglicanism. Which is then transmitted to the priesthood, and to subsequent Angilcan consecrations, propagating it throughout the Church.
The Edwardine Ordinal form which *Apostolicae Curae * declared invalid, was not declared invalid in itself, since there exist numerous rites which Rome recognises as conveying valid orders which possess the same form (or defect). It was declared invalid to convey orders when considered along with the use of it by persons for whom the use was said to demonstrate invalid intent, an intent not to do what the Church does (facere quod facit ecclesia), by virtue of using that form. The particular intent is said to be of those using the Ordinal to consecrate Archbishop Parker, in 1559, (intent relating to particular persons and specific actions). +Parker is a bottleneck in the Anglican episcopate The form was changed, for reasons peculiar to Anglicanism, in 1662, and has been adequate in itself ever since.
Rome has not ruled specifically on whether, in its eyes, this infusion of illicit, but valid lines does indeed result in Anglicans possessing valid orders, but that is the logic, and also figures in the few cases in which Anglican priests have been ordained sub conditione, when they convert.
Apostolicae Curae has a complicted and sad history. But certainly, all RCs should affirm that Anglican orders are ruled invalid by it. I certainly affirm that RCs should do so. But you will understand if Anglicans don’t concur. Anglicanism possesses valid Apostolic Succession (we will pass over for this discussion the use of invalid matter, of late), hence valid orders, hence validly confects all 7 sacraments. Of course you should deny that.
Your kind wishes are appreciated, and, as a father of a former Latin teacher, I salute you.
GKC
[Anglicanus Catholicus*
G
GKC
Guest
As far as I know, one valid bishop can confect the sacrament, though certainly the customary rule amongst Anglicans is also three. But I am no expert in that area.
Until and unless Rome revisits the matter, certainly all RCs should continue as before.
We Anglicans will do likewise.
Pax.
GKC
Anglicanus Catholicus
C
chicago
Guest
Tell us more about how and why, please.
M
mikew262
Guest
Unfortunately, many here on this board have little tolerance for other denominations, even through they are Christian ones. Very sad.
Many have forgotten that Christianity encompasses more than just Catholics.
M
markadm
Guest
I’ll be honest and say I have little tolerance for the denomination that raised me and fed me some misconceptions and downright untruths about faith. You must remember that many have taken a conscious decision to leave these denominations in favour of what they see as the Church of Christ. Theologically speaking the reformation and all schisms, bar that of the Orthodox, are very difficult to resolve in any conciliatory manner.Unfortunately, many here on this board have little tolerance for other denominations, even through they are Christian ones. Very sad.
Many have forgotten that Christianity encompasses more than just Catholics.
M
mikew262
Guest
Just as many, if not more, are leaving the Catholic Church than joining. I’m sure there are many reasons for both situations. One person’s truth is another’s falsehood.
I think most Christian denominations agree on 90% of doctrine, it’s just the other 10% that causes such division.
S
SIA
Guest
So then, sexual abuse against children is perfect? Glad I left when I did!
S
SIA
Guest
never said that the RCC was founded by a pope. In your own church’s definition, it was founded upon a pope (the first pope). Secondly, it is a known historical fact that the RCC had sadistic and sexually immoral popes.
M
markadm
Guest
It’s just that for the Catholics and the Orthodox the 10% is likely the very nub of the issue. Unlike Protestant denominations, the nature of the Eucharist has profound implications on what is communion–not just as the liturgical action, but also as a particular local Church, or the universal Church. It’s a major sticking point because it touches on the Church’s very vision of herself!
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
I believe the Anglicans have beautiful Royalty tradition, if the British Queen would repent and submit to the authority of the Pope again, I believe the whole Catholic family will be overjoyed to have the Royal family back, and look to her as a representative of our Blessed lady on earth, I would come to recognize her role in this if the Anglican Church would only repent and come back home.
To bad for politics and human pride. I miss them, and pray for their return back to the successors of the Apostles, it would be so wonderful and symbolic of the heavenly kingdom.
I would not be Anglican because of their lost of Apostolic succession and invalid holy orders and sacraments.
To bad for politics and human pride. I miss them, and pray for their return back to the successors of the Apostles, it would be so wonderful and symbolic of the heavenly kingdom.
I would not be Anglican because of their lost of Apostolic succession and invalid holy orders and sacraments.
S
SIA
Guest
I completely disagree with you. The Anglican church has valid orders and is validly successors of the Apostles. It is your pride and blindness which is fuled by your apparent ignorance of what the Reformation really was that is keeping you from accepting them and other Protestants as your Christian brothers and sisters. Jesus established the Christian church of all believers which includes the Catholic church but is not exclusive to Catholics.
M
markadm
Guest
Holy Mother Church disagrees with you (Apostolicae Curae).
But I know you won’t recognise that, so here goes at my explanation. The sacraments require valid matter and form (even Anglicans believed that prior to the reformation, and many do now). However, in the changes of the Ordinal during the reign of Edward the somethingth, the form was modified to the extent that it was no longer the Bishops’ intention to create new Priests. Hence the “Priests” in the CofE were no longer Priests, and the apostolic succession died out.
