|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: One Million more reasons to join the Ordinariate.
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
Chester, are you so utterly determined to think well of the Ordinariate that you approve of how these particular clergy ripped off the flock they are leaving behind and basically destroyed a charity they were entrusted with?
Zach
[ 01. August 2011, 13:46: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Shadowhund
Shipmate
# 9175
|
Posted
CB and I would deny the very premise of your leading question that the "flock" was being "ripped off" or that a charity was "destroyed."
In any event, I am glad to see that Newton isn't backing down, isn't apologizing, because he has no reason to back down and no reason to apologize. Tough titties to the AffCaths and the Piskies as far I as am concerned.
--------------------
"Had the Dean's daughter worn a bra that afternoon, Norman Shotover might never have found out about the Church of England; still less about how to fly"
A.N. Wilson
Posts: 3788 | From: Your Disquieted Conscience | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
anne
Shipmate
# 73
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
(snip) ...I think intellectual integrity demands the same thing of a Methodist minister turned Anglican priest as it does an Anglican priest turned Roman Catholic priest. In both cases there does not necessarily have to be an admission that one's previous ministry was graceless. But there is an admission that the ministry was not fully apostolic in nature.
Zach
I'm sure that you're right and it makes sense to me that someone who feels driven (or called) to move from one denomination to another would be able to look back at their previous ministry and say "although I now believe that my former ministry was not fully apostolic in nature, at that time I was exercising that ministry in good faith" and those who say "My former ministry was not fully apostolic in nature and I am going to refrain from exercising sacramental ministry until I have been ordained into what I now believe to be an apostolic church"
I am more puzzled by those who found themselves able to say "I now believe that my present ministry is not fully apostolic in nature but I am going to continue to exercise this sacramental ministry right up until the point that I leave for what I now believe to be an apostolic church". The whole idea of celebrating a "farewell Mass" with integrity confuses me.
anne
--------------------
‘I would have given the Church my head, my hand, my heart. She would not have them. She did not know what to do with them. She told me to go back and do crochet' Florence Nightingale
Posts: 338 | From: Devon | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Certainly he cannot believe that the Methodist Eucharist was valid, insofar as Anglican Eucharistic theology rests on its belief in its apostolicity.
This Anglican sees Methodist ministry as apostolic in the same sense as Anglican or Roman.
quote:
... I think intellectual integrity demands the same thing of a Methodist minister turned Anglican priest as it does an Anglican priest turned Roman Catholic priest. [...] an admission that the ministry was not fully apostolic in nature.
That's what the rules of the Church of England demand. I wouldn't say its the same thing as "intellectual integrity". I wish our rules did not demand that. It is unneccessary, and it is demeaning to our brothers and sisters in other denominations.
The reason that I am an Anglican is nothing to do with any notion of magic powers being passed down from bishop to presbyter, and I do not think that Anglican ministry is in any important sense more "apostolic" than Methodist or Presbyterian, or less "apostolic" than Catholic or Orthodox.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
CB and I would deny the very premise of your leading question that the "flock" was being "ripped off" or that a charity was "destroyed."
I'll let CB speak for himself, since I hope he possesses less horrid ideas. You, on the other hand, show your hand. Why don't Anglicans count as a flock? Are we not followers of Christ, even if we are mistaken on the nature of the Church? How is leaving 95% of this society's members with only 45% of the funds not ripping them off? How is giving 55% of the charity's funds to a completely unrelated effort not destroying it?
I suspect why you say these things, but I'll let you speak for yourself.
Zach
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
The problem, Zach, is that you are incredibly tribal and have a knee-jerk defensiveness against the RC Church. I understand that - I'm probably the same as an RC.
But you get into massive trouble when you try to justify yourself on principled grounds, because it just doesn't work. Take the issue of the "flock". So you get all uppity saying "Why don't Anglicans count as a flock? Are we not followers of Christ," That's a fair question - except that you screw yourself with it. For the question I would put back to you is: now that they are no longer in the Anglican Church, do these people not count as part of the "flock"? Are they not followers of Christ?
Rather just come straight out with it and say "they're not in my team so I have to beat them and be nasty to them". That, at least would be honest.
You do the same on the matter of ordination. You mount a very high horse and charge. But as Angloid very gently pointed out, the Anglican Church has similar positions about others. You rather pirouetted in your response to him, and Chesterbelloc was very succinct and to the point in response. But you had charged your high horse into a terrible swamp and so you tried to deflect attention from that by lunging out at him (first post on the top of this page).
