I’ll say one thing – this is going to make next year’s Papal Visit to Britain very interesting.

I know there was a suggestion that Pope Benedict might stay in Buckingham Palace, but I wonder is that still possible (if it ever was), given how things are shaking out now? The British Establishment, such as it is, tends to get all “No Popery! Britons never, never, never shall be slaves!” when any Pope does something that has a visible, tangible effect; they don’t mind patting him on the head as a cuddly old uncle as long as he sticks to anodyne ‘let’s all be nice to each other’, but let the Papists start interfering with the Things That Made The Empire Great and the Cromwellianism bubbles up to the surface.

And I see I was right already. The article in the “Telegraph” ends with this helpful reminder, for the three people living on the Isle of North Uist who didn’t already know this fact about the Congregation of the Doctrine for the Faith:

“He had reached out to disillusioned Anglicans three years earlier, when as head of the Congregation, the most powerful of the Vatican’s departments and successor to the medieval Inquisition, he wrote a personal letter to Anglicans in America. He reassured them of the Catholic Church’s support of their stand against the liberal tide.”

That’s the Inquisition, let us remind you; and not alone is it the Inquisition, it is the mediaevalone, in case you were confusing it with the one from 1968 (groovy, baby!) and it is still the “most powerful of the Vatican’s departments”. One can almost hear the sinister organ music pealing in the background, can’t one?

Let alone the comments in Damien Thompson’s blog, which is heating up nicely to a re-run of the Battle of the Boyne:

“It is intriguing to see the Roman Catholic church adopt a peaceful approach to taking over Britain. Down the centuries their Catholic monarchs have tried force and been repulsed countless times – Philip of Spain, the cowardly Stuarts, poncy Louis XIV and XV, not to mention short-arse Bonaparte. The Blessed Damian’s Catholic mafia has already got a stranglehold on the Telegraph blogs. Being agnostic, I am indifferent to which bunch of Godbotherers wins out.”

And he’s an agnostic, mind you, not an Orangeman. Woo! Next year’s visit is gonna be a doozy!

I think Dr. Williams visits Rome next month. That should be fun.

Orthodox bishops in TEC particularly are prone to dithering like the Lambeth Palace primus inter pares. Not doing something substantive and immediate about the revisionist takeover is tantamount to not mere acquiescence, but actual approval.

Orthodox bishops in TEC, we KNOW that you haven’t done anything. Time to put up or get out and let REAL bishops do the necessary dirty work.

You (0rthodox bishops in TEC) will receive no further warning. Within 5 years, if status quo holds sway, y’all’s big dioceses will be lucky to have ASA’s of 90…yup…90, NOT 90K, 9K, NOT even 900. Feh, dilettantes!

Well, on one of his visits to Rome (his latest?), he was trying to put a stop to the issuance of this apostolic constitution, so I wonder what use he thinks another visit might be. Maybe he will be seeking the Blair dispensation.

Oh, the case of His Grace’s Body? The one where the ABC becomes Roman and sequesters like Salmon Rushdie against the attack squads of both liberal Anglicans and Cromwellian Anglicans?

Nope, haven’t read it, but maybe Dan Brown will do it by interleaving novel pages and substituting English place names?

Good crikey, Christopher, if even half of the guys saying they’ll consider it go ahead and jump, it’ll decimate the Bench of Bishops!

It’ll be rockier than people are expecting, because of the whole ‘validity of Anglican orders’ matter; for one, from our side, it would be “ordaining” and not “re-ordaining”. But all this is only speculation until we see the wording of the Apostolic Constitution.

Papa Benny is going to insist on the essentials, and that’ll include the dogmas such as the Immaculate Conception and Transubstantiation. So some of the more romantically-minded will have hard decisions to make, but it will sort out the men from the boys (so to speak).

Well, well: the peace process in the North and now this, two things I never expected to see in my lifetime. Can Armageddon be far behind?

dwstroud, if Dan Brown wrote it, it’d turn out that the Queen is both the real Archbishop of Canterbury and the rightful hereditary Pope of the Orthodox Oikoumene dating from the time St. Augustine of Hippo evangelised the United Kingdom, not that impostor in Rome.