We do acknowledge Christians as our brothers and sisters, but equally we cannot make a full statement of ecclesial communion where that communion simply does not exist. Your (Protestant) understanding of the Eucharist, the Priesthood, the Sacraments, and ultimately the very nature of the Church, is so radically different from that of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches that it is hard to expect us to make the gestures you expect of us.
Please do not ascribe this to pride or blindness. I would venture that Catholics are equally wounded by the divided nature of Christianity, but we simply cannot make untrue gestures. It is therefore to do with truth, and it would be unfair on you to ask Catholic to lie. Yes, on you: if we lied to you, it would not be honest.
At the same time, don’t think Catholics aren’t aware of the corruption, etc., that existed at the time of the Reformation. Ever heard of the counter-reformation? Because of the Church’s reactions to just the kind of demands Luther et al were making, many corrupt practices, e.g. simony, were swatted out. In short, many of the grounds for the Reformation ceased.
Please take this kindly too: I would remind you you are on what is a Catholic forum. Though it is not my place to say so, I will be bold to so, because I remember when I too was on the outside looking in. However, the one thing I did not do is come in guns blazing.
M
mikew262
Guest
Just because non-Catholic Christians disagree on the meaning of the Eucharist does not make them any less sincere and devout concerning their belief in Christ.
Its all just a matter of interpretation.
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
Hi, SIA
For some reason I dont refer the Anglican church to the reformation. Are we talking about the same Anglican church? When the King, decided to become his own pope and excommunicated, killed valid Catholic bishops, and Reordained his own, under a different invented formula for valic orders, the break, ended Apostolic succession. ST. Thomas Moore, who was beloved of the king, beheaded him, because this saint of a man refused to denounce the Pope the prince of the Apostles. This is a brief history of what I understand, if you know something other, please be my guest and explain, why the Roman Catholic church does not recognize the Anglican church to have valid holy orders, and valid sacraments. That is why we are here, to learn from one another and walk away with truth.My prayer is for my seperated brethern and protestants to come to the accurate knowledge of the truth, I accept all christians as my brothers and sisters. Let us not repeat what our fathers could not do, communicate, and come to reason, justice, and facts. And if need be, Repentance, confession and forgiveness, for this is the Gospel.
May the peace, love and joy of Jesus be with you
G
GKC
Guest
Edward VI, though he had little to do with it, personally…
And valid intent and valid minister are also required.
The Anglican position is that *Apostolicae Curae *is mistaken, with respect to the intent of the bishops who consecrated +Parker. And remember, that is the break point.
For an exposition of the point, Fr. John J, Hughes’ two books are highly recommended: ABSOLUTELY NULL AND UTTERLY VOID and STEWARDS OF THE LORD. ABSOLUTELY NULL focuses on the history and the who did what, starting in 1890 (and who did want is surprising, interesting and sad) and STEWARDS concentrates on the theology, particularly of the Eucharistic Sacrifice, as understood in the 16th century.
Fr. Hughes is also an interesting individual. Once an Anglican priest, he was a RC priest when he wrote these two books. And he was the first Anglican priest to be ordained sub conditione, when he converted…
For the best exposition of the RC position, (then Jesuit Fr.) Francis Clark’s ANGLICAN ORDERS AND DEFECT OF INTENTION.
Believe me, I know what the theory, and the school solution is. It’s a hobby of mine. But you cannot be surprised when, as an Anglican, I have a different (and informed) opinion.
And are you sure you know what an Anglican thinks about the Eucharist, the priesthood, etc? What do you think I think?
And, finally, as always, of course you should affirm Apostolicae Curae.
Pax, frater.
GKC
Anglicanus Catholicus
G
GKC
Guest
Greetings, Gab,Hi, SIA
My prayer is for my seperated brethern and protestants to come to the accurate knowledge of the truth, I accept all christians as my brothers and sisters. Let us not repeat what our fathers could not do, communicate, and come to reason, justice, and facts. And if need be, Repentance, confession and forgiveness, for this is the Gospel.
May the peace, love and joy of Jesus be with you
Mostly that is bad history, but not all. I’ve spent a lot of time online discussing that period, but I’d recommend a start with a good basic bio of Henry VIII. Pollard or Scarisbrick are the standards.
A couple of points. Thomas More’s execution was not because he would not denounce the Pope. One Bishop was beheaded (Fisher). Henry had nothing to do with the Ordinal which *Apostolciae Curae *declared invalid. He was dead long before.
History is somewhat complicted, and needs a little reading, to get deep into. Which is where one wants to be, as you know.
GKC
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
thanks for the information I will look into it, There is alot of history that need not be stated here regarding the Characters and decisions from the Roman Catholic side. The key to understanding the history is the present. Anglicanism, I have hardly any updated facts other than hear say at this point of the scandals and schisms. Thus puts my at a disadvantage other than a Catholic perspective.
Presently no communion between the Roman Catholic church and the Anglican. What do you think will be the avenue to return to the unity that once was?
- Status