Again, rather just be honest and say "they're not in my team so I loathe them".
None of this has anything to do with the principles at issue in this discussion. But you can't throw in emotive and derogatory language and then claim to be dealing with principles,
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
That's not to say that I don't sympathise with Pyx_e's rant otherwise. As I don't know anyone, clergy or lay, who is joining the Ordinariate I don't feel the same emotions I suppose.
I don't think it was a 'rant'. I feel in the same way part of the time and have also begun to believe that the very notion 'anglo catholic' is one vast big myth, a fantasy world.
I have many friends who have go to the RCC and I wish they'd have stayed but sympathise with their reasons for going.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Certainly he cannot believe that the Methodist Eucharist was valid, insofar as Anglican Eucharistic theology rests on its belief in its apostolicity.
This Anglican sees Methodist ministry as apostolic in the same sense as Anglican or Roman.
So does this one, and I'm much nearer the top of the candle than Ken is.
On the other hand, all our ministries are in some way deficient because we are in a divided church. I believe that unity without an episcopally ordered church could never happen, so although our episcopate is questioned by much of the rest of Christendom, it's still nearer the ideal and a step towards unity, and incorporating those undoubtedly apostolic ministries of other traditions into that structure seems like the right way forward.
But maybe I'm just rationalising my anglo-catholic prejudice!
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
The problem, Zach, is that you are incredibly tribal and have a knee-jerk defensiveness against the RC Church. I understand that - I'm probably the same as an RC.
But you get into massive trouble when you try to justify yourself on principled grounds, because it just doesn't work. Take the issue of the "flock". So you get all uppity saying "Why don't Anglicans count as a flock? Are we not followers of Christ," That's a fair question - except that you screw yourself with it. For the question I would put back to you is: now that they are no longer in the Anglican Church, do these people not count as part of the "flock"? Are they not followers of Christ?
Rather just come straight out with it and say "they're not in my team so I have to beat them and be nasty to them". That, at least would be honest.
You do the same on the matter of ordination. You mount a very high horse and charge. But as Angloid very gently pointed out, the Anglican Church has similar positions about others. You rather pirouetted in your response to him, and Chesterbelloc was very succinct and to the point in response. But you had charged your high horse into a terrible swamp and so you tried to deflect attention from that by lunging out at him (first post on the top of this page).
Again, rather just be honest and say "they're not in my team so I loathe them".
None of this has anything to do with the principles at issue in this discussion. But you can't throw in emotive and derogatory language and then claim to be dealing with principles,
I have enough honesty about myself to admit that I can be very tribal about this Great Anglican Divorce, but I cannot see that I have been so here. Indeed, I have been very careful to not go into my customary hysterics. The does not mean that I have to accept every Ordinariate priest's actions, and it does not mean I cannot be distressed about general sentiments in the Ordinariate over all.
I have said nothing more, of the Ordinariate, than accusing these particular priests of morally questionable finances. Do you disagree?
As for Angloid, I did not dance out of it at all. My problem is not at all based on a sense of unfairness about the Catholic Church's rejection of Anglican ordination. I simply don't care about that- if I cared what the pope thought, wouldn't I be a Roman Catholic? "My dancing" was pointing out that his rebuttal had nothing to do with me. This talk of grace in Anglican sacraments is a non-starter, since Anglicans believe they are full sacraments and not mere agents of grace.
Why is the distinction between sacrament and "agent of grace" so important? Is this a serious question from a Catholic?
Can there be a valid Eucharist if the priest does not intend to perform a Eucharist? If an Anglican priest on his way to the Ordinariate does not believe he is validly ordained, he does not believe he has the charism to perform the Eucharist, then he cannot believe he is confecting the Eucharist, and therefore is there a Eucharist at his farewell mass at all? In this light, Anglicans have every right to be distressed at such a lack of intellectual integrity! Imagine a dying man being given a false absolution and false Eucharist just because an Anglican priest doesn't want to lose his pension if he quits!
Zach
[ 02. August 2011, 17:39: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
That's not to say that I don't sympathise with Pyx_e's rant otherwise. As I don't know anyone, clergy or lay, who is joining the Ordinariate I don't feel the same emotions I suppose.
I don't think it was a 'rant'. I feel in the same way part of the time and have also begun to believe that the very notion 'anglo catholic' is one vast big myth, a fantasy world.