The Pope was slow on this one. First to take action (at far more personal risk than Benny) were Archbishop Duncan and his score of bishops and hundreds of clergy. Other Archbishops such as Akinola also took action long before the Pope. And because of all these actions, the faithful Anglican Church lives on and is growing. The Pope’s action, in contrast, will do little to preserve the historic, reformational theology and traditions of the Anglican Church. All it preserves is some elements of the “Anglican Rite” which is frankly very similar to the Roman one.

No, no: ACNA is the hero in this story, not the Pope.

And for an example of pig-ignorance, see this little gem from David Gibson in the “Washington Post” (courtesy of TitusOneNine):

“More important, with the latest accommodation to Anglicans, Benedict has signaled that the standards for what it means to be Catholic — such as the belief in the real presence of Christ in the Mass as celebrated by a validly ordained priest — are changing or, some might argue, falling. The Vatican is in effect saying that disagreements over gay priests and female bishops are the main issues dividing Catholics and Anglicans, rather than, say, the sacraments and the papacy and infallible dogmas on the Virgin Mary, to name just a few past points of contention.”

Sure, Davey. We’re just tossing overboard that whole Real Presence thing, not to mention having to be “validly ordained”. Just turn up at 9 o’clock on Sunday with a bottle of Diet Coke and a packet of Tuc crackers, and you’re good to go – so long as you’re a guy, that is! We don’t want any of those icky girl cooties!

At least when the Onion did this, it was meant as a satirical piece in a humorous publication. This fella apparently makes a living as a religion reporter.

>:-(

Gracious, Fuinseoig. That is indeed a confused religion “reporter.” The Pope is offering an Anglican-style liturgy combined with the full breadth and width and depth of Catholic teaching and nothing short of that. He is not offering Catholicism-lite. Why can’t these opinion writers get a grasp on the facts?

This might have a big impact on the Church of England, but a lesser one in America, which is why Shori has been quiet, perhaps. There are precious few Anglo-Catholics left in TEC. It could affect the ACNA; however, I think Bishop Iker has already said he’s not inclined to make the move. That won’t stop some of his people if they want to do it.

Fuinseoig beat me to it, but the “reordaining” caught my eye as well. We’ve beaten this to death, but the whole issue of Anglican Orders will be a huge sticking point.

On the one hand, if the Catholics allow conditional ordination (as in the case of Fr. Graham Leonard), the Anglican bishops might be mollified. However, that will only happen if enough evidence exists of validity to raise the question. What won’t happen is a wink and a nod and a pretense.

It will be nice if the Catholic side can present invalidity not as a fraud or total lack of all grace, but celebrate the ministries of Anglicans for what they have accomplished for the Kingdom.

The Global South Primates’ Steering Committee has issued a statement (I saw the link at T19) in response to the Apostolic Constitution announcement. With relation to Anglican affairs, it says:

We urge the Archbishop of Canterbury to work in close collegial consultation with fellow Primates in the Communion, act decisively on already agreed measures in the Primates’ Meetings, and exercise effective leadership in nourishing the flock under our charge, so that none would be left wandering and bereft of spiritual oversight.

In short, it says pretty much what Christopher says on his blog. +Cantuar has plenty of opportunities to take leadership and repair the holes in the Anglican Communion. All he has to do is follow through on Anglican Primates’ recommendations. Don’t hold your breath.

Count me unimpressed, Michael. What has ACNA done other than come up with a logo, redesign its web site and have a meeting or two? What risks has it taken?

Has Donald Harvey visited a Canadian ACNA parish in an AOoC diocese? For that matter, has Bob Duncan preached at an ACNA parish in a TEO diocese? Have either of them suggested that perhaps what is needed is to cut ties with Canterbury and start all over?

When they suggest courses of action like that, then and only then will I start to care. Not before. The fact of the matter is that for the last six years, the only person who has actually proposed something substantive to remedy a situation in a religious tradition he has never been a part of has been Benedict XVI.

No one else.

It is so fun to see “Ecumenical Officers” stand completely still and watch serious people run right over them. Notice the footprints on their back?
They really resent the fact they weren’t “consulted” on the matter, as though anything they ever did has ever mattered. For nearly a century there has been ink spilled, time wasted and money thrown away on any number of useless “Rapprochement” operations between the bodies involved, and look, someone crossed the room and said “May I have this dance?”. The professional smilers only have a job if the room is full of wallflowers. Just let some people get engaged and maybe married and they lose it. Just like any other loser. The serious people are doing something serious. How utterly un-Anglican! No wonder the bosses are worried. They aren’t obeying as they should. They seem to have been not of that fold and are finally realizing it.

