|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: One Million more reasons to join the Ordinariate.
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
Zach's concern about effectively denying the sacramentality of one's orders for the sake of ecumenism is the rock on which more than one church union scheme has foundered. I will let those undergoing the process to defend their position, but their readiness to do so is, as I have suggested elsewhere, a symptom of their perceptions of isolation and abandonment. I would agree with Zach that it is not the most theologically coherent position to take.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
I find myself wondering what Zach makes of TEC's suspension of the requirements of its Ordinal during the period of years in which the ELCA are acquiring the historic episcopal succession (terms here deliberate -- I don't think "apostolic succession" is a particularly helpful designation for what we do in episcopal ordination). In suspending its Ordinal, TEC has accepted the sacramental ministry of Lutheran clergy not ordained in the historic episcopal succession.
IMO the requirement for re-ordination of Methies has more to do with the peculiar history of the Methodist schism from Anglicanism (for which both the conformist Anglicans and the non-conforming Methodists were culpable) than with issues over sacramental validity per se.
Anglicans have always essentially recognised the ecclesial validity of continental European Lutherans, even where the particular national churches did not have the historic episcopal succession; at least until the advent of a particular strain of Anglo-Catholicism in the C19.
The notion of ontological change is a very dubious one. It is possible to say that a sacrament is indelible and confers "character" without this necessitating that we posit any ontological change (it was BTW the assertion of a former Anglican priest that he was going to be ontologically changed in his ordination in the RCC that I found so objectionable -- even if meant somehow ironically I fail to find it humorous; if he wasn't already a Christian priest/presbyter possessing the character of that office, what the hell had he been doing all these years?).
As to episcopacy and validity, it can be argued that other ecclesial communities that lack/lacked the historic episcopate still retained a legitimately ordered ministry of oversight -- individual in the case of Methodists, whilst corporate in the case of Presbyterians and some of the Lutheran bodies; and that efficacious ministry and sacraments were perpetuated within these structures, notwithstanding the loss of the historic succession of bishops.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
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.
FWIW, I think that would be a splendid way of putting it.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82
but considering the claims we make about the sacraments, that they are Christ's offer of salvation to the world
Are you sure that's correct? Isn't it confusing the secondary with the primary?
Christ's offer of salvation to the world is in his life, crucifixion and resurrection. I would hope that whatever our sacramental theology, the sacraments are the means by which that is mediated to us, the way receive his offer. To whatever degree we may believe that the offering on a Sunday morning remembers, represents, identifies with or re-creates those events here, it takes its significance from the original events. It does not have an independent ontology.
Otherwise one gets into the position, which one sometimes hears implied, but must be the wrong way round, that Christ died and rose again so as to bring us the Mass.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
I find myself wondering what Zach makes of TEC's suspension of the requirements of its Ordinal during the period of years in which the ELCA are acquiring the historic episcopal succession (terms here deliberate -- I don't think "apostolic succession" is a particularly helpful designation for what we do in episcopal ordination). In suspending its Ordinal, TEC has accepted the sacramental ministry of Lutheran clergy not ordained in the historic episcopal succession.
I disagree with it, and certainly never would have supported such a move if anyone had asked, though since I never go to Lutheran churches I doubt I have much reason to worry about it.
I am not trying to pretend my views are universal in Anglicanism. I am arguing for my own views, the faith of the catholic Church actually, which are provided for in Anglican doctrine and practice. So long as my views are provided for, I won't begrudge people holding contrary views.
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
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
Zach, you come across like an old time Branch Theory A-C. I've been there, but I can't buy it anymore. However, my question is rather broader than that. Let's go back to the notion of "fixing" an ordination that was "broken". What I would suggest is that this notion is ok if we are talking in terms of a view that, " your ordination is grossly irregular in terms of our eccesial structure and theory, so we are going to regularise you." OTOH, if that really means, "your ordination was ' utterly void...and invalid' then 'Houston, we have a problem'." If sacraments performed outside the RCC are considered by them to be illicit or irregular, then that's one thing. If they are considered invalid in the sense of "null and void", then that is quite another. If former Anglican priests take the position that their orders were null and void, then that is a blasphemy to the Christian ministry and to what one would think was their original ordinations under Anglican discipline.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
If former Anglican priests take the position that their orders were null and void, then that is a blasphemy to the Christian ministry and to what one would think was their original ordinations under Anglican discipline.
