Angry Anglicans

[Justy90]

Originally Posted by BernadetteM

As I said I think the quote was taken out of context. The Catholic Church refers to other Christians as our sisters and brothers.

And so somehow this should diffuse any anger that they may have?? Please. Be real.

I

And what did standing by it's doctrines do in light of the inquisitions, it's neutral stance during WWII and the child sexual abuse scandal??

. I don't see that happeneing at all. It was your pope who took his opportunity, not a group of Anglican bishops asking Rome to change its doctrines. Where did you get that from??

Bernadette

[olivet]

Originally Posted by BernadetteM

As I said I think the quote was taken out of context. The Catholic Church refers to other Christians as our sisters and brothers.

These priests should not be angry as educated men they knew that the Catholic Church has declared Anglicans orders invalid. This can't have been a suprise to them.

I have never seen the original document by Pope Paul, nor was I there and have no idea what actually was discussed. Anglicans seem to hold on to anything that they feel elevates them when I don't believe that I have read anything by the Catholic Church saying they are less than we, just that they don't hold the fullness of the faith.

Bernadette

1. Until you have read "The Documents of Vatican II", Walter M. Abbott, S.J., General Editor, which I have, please refrain from accusing me of taking a direct quote 'out of context'. The book says what it says, and if you are so willing to dismiss its contents, then perhaps you are not so wedded to Catholic doctrine as you purport.

2. In light of the Anglican church being referred to as 'our beloved sister church', do not the Anglican priests have the right to rely on official statements of the RCC?; At what point can the Anglican Church (or any other religious body) rely on what is apublished official statements by the Pope? Or is it the case that as soon as a Pope dies, statements made in his lifetime are invalidated? Was the pope wrong when he caused those words to be memorialized in The Documents of Vatican II? A simple yes or no would do, as opposed to deflecting the issue.

" I don't believe that I have read anything by the Catholic Church saying they are less than we, just that they don't hold the fullness of the faith."

I can't believe you just said that. By saying "they don't hold the fullness of the faith" means exactly that the Anglicans are less than the (R) Catholic Church. Obviously the Anglicans do not feel that they are in any way less than the RCC. You are uttering phrases you've heard, without fully understanding what you're saying.

I think the truth is that you personally are upset at the idea of a group of Anglicans being invited into your church and given special status. This is jealousy and is unbecoming a good Christian woman. I have read some of your posts on other threads and will back up this statement if necessary.

If Pope Benedict chooses to give shelter to Anglicans, that is his perogative, is it not? After all, the Pope is supposed to be infallible, and you are a member of the Roman Catholic Church and therefore cannot, per doctrine, disagree with his decisions.

[olivet]

Originally Posted by Justy90

Excellent post that cuts to the chase of this supposed offer. It's no offer at all in my eyes but a sales opportunity for Benedict. Any priest of any denomination at any time can denounce his own church on the road to becoming a Catholic priest. This is nothing new at all and a slap in the face of Anglicanism in light of its current struggles and difficulties. In respect to this forum, I won't say what I would tell Pope Benedict XVI if I were an Anglican priest approached with this.

Dear Justy,

Thank you, and I couldn't agree more with what you said.

[KingTheoden]

Sadly, many Episcopalians or Anglicans have a bit of a superiority complex. Before I get slammed - Obviously not all. At my own parish, we are lucky to have a former Episcopalian as our faith education director. Brilliant man, wonderful inviting personality.

What many have observed is that there is a culture within Anglicanism that looks down on Catholics: 'Roman Catholics are the lower class, we English catholics are the refined, logical and superstitious gentlemen.' Catholic.com had an article on this in the past; probably those of us who have dealt with Episcopalians have observed this first hand.

It is a terrible way to approach church life and forces me to question how genuinely the light of Christ burns in a person with such a mindset.

The issue comes back to submission. If we can just learn to submit to the Church, all of these stupid nitpicks won't matter. Perhaps we won't right away personally like aspects of the Church, but if we defer to them and mentally submit, I think even haughty Episcopalians would have a dramatic change of heart.

We have to remember, the Church is not about us. It is about Jesus Christ and His mission.

And many Anglicans/Episcopalians have come over without any carrot and I think they are the true trailblazers for those of the Anglican province.