I have many friends who have go to the RCC and I wish they'd have stayed but sympathise with their reasons for going.
I should have chosen my words more carefully. It was not a rant. I also accept that Pyx_e might be more emotionally involved than I am, and might feel in some way betrayed.
I don't think there is any contradiction or myth involved in being a 'catholic anglican'. Many of us have a great deal of respect for the (Roman) Catholic Church, and have a great deal in common theologically, spiritually and liturgically... in some ways, more than with some of our fellow-anglicans.
However it has never been part of Anglican teaching that the Papacy is essential to Catholic faith. Maybe we are parasites in accepting a large part of the tradition that has grown up under the Papacy, while opting out when it suits us. But I think we have a vital role in attempting to reconcile certain new developments (the Dead Horse matters in particular) with the Tradition; to keep alive the discussions that Rome has silenced. At the same time, by our sympathy with the greater part of that tradition we can witness to the need for Catholic unity to our fellow-Anglicans.
If 'anglo-catholic' means being part of a reactionary sect, either within Anglicanism or within the Ordinariate, I repudiate the term. But if it means trying to keep open a bridge across the Reformation divide, I'll happily describe myself as such.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Poppy Tupper
Apprentice
# 16571
|
Posted
quote:
this Great Anglican Divorce
Is it a great Anglican divorce? It looks more like a minor Anglican teenage strop to me. I bet we'll see the first of the clerical returns before Chrizzy.
Posts: 9 | Registered: Aug 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
Loads of good points and questions Zach. In answer to most of them I would have to say "I don't know".
I don't know what I think about the CBS grant. I see the objections very clearly, and I know that if I had been in the same position I would have done otherwise. On the other hand, I don't think "fleecing the flock" is what has happened. It seems very few Anglicans were remotely concerned with the CBS until this happened. It was always a rather Anglo-Papalist organisation and so I can see the linear progression of the Ordinariate with that. I suggested very early on in this thread that it smacked of a scorched earth policy - and yet that does not seem to be the tone of any Ordinariate material. So my suspicion becomes that the objection is part of the general anti-papalism which is in the Anglican genes.
I think I would want to say that from what I have seen those who left tried to leave the CofE well, but their farewell has been met with a rebuff. It's not a new phenomenon. John Henry Newman famously wrote about it in "The Parting of Friends". I have counselled those I know in the Ordinariate to just let go of the Anglican Church because they are unlikely to get any warm sentiments from those they have left behind. Not exactly shake the dust from your feet, but don't look back, look forward.
As to the question of sacraments and how could they carry on, knowing that they would soon be ordained again. It's a complex issue. Certainly as a Catholic I would not say to a cleric of another Church who wanted to become a Catholic "you have to stop practising your ministry at once". I know some of the more extreme ex-Anglicans adopt a very hardline approach to their years as Anglicans, describing them as akin to shooting blanks. I think that's silly. I think there is far more of a progression from one place to another - a lot like the road to Emmaus rather than the road to Damascus.
So at bottom I guess I am more trusting of good faith rather than trying to look for hobgoblins and wicked intentions. Principles need to be firm, but how they play out in the lives of individuals is not usually simple and straightforward. (I am not talking about the CBS issue here).
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
It's hard to say "That's how the CBS was going and everyone knew it" when the vast majority of its members are not going that way.
My objections are not anti-papalism- they are based on the belief that so long as they are leaders of Anglican parishes and Anglican charities they have a moral duty to do what is best for that which has been entrusted to them. It's in the very meaning of the name "pastor."
What would you tell a Roman Catholic priest if he confessed to you that he did not believe he was celebrating the Eucharist at Sunday mass?
Zach
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
Heheh that's an easy one: it doesn't matter what he personally believes. What matters is what the Church believes. As long as the people are there needing his sacramental service, he needs to get on with it.
There are days I don't believe in God, don't want to be a priest anymore, am fed-up with the latest scandal and just want to wash my hands of the whole bloody business of being a Catholic priest. But I still turn up at the altar because the people need me and it's not all about me.
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
There are days I don't believe in God, don't want to be a priest anymore, am fed-up with the latest scandal and just want to wash my hands of the whole bloody business of being a Catholic priest. But I still turn up at the altar because the people need me and it's not all about me.
That's not the same thing. In that situation you still believe you are doing as the Church does. I am talking specifically about a priest that consciously believes he is not performing a Eucharist as he goes through the motions.