Tone down the rhetoric a bit and you might give yourself a chance of hearing what's actually being said.
For one thing, Apostolicae Curae, though infallible, was promulgated 120 years ago. Stuff has happened since then, like the "Dutch Touch" and Orthodox involvements in Anglican ordinations. I am no longer convinced that such happenings make a crucial difference, but even if they don't, we are still looking at a "your orders are so broken they may not work sacramentally" notion rather than a "your whole ministry was a waste of time". We know what we do and have done - we do not always know what God does and has done.
No converting cleric is ever asked to deny the goodness and efficacy of his Anglican ministry before, during or after his ordination as a Catholic priest. Instead, he is called to affirm with the Catholic Church what was good and godly about it.
So cut the "blasphemy" schtick.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
No converting cleric is ever asked to deny the goodness and efficacy of his Anglican ministry before, during or after his ordination as a Catholic priest. Instead, he is called to affirm with the Catholic Church what was good and godly about it.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif) Why is it so difficult for some people to get this?
--------------------
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
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
Sorry, Chester, but if one were an Anglican priest who believes that his "ordination" as a priest in the RCC is doing more than simply bringing his sacerdotal ministry into communion with the requirements of the papacy - as opposed to effecting some purported ontological change, conferral of some character that was formerly absent, or essential sacramental validity that was absent during his functioning as a priest in the Anglican Communion - that involves a whole train of blasphemous notions in respect to what the Tiber-swimming priest is and what he has formerly been up to as an Anglican. It's not rhetoric. OTOH, if such priest takes the position that he's just conforming to the canonical requirements of the RCC and going through motions in order to have his priesthood confirmed by the RCC, then that's no more than a fudge that lacks intellectual and/or ethical integrity. The problem isn't with the requirements of the RCC per se, but rather with the positions taken by those who are abandoning their orders within churches of the Anglican discipline.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Sorry, Chester, but if one were an Anglican priest who believes that his "ordination" as a priest in the RCC is doing more than simply bringing his sacerdotal ministry into communion with the requirements of the papacy - as opposed to effecting some purported ontological change, conferral of some character that was formerly absent, or essential sacramental validity that was absent during his functioning as a priest in the Anglican Communion - that involves a whole train of blasphemous notions in respect to what the Tiber-swimming priest is and what he has formerly been up to as an Anglican. It's not rhetoric. OTOH, if such priest takes the position that he's just conforming to the canonical requirements of the RCC and going through motions in order to have his priesthood confirmed by the RCC, then that's no more than a fudge that lacks intellectual and/or ethical integrity. The problem isn't with the requirements of the RCC per se, but rather with the positions taken by those who are abandoning their orders within churches of the Anglican discipline.
This is exactly what I've been saying all along, thank you very much. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
I have a feeling many Catholics would feel exactly the same way if the Orthodox wanted to reordain all Catholic priests in this merger the Pope is decreeing. "We don't need our ministry completed, thank you very much!"
Zach
[ 04. August 2011, 11:16: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Clavus
Shipmate
# 9427
|
Posted
quote:
Why is it so difficult for some people to get this?
Probably because the weasel word ' ministry' evades the fact that they were already ordained priests in the Church of God and dispensers of his holy Sacraments (The Ordinal), and ought to be accounted, both by themselves and others, to be truly priests (Canon A4).
Posts: 389 | From: The Indian Summer of the C of E | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
I would think the Catholics would also be more troubled that there seems to be a whole boatload of Ordinariate clergy that do NOT see any sacramental lack to their ministries, and therefore see reordination into the Roman Catholic rite as a mere formality.
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
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
Zach, in the mid-1980s I knew a former Episcopal priest who had been priested in the RCC under the Special Pastoral Provision and was pastoring a very small Anglican Use parish. He was part of the original group in the USA who were admitted under JPII's scheme and he indicated to me that he and the other Anglican priests were told by the RC mentors in charge of bringing their group (the Pro-Diocese of St Augustine) into the RC fold to think of undergoing RC ordination as indeed simply complying with the canonical requirements of the RCC to function as priests. What he indicated was that this fudge was being actively perpetuated by their RC mentors from the get-go.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
Well, I don't know what canonical requirements they can mean, but either one believes he or she is ordained to the priesthood of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, or one doesn't. This talk about "completing broken blah blahs" is just weaseling around with "You aren't really a priest."