[GKC]

Originally Posted by olivet

1. Until you have read "The Documents of Vatican II", Walter M. Abbott, S.J., General Editor, which I have, please refrain from accusing me of taking a direct quote 'out of context'. The book says what it says, and if you are so willing to dismiss its contents, then perhaps you are not so wedded to Catholic doctrine as you purport.

2. In light of the Anglican church being referred to as 'our beloved sister church', do not the Anglican priests have the right to rely on official statements of the RCC?; At what point can the Anglican Church (or any other religious body) rely on what is apublished official statements by the Pope? Or is it the case that as soon as a Pope dies, statements made in his lifetime are invalidated? Was the pope wrong when he caused those words to be memorialized in The Documents of Vatican II? A simple yes or no would do, as opposed to deflecting the issue.

" I don't believe that I have read anything by the Catholic Church saying they are less than we, just that they don't hold the fullness of the faith."

I can't believe you just said that. By saying "they don't hold the fullness of the faith" means exactly that the Anglicans are less than the (R) Catholic Church. Obviously the Anglicans do not feel that they are in any way less than the RCC. You are uttering phrases you've heard, without fully understanding what you're saying.

I think the truth is that you personally are upset at the idea of a group of Anglicans being invited into your church and given special status. This is jealousy and is unbecoming a good Christian woman. I have read some of your posts on other threads and will back up this statement if necessary.

If Pope Benedict chooses to give shelter to Anglicans, that is his perogative, is it not? After all, the Pope is supposed to be infallible, and you are a member of the Roman Catholic Church and therefore cannot, per doctrine, disagree with his decisions.

Nothing in Vat II would reverse or negate the judgment in Apostolicae Curae,which made direct, definitive and binding statements about the RCC's opinion on the nature of Anglican orders, which have to be held by RCs, de fide. If any Anglican priests/bishops were considering approaching Rome (say, as the TAC was doing, in their discussions) and didn't know that, they were singularly uninformed. What Cardinal Vaughan's machinations, back in 1895-96, resulted in would take considerable creativity to reverse. The chances of that happening started vanishing as Anglicanism began to run amok, 30 odd years ago.

The Pope is considered infallible, in certain specified and limited circumstances, on certain defined topics. Curiously, Apostolicae Curae does not fall into them. But, as Cardinal Ratzinger (as was) mentioned back some years ago, the judgment in that Bull remains a de fide requirement for RCs.

GKC

Anglicanus-Catholicus, posterus traditus Anglicanus

[anode]

...and so we all eagerly await the constitution, filling in all the questions, dotting the i's, crossing the t's. Followed by the analysis period, setting up of the ordinariates and the official curial branch(es) designed to address these issues, lay and priest/bisop alike. Nature of the ordinations;time frame; nature of the marriage/annulment/divorce status of laity and priests alike; what's necessary to regularize these unions to make conversion to Rome possible; on and on.

At the end, it will be interesting to see who converts and who doesn't and especially, how many? Very poor statistics here folks--I hear 450,000; 400.000, now 200,000. The bishops: how many, how old, retiring or retired; suffragens? It all makes a big difference.

I predict a much smaller stampede .

[GKC]

Originally Posted by anode

...and so we all eagerly await the constitution, filling in all the questions, dotting the i's, crossing the t's. Followed by the analysis period, setting up of the ordinariates and the official curial branch(es) designed to address these issues, lay and priest/bisop alike. Nature of the ordinations;time frame; nature of the marriage/annulment/divorce status of laity and priests alike; what's necessary to regularize these unions to make conversion to Rome possible; on and on.

At the end, it will be interesting to see who converts and who doesn't and especially, how many? Very poor statistics here folks--I hear 450,000; 400.000, now 200,000. The bishops: how many, how old, retiring or retired; suffragens? It all makes a big difference.

I predict a much smaller stampede .

I'm making popcorn, and watching.

GKC

[thirdn6]

Originally Posted by anode

...and so we all eagerly await the constitution, filling in all the questions, dotting the i's, crossing the t's. Followed by the analysis period, setting up of the ordinariates and the official curial branch(es) designed to address these issues, lay and priest/bisop alike. Nature of the ordinations;time frame; nature of the marriage/annulment/divorce status of laity and priests alike; what's necessary to regularize these unions to make conversion to Rome possible; on and on.