Hopefully, the Vatican will do a little remodeling, repaint, clean and dust the place a bit before the reunion. Like doing such things as changing its dangerous, misleading and incorrect rather gushing approval of Mohammedism in CCC 841, correct the unbiblical dogmas, saint devotion and following, apparition and miracle seeking.

Could happen…John Paul II did publish an alternate Biblical Stations of the Cross.

A.N.Wilson of the NYT reports that perhaps 1000 CoE clergy may take Benedict XVI up on his offer.
“There is talk in England of as many as 1,000 clergy members taking this offer. Even allowing for the numerical exaggeration, which always occurs when enemies of liberalism congregate, this is a huge potential figure. Let us say 500 Anglican priests and perhaps 10 bishops joined the new arrangement. Let us suppose they took with them plausible congregations. This would deliver a body blow not just to the Church of England, but to that whole intricately constructed and only semi-definable phenomenon, the British Establishment.”

“Has Donald Harvey visited a Canadian ACNA parish in an AOoC diocese? For that matter, has Bob Duncan preached at an ACNA parish in a TEO diocese?”

What is ‘an ACNA parish in an ACoC diocese’? ACNA parishes have left ACoC. (That’s the idea of the thing.)

Chris, when you ask, “Has Bob Duncan preached at an ACNA parish in a TEO diocese?” do you mean, has he preached in a conservative parish which is nonetheless still part of TEC? I don’t know how many such invitations he’s had. If a parish in the Diocese of North Carolina, for instance, were to issue such an invitation, the parish could look for retribution from the bishop in short order. I am told by a reliable source that the rector of a downtown Raleigh parish was pushed into early retirement and replaced, allegedly at the instigation of the bishop. And this was a parish which had already suffered the loss of a large minority to a new parish outside TEC — and Bishop Duncan has preached there.

ACNA bishops cannot invade TEc parishes without an invitation.

“I believed in the Church I joined, but it has been revealed to have no doctrine of its own.

I believe this is the most singular important sentence in the above post.

Attention liberal Anglicans and Catholics: This isn’t about politics, or your belief we’re “sexist” and “homophobic”. It’s about DOCTRINE, and whether or not it means more to a faith than the politically correct cause du jour.

Hopefully, the Vatican will do a little remodeling, repaint, clean and dust the place a bit before the reunion. Like doing such things as changing its dangerous, misleading and incorrect rather gushing approval of Mohammedism in CCC 841, correct the unbiblical dogmas, saint devotion and following, apparition and miracle seeking.

Proof once again that the only thing you really need to be an Anglican is an irrational and ignorant bigotry against the Catholic Church. There are other ways to qualify, but that one will get you all the points you need in one go.

Here we have a bald-faced lie about the Catechism, followed up with the usual claptrap about ‘unbiblical dogmas’, saints, and miracles — all very carefully left as unspecific as possible, because (as I myself discovered some years ago) the more you go into detail on those sorts of claims, the more the facts do not support them.

Pope Benedict wouldn’t be the first Pope in recent history to be thought transitional who shock things up. John 23rd was in the same situation, and he called Vatican 2.

Jay Random: “Proof once again that the only thing you really need to be an Anglican is an irrational and ignorant bigotry against the Catholic Church. There are other ways to qualify, but that one will get you all the points you need in one go.” Do you think it’s reasonable to tar all Anglicans because of one over-the-top comment? Makes you a bit like the guy you’re complaining about, unfortunately.

[...] The Midwest Conservative Journal provides a link to a story about Rt. Rev. John Hind, Bishop of Chichester, who is considering converting to Catholicism.  Here are a few snippets: [...]

FW Ken,

With the infallible (and yes, it’s one of the very few truly authentic “infallible” proclamations) declaration that Anglican orders are “null and void”, there’s not much room for maneuvering. The choice placed before any Anglican clergy is a most grave one; refute everything that you did as a “priest” (which Rome denies that you were, and in which you must concur that you were errant in your thinking) or stand up for the validity of your ordination and ministry – and thereby exclude yourself from the RCC.