Zach
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
Lietuvos, Zach and Clavus, you all seem to me to be missing something through the mist of your own indignation. Something which is not lost, I suspect, on the part of the Ordinariate clergy themselves.
The pertinent question, for them and for those commentating here, is: is there any reasonable doubt - historical, procedural, ecclesiological, jurisdictional - whether the clergy making the swim were ordained as priests in the fullest sense maintained by the Roman Catholic Church? The answer, I think, has to be yes. There is some such doubt. Many may feel nonetheless that there is not sufficient doubt to reject their previous sacrmental efficacy - but there doesn't have to be. No-one is forcing anyone explicitly to deny even that. That there is some doubt in the other direction is clear by Graham Leonard's conditional ordination to the priesthood. But the doubt is such that it must be resolved and the only way to resolve it in such a way as conclusively to move beyond it is to accept ordination afresh from the Church as you now accept her to be. Actually being a Catholic changes a lot - it just does, believe me.
The other thing missing is that some (many, if my acquaintances are anything to go by) have for a long time begun to think there was an issue about their orders, which they received and exercised as Anglicans in good faith without crossed fingers, which needed resolving - like some kind of "radical sanation" - in the light of their acceptance of the Pope as sumpreme pastor. One can come to see that one's own old certainties are less important in the light of this change. This process of thought is usually gradual, not sudden. It is usually honest and organic and taken in good faith. It also requires humility. Those who undergo it deserve some respect - or at the very least the benefit of the doubt. [Like not imputing "blasphemy". At the very most, accepting ordination when one is already 100% certain one is in orders as the Catholic Church herself understands it might constitute consenting to sacrilege, but even then...]
So what's missing from your accounts, as I see it, is the graciousness to accept that some of your own people develop spiritually in a direction not entirely to your liking. No-one promised you they would not develop their understandings and act honestly according to them. As they leave, they wish you all that is good, and hope you will reciprocate. Your sense of betrayal is an issue for you, not for them.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
I'll say it straight: they are not priests of the Catholic Church.
And I think you'll find most Anglicans are rather pleased with that, because the Reformation intended very deliberately to make sure that no notions of the papistical priesthood were entertained by their adherents. It's only certain Anglicans who have a hang-up about it.
There seem to be no such problems with clergy of other Churches because they don't try to do the splits when describing what their Orders are about. I get on really well with all my ecumenical colleagues without worrying about the validity of Orders because none of them actually thinks they are Catholic priests - and that includes the Anglican. We are all ministers of the Gospel, servants of Jesus Christ and his people. Indeed, one is an ex-RC who rejected the Catholic doctrine and embraced the Reformed tradition. He would hate for me to think of him as a Catholic priest (which he never was, just to be clear. He left as a layman). Do I think all of them are just wasting their time? No, because I do not believe Christ only works through the sacraments, or the Catholic Church.
All this is part of the particular pain of a certain type of Anglican. I sympathise (and I am not just saying that, I mean it), but there also comes a point where one just has to leave you alone to get on with it. No matter what is said or done, it will simply rub into your wound.
--------------------
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
I crossposted with Chesterbelloc, who was more gracious than me.
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
I think the Roman Catholics here are so busy trying to assure us of the graces of the Anglican priesthood that they are missing the fact that this admission is perfectly realized. I, for one, understand fully that the Roman Catholic Church sees the possibility of graces in the Anglican Priesthood.
Yet, as Catholics, you also cannot deny that is not the same thing as admitting our priesthood as fully sacerdotal. It comes down to this.
quote:
I'll say it straight: they are not priests of the Catholic Church.
Period. Full stop. That is what is important.
Now, I am not complaining that the Catholic Church rejects our orders. Once again, if I did I would be Catholic. It's also not at all remarkable that receiving reordination into the Roman Catholic priesthood is perfectly acceptable in Roman Catholic theology. It's all so obvious that I almost feel insulted that it's being explained to me over and over.
I am arguing that the Ordinariate clergy's actions are wrong according to high church Anglican theology, not Roman Catholic Theology. Why on earth I, a high church Anglican, should be imagined to be arguing any theology but high church Anglican theology is beyond me.
Zach
[ 04. August 2011, 13:33: 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
Well, leave them alone then. They are now Roman Catholics. They have left High Church Anglicanism behind them. They have let go - now you let go of them.
Simples.