Let's be more particular. Would you send such a priest to offer a dying man last rites?
Zach
[ 02. August 2011, 18:32: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
Okay. There are days when I am in that situation as well. I thought not believing in God was big enough to cover that one.
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
Maybe I just have Roman Catholic theology wrong here. Doesn't the Roman Catholic Church teach that a valid sacrament requires, besides the proper words, the priest's intent to do as the Church does?
Zach
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
And yes, I would send such a priest off to give the Last Rites.
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
One intends to do what the Church does. The Church makes up for what is lacking in one's own disposition (known as ecclesia supplet )
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
One intends to do what the Church does. The Church makes up for what is lacking in one's own disposition (known as ecclesia supplet )
That intent is what I am saying is lacking when a priest intent on converting performs an Anglican Eucharist.
Zach
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
Very likely - but is it a better course for him to deprive the congregation of access to the sacraments by just ceasing forthwith?
[ 02. August 2011, 18:43: Message edited by: Triple Tiara ]
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
Very likely - but does he deprive the congregation of access to the sacraments by just ceasing forthwith?
I study systematic theology, not the sacraments, so you tell me. I suspect our common answer is "We don't know."
Zach
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
Sorry, we cross-posted and I tweaked my post because I realised it was not clear.
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Very likely - but is it a better course for him to deprive the congregation of access to the sacraments by just ceasing forthwith?
This is what happens when people discuss in forums what they ought to discuss in real time.
I would say that a sacrament performed by a priest of dubious intent is better than no sacrament at all, but a sacrament of a priest of less dubious intent is even better.
Zach
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
We are agreed.
And I'm off to dinner. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
I am not saying that a priest has to quit the second he starts to doubt the validity of Anglicanism. But if one has resolved once and for all that Anglicanism is not at all heir to the Church founded by Christ, and that his ordination and the Eucharist he is performing are invalid, then I can't see he has any business continuing to perform Anglican sacraments. A "farewell mass" is not an emergency that could justify that amount of charity in matters of doctrine. I agree intellectual rigor needs some give, but I think "farewell masses" from future Ordinariate clergy are asking for far too much give.
Zach
[ 02. August 2011, 19:12: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pyx_e
Quixotic Tilter
# 57
|
Posted
In support of Zach; not least because even if a Methodist or a Baptist ends up in the C of E and gets “re-ordained” we still believe every Eucharist she presided at before then was true. And I frequently receive from local Methodists, though never (despite offering hospitality to a local RC congregation for 27 years) from a Roman Catholic.
There is no escaping the crux of it. The Ordinariate clergy now belong to a church that does not see any Eucharist but is own as valid. Their church teaches that every Eucharist they presided at before their ordination into the RC church was invalid. Yet they knowingly continued to celebrate the Mass in the full knowledge they were leaving. It’s potty.
All the best Pyx_e.
--------------------
It is better to be Kind than right.
Posts: 9778 | From: The Dark Tower | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
In support of Zach; not least because even if a Methodist or a Baptist ends up in the C of E and gets “re-ordained” we still believe every Eucharist she presided at before then was true. And I frequently receive from local Methodists, though never (despite offering hospitality to a local RC congregation for 27 years) from a Roman Catholic.
There is no escaping the crux of it. The Ordinariate clergy now belong to a church that does not see any Eucharist but is own as valid. Their church teaches that every Eucharist they presided at before their ordination into the RC church was invalid. Yet they knowingly continued to celebrate the Mass in the full knowledge they were leaving. It’s potty.
All the best Pyx_e.
The Anglican Church requires reordination of Methodist ministers because not every Anglican believes a Methodist pastor is validly ordained. I don't. But once again, my objections are not based in a sense of injustice at all, so accusations of having two standards are missing what my objections are.
Back to the subject, I can't really see the local Roman Catholic bishop being involved in this conversation:
Roman Catholic Priest: "I think the Roman Catholic Church is invalid and I'm going to be a Unitarian Universalist yogi. I've been saying so at mass every week for the last 3 months."
Roman Catholic Bishop: "All the best to you. Let's put your farewell mass next Sunday then? We can have a cold cut tray after the service."
Zach
[ 02. August 2011, 19:34: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Poppy Tupper
Apprentice
# 16571
|
Posted
quote:
Yet they knowingly continued to celebrate the Mass in the full knowledge they were leaving. It’s potty.