At the end, it will be interesting to see who converts and who doesn't and especially, how many? Very poor statistics here folks--I hear 450,000; 400.000, now 200,000. The bishops: how many, how old, retiring or retired; suffragens? It all makes a big difference.

I predict a much smaller stampede .

Well, imo, if the provision is already in place why make the rush? I think a lot of them will not give up good fortunes.They'll wait until they retire. They can always jump ship in the end! That is, if God’s mercy and grace is still there…

[anode]

Originally Posted by GKC

I'm making popcorn, and watching.

GKC

Ha!

Me too.

As an aside to you, GKC, as one of the local experts, why did not the ECUSA or AU in general or Cof E approach churches with valid orders, such as the PNCC, for some --er--cross-fertilization, to make all Anglican orders valid? I understand that this was done is some cases. But why not all--as removal of a roadblock on the path to unity?

[anode]

Originally Posted by GKC

I'm making popcorn, and watching.

GKC

Ha!

Me too.

As an aside to you, GKC, as one of the local experts, why did not the ECUSA or AU in general or Cof E approach churches with valid orders, such as the PNCC, for some --er--cross-fertilization, to make all Anglican orders valid? I understand that this was done is some cases. But why not all--as removal of a roadblock on the path to unity?

[GKC]

Originally Posted by anode

Ha!

Me too.

As an aside to you, GKC, as one of the local experts, why did not the ECUSA or AU in general or Cof E approach churches with valid orders, such as the PNCC, for some --er--cross-fertilization, to make all Anglican orders valid? I understand that this was done is some cases. But why not all--as removal of a roadblock on the path to unity?

Some would say they did just that. I disagree, as to motivation. But it certainly happened, just the same, that Anglicans have been routinely consecrated by bishops whose orders Rome does recognize as valid, for many years.

The full story of Apostolicae Curae and its aftermath is long, complicated and sad, full of personalities, theology and politics. We'll skip that.

After the event, officially the CoE ignored the slight. Their reply, officially, was Saepius Officio, which was ok as far as it went. The reaction among the CoE (where the impact was both concentrated and at whom the blow was aimed) was contrary to what Cardinal Vaughan had assured the RCC would happen; very few converts resulted directly (but some quality ones were at least post hoc.

Some years after all the dust settled, even after the Malines Conversations, the Anglican Communion entered into discussions with the Old Catholics of Utrecht, which resulted in the Agreement of Bonn, establishing full, formal intercommunion between the OCs and the Anglicans. This included joint consecrations of each communion's bishops. Which started in 1932. In 1946, the Polish National Church began a similar joint consecration policy with Anglicans.

Both the OCs-Utrecht and the PNCC were seen by Rome as possessing valid episcopal orders (we shall pass over the concept of licit/illicit). And the OCs stated categorically, specifically, definitely and clearly that they were intending to transmit those valid orders, in the Catholic sense, to the Anglican bishop. That takes care of intent. Form, matter and minister all were also valid (I pass over the details). So, logically, when the OC bishops began laying hands on the Anglicans, the orders were, in the Augustinian sense, passed on. The process has been going on a long time (as noted, the PNCC joined in, as of 1946) and the "Dutch Touch" is widely spread in Anglicanism now. It is difficult to find an Anglican prelate without it. My own rector was ordained by a bishop whose consecrator had PNCC lines, directly.

Again, logically, this would mean that as the thus consecrated Anglican bishops consecrated in turn, and assuming all else was valid (some ran into a matter of valid matter, eventually), then the orders were valid, infused and dispersed in Anglicanism, and the judgment of Apostolicae Curae needs to be revisited. Rome has made no direct comment on this, and I don't think I'll try to force them. But what you suggested, actually happened. Again, the motivation might be debated. But there we are.

This is the condensed version.

GKC

[olivet]

Originally Posted by KingTheoden

Sadly, many Episcopalians or Anglicans have a bit of a superiority complex. Before I get slammed - Obviously not all. At my own parish, we are lucky to have a former Episcopalian as our faith education director. Brilliant man, wonderful inviting personality.