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Well, leave them alone then. They are now Roman Catholics. They have left High Church Anglicanism behind them. They have let go - now you let go of them.
It isn't clear to me that they have let go. It should bother you as much as it bothers me. Heck, more than it bothers me, insofar as they're your problem now.
Zach
[ 04. August 2011, 14:08: 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
|
|
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
In Roman Catholic theology, is it seen as spiritually dangerous to deny the efficacy of Roman Catholic sacraments? I mean in itself, besides breaking communion with the pope.
That is the spiritual danger I see.
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
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
Part of the indignation here, I think, is that these clergy could have left the Anglican churches years ago and gone over to Rome, where they most likely could have been ordained as RC clergy if they were suitable candidates. The RCC has accepted quite a lot of former Anglican and Lutheran married clergy in the past, even aside from the Special Pastoral Provision in the USA. They didn't have to wait. Some of us don't buy the whole excuse of wanting to preserve an Anglican patrimony, although in the US there are a very few Anglican Use parishes that have managed to do that, via the Book of Divine Worship. It seems that the Ordinariate clergy were waiting around for some special deal, whilst thinking there was something amiss about their position in persisting on being out of full communion with the Holy See. There is a disingenuous aspect, in retrospect, to their Anglican ministries and indeed to the manner in which they decamped to the Roman Communion.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
angelicum
Shipmate
# 13515
|
Posted
I don't see what the issue is. I know 2 ordinariate priests and as far as they (and I) see it, the orders they received at Anglican ordination were valid Anglican orders and insofar as they were practicing within the canons of the Anglican communion, the sacraments and the ministry they exercised were valid for Anglicans.
At Catholic ordination, they are now Catholic orders and dispense valid Catholic sacraments.
Catholics and Anglicans have different doctrines and disciplines with regards to the sacraments as stated in their respective catechisms/articles. So when a Catholic speaks of a valid sacrament, it means something different from the official Anglican position on what a valid sacrament is surely?
Posts: 364 | From: Full in the panting heart | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
Whatever. Disunity is an anomalous situation. The Ordinariate is an anomalous solution to an anomalous situation. The only way to cope with anomalies is compromise, which the Anglicans should have been well used to anyway. Maybe part of the 'Anglican patrimony' that they are bringing is just this: the ability to compromise.
--------------------
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
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
Honestly Lietuvos, the issues are your own and it just does not matter what you "buy" or not.
Establishing the Ordinariates is and has been a complicated and costly business for the Catholic Church. There is no desperation on our part to grab as many scalps as possible. As has been pointed out, not all who have asked to come have been automatically accepted. There has been a fair amount of discernment on the go, going all the way to dossiers having to be submitted to the CDF in Rome for those wanting to be ordained. You know full well that the CDF is not inclined to glossing over problems. So what you are buying or not is really rather sticking your thumb in the air trying to determine the issue, whereas there has been a fairly comprehensive assessment process carried out by the Catholic Church.
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fuzzipeg
Shipmate
# 10107
|
Posted
TTT has hit the nail on the head. The RCC is not a particularly welcoming organisation for potential converts. It's not like a presbyterian sticking his or her head round the corner of the local Anglican Church and saying "Hello! I'm joining you now!" Even for laypeople of the Ordinariate there has been a period of discernment and I'm sure not everyone decided to continue. In much the same way that there is a large drop out from the standard RCICA course.
It goes without saying that not everyone who was an Anglican priest will be accepted willy nilly by the RCC for ordination and it is over simplifying things to say X or Y is offended by some criticism of a particular person or Pope.
I have always felt that the RCC tends to discourage anyone who wishes to convert. The Ordinariate maybe a specific mechanism for former Anglicans but it doesn't make becoming a Catholic an easy option despite appearing to be such.
--------------------
http://foodybooze.blogspot.co.za
Posts: 929 | From: Johannesburg, South Africa | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
I hope I don't seem like I am doing an about face here, LSK, but I really think that is the least of Anglican worries. We can talk about the gravity of failing to discern the Body, which I really think is an issue to be made here, but considering the crap catholic Anglicans have to put up with these days, from hippy-dippy gurus and self-help gospel priests... I really think the attitude of ordinariate leaning priests is the least of our worries.
Zach
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fuzzipeg:
The RCC is not a particularly welcoming organisation for potential converts. <snip> Even for laypeople of the Ordinariate there has been a period of discernment and I'm sure not everyone decided to continue. In much the same way that there is a large drop out from the standard RCICA course. <snip> I have always felt that the RCC tends to discourage anyone who wishes to convert.