Potty? Just fucking dishonest.
Posts: 9 | Registered: Aug 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adrian1
Shipmate
# 3994
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
Heheh that's an easy one: it doesn't matter what he personally believes. What matters is what the Church believes. As long as the people are there needing his sacramental service, he needs to get on with it.
There are days I don't believe in God, don't want to be a priest anymore, am fed-up with the latest scandal and just want to wash my hands of the whole bloody business of being a Catholic priest. But I still turn up at the altar because the people need me and it's not all about me.
That sounds straightforward enough in theory and it chimes with the Anglican article on the 'Unworthiness of Ministers.' However at what point does one separate 'the church' from the individuals who together make it up, clergy and laity, who constitute "the blessed company of all faithful people?"
--------------------
The Parson's Handbook contains much excellent advice, which, if it were more generally followed, would bring some order and reasonableness into the amazing vagaries of Anglican Ritualism. Adrian Fortescue
Posts: 1986 | From: UK | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara
Very likely - but is it a better course for him to deprive the congregation of access to the sacraments by just ceasing forthwith?
But unless he believes that continuing to celebrate as a member of the Church of England is something that God regards as an outrageous sin, offering false fire, perhaps he ought to be asking whether he should be deserting his flock just to satisfy his private sense of ecclesiological purity. After all, there's something very disturbing happening if he hasn't thought that God both called him to serve them and gave them to him as his personal responsibility.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
In support of Zach; not least because even if a Methodist or a Baptist ends up in the C of E and gets “re-ordained” we still believe every Eucharist she presided at before then was true. And I frequently receive from local Methodists, though never (despite offering hospitality to a local RC congregation for 27 years) from a Roman Catholic.
Aw shucks. You were nice to them Catholics and yet that still did not persuade them that your Church had not significantly altered the Catholic understanding of Holy Orders and the manner of conferring them.
And the Methodists and Baptists are nice to you. So you are happy to receive communion from them, without blinking to try and determine what it is you are doing. Are you celebrating the Catholic sacrifice or the protestant memorial meal? And of course you won't describe their sacraments as "invalid" as that term is largely meaningless in Anglican terms.
But still, if it's all hunky-dory and the same thing anyway, I wonder how you do explain the fact that once one of those Methodists or Baptists become an Anglican, they cannot continue to celebrate those "valid" eucharists but have to wait to be re-ordained. Why bother of it's all "valid" anyway.
Or does one just have to be nice to make it all okay?
[ 02. August 2011, 21:41: Message edited by: Triple Tiara ]
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laurence
Shipmate
# 9135
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
It has been very difficult to be on the edge of all this. I can’t even call myself catholic anymore, Sacramental, Incarnational, Mysterious yes, but catholic, no.
Well said, Pyx_e. I hope that one outcome of all this is that people in the C of E realise that we can be authentically Sacramental, Incarnational and Mysterious (and indeed, small-c-catholic) without having to be, or to pretend to be, Roman.
Posts: 648 | From: Lincolnshire | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Laurence:
Well said, Pyx_e. I hope that one outcome of all this is that people in the C of E realise that we can be authentically Sacramental, Incarnational and Mysterious (and indeed, small-c-catholic) without having to be, or to pretend to be, Roman.
Capital M Mysterious, perhaps, insofar as that means nothing. I'll stick with the holy, catholic faith- no bishops, no Church, no Eucharist. Does that make me Roman?
Zach
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
Well said Laurence. It will be a relief to us all. And I hope end all the posturing about "Romans".
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
]Capital M Mysterious, perhaps, insofar as that means nothing. I'll stick with the holy, catholic faith- no bishops, no Church, no Eucharist. Does that make me Roman?
Zach
Yes! You're getting very much closer to the dark side. <insert Darth Vader breathing special effects here> ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
If I was an Anglican priest waiting to be received into the RCC I don't know what I would think, or what sort of theology I would use to express my belief. But I do know that the people I was currently called to serve would be my immediate concern, and I would not want to cause them (either those who were staying or those who were leaving with me) any unnecessary distress.
I thought one of the virtues of Anglicanism was being unwilling to make 'windows into men's souls' [Elizabeth 1]. What makes people so sure all of a sudden that the departing priests are hypocrites? After all, they are not becoming witches or indulging in human sacrifice, just joining another part of God's Church. Though for many 'liberal' Anglicans that would be preferable to becoming a Papist.