I wish there was more willingness on the part of the Vatican to allow for at least the *possibility* of *some* Anglican orders being valid – but that’s not part of the magisterium as it now exists. To me, this makes conversion to Rome by Anglican clergy very problematic, because as an Anglican priest you must deny your “ministry” in its entirety. (And for those who talk about there being grace in even invalid ministers, or value in any preaching of the Gospel – those are nice thoughts. But if you’re an Anglican Priest, and you *must* swear to the fact that anything you did was not, in fact, a sacrament, this is much more than a matter of semantics, and encouragement of “good intentions” is of little, if any, comfort. I’m not trying to be “black and white” here – I’m just restating the official position of the RCC as I know it, which is that “Anglican Orders are null and void.” If anyone can point out some official RCC teaching that allows converting Anglican clergy to NOT be expected to renounce any previous sacramental ministry, please cite your sources.)

And yes, I recall, repsect and understand our previous discussion – but as you pointed out, a key element remains – Anglican Orders is a major issue. I’ve grown more sceptical in my view over the course of the last several days as I’ve seen more and more items in print and on the Internet which make it seem like an Anglican priest can just say “switch me to Rome” and – PRESTO!- it happens. The degree of misinformation, and lack of understanding of the issue, is frightening.

Whoa, Jay Random – I’m not bigoted against the Catholic Church. I just do not think CCC 841 is correct. It is misleading and dangerous.

The other things, the dogmas, devotions, and seeking miracles are just minor superfluities, compared to misleading people and endangering lives praising a pernicious false religion.

Bill (not IB)–I think you’re exaggerating a bit. Invalid priestly orders have an impact on the Eucharist, Confession, Holy Orders, Confirmation and Anointing of the Sick. Of those sacraments, I’m not sure how many Anglicans even practice sacramental confession, and they already have to affirm a more sacrifical and realistic understanding of the Eucharist than Anglicanism has traditionally permitted. I’m not clear on the state of Anglican practice and theology regarding confirmation or the anointing of the sick.

Baptisms and marriages, as well as all pastoral work and other non-sacramental functions, remain valid and good things among any Anglican priests who reconcile with the Catholic Church. It’s going to be problematic, but I think you overstate the matter if you say that they must “deny their ministry in its entirety.”

Maybe it’s not Duncan’s or Harvey’s fault then. Point being, that at some point, somebody on the conservative side is going to have to take a risk.

Whitestone–Paragraph 841 of the Catechism is no more than a quote from Lumen Gentium Paragraph 16. Here’s the whole paragraph for context.

16. Finally, those who have not yet received the Gospel are related in various ways to the people of God. In the first place we must recall the people to whom the testament and the promises were given and from whom Christ was born according to the flesh. On account of their fathers this people remains most dear to God, for God does not repent of the gifts He makes nor of the calls He issues. But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Mohamedans, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind. Nor is God far distant from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for it is He who gives to all men life and breath and all things, and as Saviour wills that all men be saved. Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience. Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life. Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel.(20*) She knows that it is given by Him who enlightens all men so that they may finally have life. But often men, deceived by the Evil One, have become vain in their reasonings and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, serving the creature rather than the Creator. Or some there are who, living and dying in this world without God, are exposed to final despair. Wherefore to promote the glory of God and procure the salvation of all of these, and mindful of the command of the Lord, “Preach the Gospel to every creature”, the Church fosters the missions with care and attention.

For the whole document, see here

I want to be able to receive Holy Communion in a faithful church AND still share that with my Anglican parish family; therefore, I hope my Anglican parish family will decide to take the Pope up on his offer because I’d like to be in communion with Rome, but retain my Anglican heritage.

Katherine, I do not think Jay Random was tarring all Anglicans with the “No Popery” brush. I’m showing my own biases here, but personally I felt that his comment came as rare and refreshing fruit. I would like to see more of this lad. He seems to me distinctly one of the ones.

What has ACNA done other than come up with a logo, redesign its web site and have a meeting or two? What risks has it taken?