It seems to me that a period of teaching and discernment lasting months is extremely sensible. After all ideally conversion, like marriage, is a life long committment. 6-9 months (which the web tells me is normal for RICA) or longer if needed, seems to me to be very considerate.
Discernment is a seriously underated process.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adrian1
Shipmate
# 3994
|
Posted
I have a good friend who'd been a lfielong Anglo-Catholic, but finally got fed up of the way the Church of England was moving, so she was received into the Roman Catholic Church at Easter. Although I didn't (and still don't) share her assesment of the CofE, I'm nevertheless pleased that she's now in a church where she's happy and which she can respect, even though she might privately choose to ignore the odd dogma. What intrigued me though was that despite having a good working knowledge of the RCC, she still had to undergo a lengthy period of instruction - one which continued after her reception.
--------------------
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
|
|
Olaf
Shipmate
# 11804
|
Posted
The Vatican has not always automatically welcomed convert priests, nor should they be expected to do so now. I heard it explained in this RC diocese (I'm sad to say that doesn't mean it is correct) that ordained converts who wish to become RC priests are evaluated and a course of study is prescribed. For some, only a year or two of seminary work may be necessary. For others, it may be several years. A bishop would be crazy not to evaluate the Catholic aptitude of the candidates before ordination or reception. I would certainly expect a RC priest who converted to Lutheranism to have a firm grounding in the doctrine, history, and theology of the church before being received.
Posts: 8953 | From: Ad Midwestem | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adrian1:
I have a good friend who'd been a lfielong Anglo-Catholic, but finally got fed up of the way the Church of England was moving, so she was received into the Roman Catholic Church at Easter. Although I didn't (and still don't) share her assesment of the CofE, I'm nevertheless pleased that she's now in a church where she's happy and which she can respect, even though she might privately choose to ignore the odd dogma. What intrigued me though was that despite having a good working knowledge of the RCC, she still had to undergo a lengthy period of instruction - one which continued after her reception.
Have you seen The Catechism of the Catholic Church? 904 pages. And if we go by the opinions of many of the RCs on the Ship, most (all?) RC beliefs are of vital importance having been passed directly by God to the Magisterium and the Successors of St. Peter. Since an individual does not have the authority for herself to decide what is important dogma, she could easily wander into error.
Oral instruction actually sounds like a shortcut.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Invictus_88
Shipmate
# 15352
|
Posted
In spite of its length and depth, the Cathechism isn't that diffivult to read, and YouCat is a good cut-down equivalent for adults as well as for its intended youth readership.
Posts: 206 | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Uncle Pete
Loyaute me lie
# 10422
|
Posted
As to the 904 page summary of the doctrine of the Catholic church which we are supposed to memorise before we can be baptised or received into the Church, I read it back in the day two years after my reception. Fascinating stuff and very readable. Can't remember most of it.
I was received in pre-RCIA days, I think. Once a week for two hours over 5 months before the Easter Vigil (and time out over the Christmas vacation and Reading week and when the snow was too deep to move) is hardly onerous for a lifetime commitment. What I remember is the fun (with minimal homework)* we all had learning the stuff we needed to survive as day to day Catholics, because after the hype of the Vigil, that was what was left.
*What I learnt in the class also came in very handy in my senior Religious studies class. I wrote some essays, with bibliographies that were certainly out of the norm of the usual books and articles. So it was hardly wasted time.
--------------------
Even more so than I was before
Posts: 20466 | From: No longer where I was | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
TT, I do hope you understand that my issue here is not to do primarily with the RCC but with the Anglican clergy who signed onto the Ordinariate. I shall not critique the Ordinariate clergy any further, however. Weary of this and I am now on an iPad that does not encourage lengthy posts (Deo gratias you may be thinking).
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
Yes, I get that. And I get the fact that there is an element of anger in the midst of grief. I understand that this issue of the Ordinariate is yet another thing which has rent the Anglo-Catholic garment. There has to be an element of repair and holding together for those who have not gone over.
But I don't think that's actually served by impugning those who have left or are leaving. Just as I think it serves no-one to impugn those who did not come to the Catholic Church.
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pyx_e
Quixotic Tilter
# 57
|
Posted
quote:
But I don't think that's actually served by impugning those who have left or are leaving
Yeah let's not talk about. ssshhh.