[ET correct grammar, and clarify my first statement: I am an Anglican priest but I am not contemplating joining the RCC.]
[ 02. August 2011, 21:59: Message edited by: Angloid ]
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
Tangent alert
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara
But still, if it's all hunky-dory and the same thing anyway, I wonder how you do explain the fact that once one of those Methodists or Baptists become an Anglican, they cannot continue to celebrate those "valid" eucharists but have to wait to be re-ordained. Why bother of it's all "valid" anyway.
But if one isn't an RC, isn't persuaded by the arguments about papal authority and so is not obliged to believe a particular understanding of orders and the eucharist because that comes with that particular package, one might ask oneself whether this has to be about 'validity' in the heiratic sense at all. It is if you are RC. It isn't necessarily if you are not.
Either way, though, it is about the conferring of an authority that is recognised within ones own ecclesial community. A person who migrates from the CofE ecclesial community to the Roman Catholic one, or vice versa, or likewise between Methodist and CofE is fitting in with whatever their new ecclesial home requires to enable them to be authorised to exercise ministry within it. If they have not been so recognised, what they do will not be 'valid', but that does not necessarily require that 'valid' has to mean what I suspect Triple Tiara means by it.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
That's a reasonable hypothetical.
Except the CofE does not re-ordain RC priests. How does that argument work in that situation?
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
The catholic faith doesn't teach that the ability to confect the Eucharist is a mere role, but a charism. Ordination of a Methodist pastor into the catholic priesthood is not merely "recognizing" him or her as an Anglican priest, but imparting on him or her the charism necessary to celebrate a valid Eucharist (etc.). It is an ontological change from layman to priest.
Whatever graces a Methodist pastor might have had in his or her ministry, the Anglican Church does not recognize him as having the graces (full graces, if you like) of a priest of the catholic Church.
For the record, I am a former Methodist.
Zach
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Shadowhund
Shipmate
# 9175
|
Posted
Ahhh, but here's the rub. When I was an Episcopalian, I took Zack's view that there was no ontological change in ordained Protestant non-Anglican clergy, but there was in Anglican clergy. But, over time, it seems less than clear to me that it is authentic Anglican doctrine that there is such an ontological change. Not sure the English reformers believed that, and I know many leading Anglican evangelical divines did not. (Philip Edgcumbe Hughes may have been an exception). To put it crudely, why in Anglican terms don't Methodists, Lutherans, Moravarians have "the zap," but Roman Catholics do have "the zap," and if Lutherans, Moravians, etc. lack "the zap" then why is there intercommunion with those bodies in the first place?
I don't think the Catholic Church requires a belief in the Real Absence of Our Lord on Anglican altars, even if she deems such sacraments to be invalid. For instance, if God wants to give Carter Heywood "zap" power, we are in no position to say that He cannot, but we have no reason to believe that she has (or can) "zap," since her ability to "zap" is, from the Catholic point of view, outside of God's covenant to his Church, as understood by Catholics. Thus, I see no reason for the Church to be any less patient with Anglican priests who are currently celebrating Anglican masses with their Anglican flocks until (with approval of Catholic authority) a moment in time when there is preparation for full communion and, as the case may be, Catholic ordination.
I see no reason to put Anglican priests as commiting sacramental sacrilege if they do/or sacramental sacrilege if they don't situation. Leave that to the 19th century and to the writers of the Anglican Continuum blog, some of whom like to make these sorts of arguments (for disingenuous self-regarding reasons, IMO).
[ 02. August 2011, 22:48: Message edited by: Shadowhund ]
--------------------
"Had the Dean's daughter worn a bra that afternoon, Norman Shotover might never have found out about the Church of England; still less about how to fly"
A.N. Wilson
Posts: 3788 | From: Your Disquieted Conscience | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hooker's Trick
Admin Emeritus and Guardian of the Gin
# 89
|
Posted
First off, could we leave aside 'validity' when we are speaking from an Anglican perspective? 'Validity' is not really in the Anglican lexicon (the BCP does not purport to set out 'valid' Sacraments, but only the 'the procuring of Reverence, and exciting of Piety and Devotion in the publick Worship of God').
quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
There is no escaping the crux of it. The Ordinariate clergy now belong to a church that does not see any Eucharist but is own as valid. Their church teaches that every Eucharist they presided at before their ordination into the RC church was invalid. Yet they knowingly continued to celebrate the Mass in the full knowledge they were leaving. It’s potty.