What many have observed is that there is a culture within Anglicanism that looks down on Catholics: 'Roman Catholics are the lower class, we English catholics are the refined, logical and superstitious gentlemen.'

Please, can we stop with the broad generalizations and general put-downs? You are slamming a great many men and women (ordained and laity alike) who hold the RCC in great respect, even though not being members of same. Next you're going to say that there are NO RCC members who are arrogant, or treat non-Roman Catholics as beneath their dignity. Wrong.

People are people, and just as there are people of all walks of life and of all religions (or none at all) who treat others poorly, there are those who treat everyone with respect regardless of their race, religion, etc..

Although I am not a member of the RCC, I do hold her in great respect, even when I disagree with what she says. Please do not reduce this conversation to one of personality conflicts, as it is much, much deeper than that, and surely demands more respect from us than that.

[anode]

Originally Posted by GKC

I'm making popcorn, and watching.

GKC

Well, GKC, Justy, et alii periti -of sorts-, please keep the forum informed on any New Developments.

I'm especially concerned about the lack of hard evidence, ie. numbers. It can't be helped, I supposed, but I, as a sort of scientist, being married to a definitely-a-scientist--mathematical statistician, no less----like to get a hold of a few facts now and then. (Fat chance!)

[GKC]

Originally Posted by anode

Well, GKC, Justy, et alii periti -of sorts-, please keep the forum informed on any New Developments.

I'm especially concerned about the lack of hard evidence, ie. numbers. It can't be helped, I supposed, but I, as a sort of scientist, being married to a definitely-a-scientist--mathematical statistician, no less----like to get a hold of a few facts now and then. (Fat chance!)

Numbers will come. Just stand at the door and count the those entering. This is best done in real time, not by speculating, though.


GKC, peritus

[Eutychus123]

Originally Posted by GKC

Some would say they did just that. I disagree, as to motivation. But it certainly happened, just the same, that Anglicans have been routinely consecrated by bishops whose orders Rome does recognize as valid, for many years.

The full story of Apostolicae Curae and its aftermath is long, complicated and sad, full of personalities, theology and politics. We'll skip that.

After the event, officially the CoE ignored the slight. Their reply, officially, was Saepius Officio, which was ok as far as it went. The reaction among the CoE (where the impact was both concentrated and at whom the blow was aimed) was contrary to what Cardinal Vaughan had assured the RCC would happen; very few converts resulted directly (but some quality ones were at least post hoc.

Some years after all the dust settled, even after the Malines Conversations, the Anglican Communion entered into discussions with the Old Catholics of Utrecht, which resulted in the Agreement of Bonn, establishing full, formal intercommunion between the OCs and the Anglicans. This included joint consecrations of each communion's bishops. Which started in 1932. In 1946, the Polish National Church began a similar joint consecration policy with Anglicans.

Both the OCs-Utrecht and the PNCC were seen by Rome as possessing valid episcopal orders (we shall pass over the concept of licit/illicit). And the OCs stated categorically, specifically, definitely and clearly that they were intending to transmit those valid orders, in the Catholic sense, to the Anglican bishop. That takes care of intent. Form, matter and minister all were also valid (I pass over the details). So, logically, when the OC bishops began laying hands on the Anglicans, the orders were, in the Augustinian sense, passed on. The process has been going on a long time (as noted, the PNCC joined in, as of 1946) and the "Dutch Touch" is widely spread in Anglicanism now. It is difficult to find an Anglican prelate without it. My own rector was ordained by a bishop whose consecrator had PNCC lines, directly.

Again, logically, this would mean that as the thus consecrated Anglican bishops consecrated in turn, and assuming all else was valid (some ran into a matter of valid matter, eventually), then the orders were valid, infused and dispersed in Anglicanism, and the judgment of Apostolicae Curae needs to be revisited. Rome has made no direct comment on this, and I don't think I'll try to force them. But what you suggested, actually happened. Again, the motivation might be debated. But there we are.

This is the condensed version.

GKC

Thank you for this post. I was just thinking about the "Dutch Touch" and the "Polish Pat."
At least some of the TAC bishops, ( soon to be ex-bishops ), are in these lines. This should make the AC interesting reading on the subject of ordinations.