Feck me.
P
--------------------
It is better to be Kind than right.
Posts: 9778 | From: The Dark Tower | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
Is it possible in Pyx_e land to talk about something without impugning someone?
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pyx_e
Quixotic Tilter
# 57
|
Posted
Well that pretty much depends on what they did, doesn’t it? In Pyx_e Land we are not assimilated so we can talk about what we want.
Impugn; To attack as false or questionable.
Can I start by saying Impugn was your choice of words. I do not think they have done anything false. I really do wish them well, I have known many of them for ages and the Roman Catholic church has always been their hearts desire and I am VERY PLEASED that they are home at last. I have prayed for them and supported them financially,
However I am, at present, thinking that some of what they did was questionable. Not least as discussed elsewhere they have had plenty of time to get it right, how could they end up making so many questionable moves? The actual move hardly created a stir on the ship, not least I guess because many of us despite the wrangles were just pleased the birth had finally happened, the Rubicon crossed.
But the CBS affair, over which you have expressed some concern just bought it all up, again. Questionable indeed. And last time I looked that was part of what the Ship was here for, to question.
All the best, Pyx_e
--------------------
It is better to be Kind than right.
Posts: 9778 | From: The Dark Tower | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
Ho hum, thanks for the little lecture reminder about what the Ship is for.
And do note that I was responding to LsK when you decided to step in and bluster. It's not all about you.
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pyx_e
Quixotic Tilter
# 57
|
Posted
Lecture? Bluster? Holy Smoke Birettaman Your Acme Catholic Logic Shield is showing signs of strain.
Quick to the Monstrancemobile.
--------------------
It is better to be Kind than right.
Posts: 9778 | From: The Dark Tower | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hooker's Trick
Admin Emeritus and Guardian of the Gin
# 89
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I am arguing that the Ordinariate clergy's actions are wrong according to high church Anglican theology, not Roman Catholic Theology. Why on earth I, a high church Anglican, should be imagined to be arguing any theology but high church Anglican theology is beyond me.
Zach
I think the root of the problem is the 'high church Anglican theology' you recognise is not the same as that held by the swimmers.
The reason you think they are disingenuous or intellectually dubious is why you don't swim. That they don't see their position as dubious or disingenuous is why they swam.
Oh, and Fr Tiara
quote:
And I think you'll find most Anglicans are rather pleased with that, because the Reformation intended very deliberately to make sure that no notions of the papistical priesthood were entertained by their adherents.
This is me. I would be most nonplussed if the Pope let people into his clubhouse who didn't know the secret handshake.
And just because we have a handshake of our own, doesn't mean it's the Pope's secret one, no matter that some people would like to fancy it is.
And this Anglican is happy to leave to the bishop of Rome his own secret handshakes.
Posts: 6735 | From: Gin Lane | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
MarsmanTJ
Shipmate
# 8689
|
Posted
It's interesting. The ship shows the opposite of my experiences in real life. Most of my Anglican friends are very keen that we don't let any financial stuff out (the Church of England can't afford to lose any money, to be frank!) and thus if they knew about it would be disgusted by the CBS move, but are mostly happy that these people are gone. 'Good riddance' is a term I've heard used by the less charitable, 'Finally where God has been calling them for years, good for them' is, fortunately, much more common. For most of us, it strikes me that it allows us to move on with where we see God is calling the Church of England without people for whom God is calling other directions. Whether or not the actions of those who have moved is ethically correct is up for question in some cases, sure, but actually, I wonder if a number of their problems within the CofE were primarily caused with rejecting God's calling and trying to do something different. As an MK, the number of times I've seen variants of the Jonah story played out is almost absurd. My dad's first question now when interviewing applicants is 'Do you feel a direct calling to this post or are you just filling a need you perceive?' I personally wonder how many of the clergy in question were just filling a need that they perceived rather than called to remain in the CofE.
However my Catholic friends are mostly disgusted to have a load of what they perceieve to be arch-conservative, anti-women's ordination people joining the CC in the UK as they don't want them! For them it seems like a massive backwards step. Even some (rather senior) clergy (who guest lectured at my university and were quizzed about it rather heavily as my theology class had discussed it rather heatedly) have expressed doubts about people who have caused problems for the Church of England moving on to cause problems for the Catholic Church in England, although they all are quick to say that they are sure that that is not the case and all the people they've met have been lovely, the thought is definitely still there...