All the best Pyx_e.
I think this is where we must enter the land of teh convient fiction. Many ultramontane Anglican clergy contented themselves with the belief that they were catholic christians, doing as the (catholic) church intended, who happened to be in the Church of England. Now they are catholic Christians in the Catholic Church, still doing as the church intends.
So from that standpoint, the question of which church you are in, or to which you give the CBS money, is purely academic.
This is not, incidentally, a view to which I subscribe, but I think one has to try to go through the looking glass a bit to see where these people are coming from.
Posts: 6735 | From: Gin Lane | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
First off, could we leave aside 'validity' when we are speaking from an Anglican perspective? 'Validity' is not really in the Anglican lexicon (the BCP does not purport to set out 'valid' Sacraments, but only the 'the procuring of Reverence, and exciting of Piety and Devotion in the publick Worship of God').
That very important Anglicans have been Protestants through and through should be obvious to everyone, as much as it might have surprised Shadowhund.
However, I am not sure how to explain the Anglican practice of reordaining Methodist ministers, but not Roman Catholic priests, without referring to things like validity and charisms and all that.
At any rate, I believe it, and I am in the business of discussing my understanding of the Anglican Faith and not anyone else's.
Zach
[ 02. August 2011, 23:03: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
sonata3
Shipmate
# 13653
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
The Ordinariate clergy now belong to a church that does not see any Eucharist but is own as valid. Their church teaches that every Eucharist they presided at before their ordination into the RC church was invalid.
All the best Pyx_e.
Is it really this simple? If so, why was it, when Bishop Graham Leonard went over to Rome, he was not reordained as deacon (either absolutely or conditionally), and he was reordained as priest only "sub conditione." (Rome did not even bother to investigate his episcopal ordination, as they had no intention of having a married bishop). I have to ask if "valid" and "invalid" are not being thrown about a little too simply here; I think it's perhaps a more complex issue than some have acknowledged.
--------------------
"I prefer neurotic people; I like to hear rumblings beneath the surface." Stephen Sondheim
Posts: 386 | From: Between two big lakes | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
With respect to this tangent, Anglicanorum Coetibus and the accompanying norms permit priests of the Ordinariate to celebrate their priestly anniversary using the date of their Anglican priesting. This would suggest a recognition of something or the other, if not a recognition of the assurance that RCs would have with their own priests.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
This would suggest a recognition of something or the other
Not really. "You can have your 20-year cold cut tray on any year you want... so long as you let us reordain you."
Maybe I'm just being over particular on this issue... but considering the claims we make about the sacraments, that they are Christ's offer of salvation to the world... aren't our sacrament something we ought to be particular about?
Zach
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
Well, Zach, I generally agree with you, and would be ready to push the logic if B16 were in the room. However, in the history of Anglican/RC relations, these signs--- never meaningless-- have a lot of significance, and are an advance, especially when one considers B16's own theological (over) rigour.
But, if I am asked, I want a lot more. I will mention it the next time I am at lunch with His Holiness.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
With respect to this tangent, Anglicanorum Coetibus and the accompanying norms permit priests of the Ordinariate to celebrate their priestly anniversary using the date of their Anglican priesting. This would suggest a recognition of something or the other, if not a recognition of the assurance that RCs would have with their own priests.
Not that I have a horse in this race, but I'm sure the RCs could say to swimming priests, in effect "your ordination was broken so we fixed it". It maybe was so broken it didn't work at all, but there was still something there.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
Well, Zach, I generally agree with you, and would be ready to push the logic if B16 were in the room. However, in the history of Anglican/RC relations, these signs--- never meaningless-- have a lot of significance, and are an advance, especially when one considers B16's own theological (over) rigour.
But, if I am asked, I want a lot more. I will mention it the next time I am at lunch with His Holiness.
We've already established that the pope's opinion of Anglican sacraments is of no concern to me. If it was I would be Catholic wouldn't I? My hang up is how Anglicans are taking the sacraments, in being willing to deny their validity (as sacraments, not mere agents of grace) for the sake of ecumenism. So long as we believe they are sacraments, Christ's offer of salvation, we simply cannot deny them, even for the sake of Christian unity. And especially not for the right to wear pointy hats, have anniversary cold-cut trays, or even have a few distinct prayer rites!
Zach
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