[ 05. August 2011, 20:03: Message edited by: MarsmanTJ ]
Posts: 238 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
k-mann
Shipmate
# 8490
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by AberVicar:
Specifically, the charitable aims of CBS begin by stating:
quote:
FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF THE CATHOLIC FAITH IN THE ANGLICAN TRADITION
(not cobbled or restated by me, but cut and pasted from the Charities Commission website).
The issue is whether the (Roman Catholic) Ordinariate, which aims to preserve 'Anglican patrimony', is actually in the Anglican tradition or not.
quote:
Originally posted by Woodworm:
Will CBS please disclose the legal advice it received?
Speaking with my lawyer's hat on, I don't see how you can possibly claim that this donation was in accordance the articles of the charity.
The opening sentence of the articles is, "The Confraternity is established for the advancement of the catholic faith in the Anglican Tradition..."
This was a donation to group that has chosen to leave the Anglican tradition and join the Roman Catholic church. The donation is 180 degrees from advancing the catholic faith "in the Anglican Tradition". You don't need to be Rumpole of the Bailey to see that.
You first need to establish as a fact that the Ordinariate is not in the Anglican tradition. I don’t see that either of you have. To claim that the phrase ‘Anglican patrimony’ is “a phrase which until very recently was used to mean (even remotely) communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury” (AberVicar) is seriously out of date. What about those anglican movements that are not in communion with Canterbury? You may not believe that they are ‘Anglican’ or that they shouldn’t use the term ‘Anglican,’ but you can hardly expect them to agree with that. The time has long gone since ‘Anglican’ = ‘being in communion with Canterbury.’
It seems to me that the CBS counts the Ordinariate as part of the Anglican tradition, in communion with rome. If they couldn’t give any grant money to people they weren’t in communion with, they couldn’t give any grant money to, say, the TAC either. So a question is warranted: Would you have problems with the CBS giving a grant to someone like, say the TAC or some other Continuing Anglican movement not in communion with Canterbury? If not, why is it a problem to give it to the Ordinariate? I don’t see the principled difference. The CBS didn’t say ‘for the advancement of the Catholic Faith in the Church of England,’ it said ‘for the advancement of the Catholic Faith in the Anglican tradition.’
quote:
Originally posted by AberVicar:
To follow on, it isn't exactly clear to me how the same group of people, no longer in the Anglican Communion, can espouse a tradition using the definition of Anglican.
So you are in fact saying that the TAC shouldn’t (be allowed to) call themselves Anglicans? Because they are not part of the ‘Anglican communion,’ assuming that you are referring to those who are in communion with Canterbury.
quote:
Originally posted by badman:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
By joining the Ordinariate, anglo-catholics are becoming Roman Catholics. Full stop.
Quite.
Hence, they are not entitled to charitable funds donated by and for Anglicans.
Does this also include the TAC?
quote:
Originally posted by AberVicar:
I hear what you're saying. However I don't think one should completely discount the possibility that the rules were changed in anticipation of something like the Ordinariate being announced.
Yes, when there is doubt, it is always best to assume the worst. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
"Being religious means asking passionately the question of the meaning of our existence and being willing to receive answers, even if the answers hurt."
— Paul Tillich
Katolikken
Posts: 1314 | From: Norway | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
Anglican means: CofE, in communion with Canterbury, very - barely - possibly one of the derivative bodies in immediate schism from the aforementioned and retaining BCP-inspired worship and non-papistical Order. Full stop.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
AberVicar
Mornington Star
# 16451
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
quote:
Originally posted by AberVicar:
To follow on, it isn't exactly clear to me how the same group of people, no longer in the Anglican Communion, can espouse a tradition using the definition of Anglican.
So you are in fact saying that the TAC shouldn’t (be allowed to) call themselves Anglicans? Because they are not part of the ‘Anglican communion,’ assuming that you are referring to those who are in communion with Canterbury.
I am saying exactly what I said - that it isn't clear to me.
Someone will have to make it clear what English law understands as the Anglican tradition. My view (whether or not outdated) is that communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury is a touchstone that shows authenticity as an Anglican. Others may think that they are carrying on the Anglican tradition in some other context, TAC being among them. I would then ask exactly how do I distinguish them from groups adhering to episcopi vagantes who call themselves Anglican. (Indeed, one who turns up occasionally in this locality claims to be in communion both with Canterbury and Rome.)
One million smackers is a lot to ride on a floating definition...
--------------------
Before you diagnose yourself with depression or low self-esteem, make sure you are not, in fact, just surrounded by assholes.
Posts: 742 | From: Abertillery | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
k-mann
Shipmate
# 8490
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Anglican means: CofE, in communion with Canterbury, very - barely - possibly one of the derivative bodies in immediate schism from the aforementioned and retaining BCP-inspired worship and non-papistical Order. Full stop.
According to whom, exactly? Do you believe that a court would deem the TAC ‘un-anglican’?
quote:
Originally posted by AberVicar:
My view (whether or not outdated) is that communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury is a touchstone that shows authenticity as an Anglican.
But your (or my) view is not the point here. I highly doubt that a court would say that the TAC is ‘un-anglican.’ But they are not in communion with Canterbury. It seems therefore wrong to assume, in legal matters, that the CBS cannot give money to the Ordinariate, since they are to grant money ‘for the advancement of the Catholic Faith in the Anglican tradition.’ It seems to me that the CBS is entitled to say that the Ordinariate is ‘in the Anglican tradition’; anglicans in communion with Rome, but not with Canterbury. Remember that those in CBS who are in the CofE are not in formal communion with the TAC either. This would of course be different if the CBS were formally a part of the CofE. But I see no indication of that.
I don’t see any illegality here, and it is quite interesting to see people here assuming that it is illegal. In civilized countries one is presumed innocent, not guilty.
quote:
Originally posted by AberVicar:
I would then ask exactly how do I distinguish them from groups adhering to episcopi vagantes who call themselves Anglican. (Indeed, one who turns up occasionally in this locality claims to be in communion both with Canterbury and Rome.)
This question is equally important in facing all who use the term ‘Catholic.’ One can easily distinguish them by asking with whom they are in formal communion. One doesn’t need to postulate a ‘problem’ where there is none.
--------------------
"Being religious means asking passionately the question of the meaning of our existence and being willing to receive answers, even if the answers hurt."
— Paul Tillich
Katolikken
Posts: 1314 | From: Norway | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
Four different but related things on this:-
1. As far as the UK is concerned, I for one would normally understand Anglican to mean the CofE which is established by law, the CinW and CofI which used to be established by law or another church in communion with them such as the Scottish Piskies. I think most people would have the same understanding.
2. So schismatic people who call themselves Anglican would not appear to be within that meaning. The only point where the contrary ought to arise would be where there are two overlapping groups which are both in communion with Canterbury.
3. Even if something like the TAC or the Free Church of England (a very small group that split in a Protestant direction about 150 years ago) were held to be within the definition of 'Anglican', history since 1558 is such that it would strike me as very odd indeed that anyone could even try to argue that a group that was part of the Roman church could claim to be Anglican.
4. This isn't a case of being presumed innocent until proved guilty. We're talking about civil law here, not criminal. The money may have been misapplied and have to be repaid without anyones having committed a crime.
5. A prudent board of trustees who proposed to do this, would have at least consulted the Charity Commission first and not made the payment unless the Commission had cleared it - or at least said, 'it's at your own risk'. Taking legal advice without involving the Commission as well and showing them the advice would be risky. I can't speak for this. I do not know. But it doesn't sound as though this happened. That to me, carries the suspicion that somebody might have thought, 'we'd better not ask as the answer's likely to be no'.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
AberVicar
Mornington Star
# 16451
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
I highly doubt that a court would say that the TAC is ‘un-anglican.’
The question is whether a court would consider it to be 'in the Anglican tradition', and more specifically whether an English court would do so. Given that it is a splinter group, and defines itself over against the group that was previously denoted as Anglican, there seems to be a prima facie case in law for saying that it is not 'in the Anglican tradition', despite its claims that it is preserving the real thing.
The same applies even more strongly to the CBS matter.
--------------------
Before you diagnose yourself with depression or low self-esteem, make sure you are not, in fact, just surrounded by assholes.
Posts: 742 | From: Abertillery | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
I think your argument also demonstrates why the CofE cannot also be called "catholic". Which probably answers Adeodatus's thread on whether AC-ism is a failure.
(Actually I don't - It might have been more accurate to say I don't think your argument would stand up in court. But I just thought the parallel between the threads was too close for comfort at that point).
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