ACNA is a Province made up of dioceses, so that question really means “what have the dioceses done?” Here is what has happened in the Diocese of New Westminster (BC):
– about 7 parishes left the ACoC about 5 years ago. They joined other Anglican organizations (e.g. AMiA), lost their church buildings, and re-booted their ministry in rented spaces. They are now part of ACNA.
– four other parishes joined ANiC, did not vacate their buildings, and are currently in legal dispute with their ex-diocese for control of the buildings that they paid for.
– ANiC has planted a number (at least 3) new parishes in the Dio New Westminster. I am in one of those, and it is thriving.
– Bishop Harvey visits us frequently, though it must be a hardship as we are a nine-hour flight from his home. He preaches, meets with the priests, and has starting confirming our kids (and we have waited a long time for that – some aren’t kids anymore). He is under discipline from the Canadian House of Bishops, though what that means in real terms I do not know.

There are other ANiC and ACNA parishes across Canada. Many have lost their buildings. There are ACNA church plants in many cities. Most old-Anglican parishes know that they have an escape route should their diocese become too liberal. That is: there is an ecclesiatical structure, a legal and administrative structure, coaching, and in some cases some bridge money available to help parishes make the jump to ACNA.

You can read between the lines what kinds of sacrifice this has entailed (and I assume there will be more sacrifice in the future). There are similar huge sacrifices and risks all across North Amreica, from Virginia to Victoria.

In contrast, it seems to me that the Roman Catholic offer (“forsake all reformed theology, get re-trained in Roman Catholic doctrine, and when you are completely assimilated we will ordain you and let you use the Morning Prayer service”) has entailed no sacrifice on the part of the Pope. Some might say he is risking being unpopular in ecumenical circles but I suspect that means nothing to him.

Personally, I wish that he would offer more to the faithful dioceses and to ACNA – for example by declaring the RC church to be in communion with us while remaining out of communion with ACoC and TEC. Now that would entail sacrifice on his part, but that would be “a Christian leader actually providing solutions to problems.”

And by the way, a huge reason for us joining together in ACNA is that we were directed to do so by the majority of Global primates. “Create a Province,” they promised, “and we will recognize you.” So I’m eager to see the day when we are recognized by the majority of primates. Get with it guys.

Lone Star wants to “take the Pope up on his offer because I’d like to be in communion with Rome, but retain my Anglican heritage.”

Lone Star, you can’t do that, because the Pope’s offer demands that you forsake your Anglican heritage. You can keep some bits and pieces of Anglican “appearances” but all core Anglican beliefs that disagree with RC theology (the 39 articles, the reformed beliefs, authority of scripture, etc.) must be left behind.

God bless you, Mike, and God bless and protect Bishop Harvey. That’s the same thing that’s going on here in St. Louis. But what exactly does recognition by the global primates mean anyway? Have these demanded that my gracious lord of Canterbury recognize ACNA as well? Have they told Dr. Williams that they will walk away from Canterbury and form their own organization if he doesn’t?

Bill (not IB) – you are right: there’s no need to rehash that argument, although I’m fairly certainly the declaration on Anglican Orders is not phrased as an infallible statement; nevertheless, the “clarification” in the late 90s sort of put an end to the discussion. I do know that Graham Leonard had a conditional ordination, but I also know the Vatican, which will likely issue the permissions for ordinations, will not want to create confusion on the subject.

There are a lot of confusions (plural meant) about ordained ministry versus the ministry of the laity in western liberal Catholicism. The liberals who tend to define everything in terms of power see the ordained state as a seat of power and like to act like they are ordained. Clericalism is a liberal as well as conservative problem, and I’m fairly certainly the Vatican will be careful to not do anything to exacerbate the problem.

Only about 13 of the 39 Articles are incompatible with the Catholic Faith. Also, it’s well to remember that many Anglicans hold most Catholic doctrines, sometimes even papal infallibility. I often note that I learned to pray the rosary in an Episcopal Church. I first experienced Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament in an Episcopal Church.

Michael D, I was unclear. I don’t have a problem with Roman Catholic doctrine; not at all. I don’t want to have to sit through “modern” or “liberal” RC masses. I want the majesty of my musical, liturgical, and poetic Anglican/Anglo-Catholic heritage. I do not think the Pope is asking Anglicans to give those up.

Your comments reflect your difficulties, not mine, so don’t tell me “you can’t do that”. And as to core beliefs – depending on how one defines “core”, I think.

Michael D. wrote:

Personally, I wish that he would offer more to the faithful dioceses and to ACNA – for example by declaring the RC church to be in communion with us while remaining out of communion with ACoC and TEC. Now that would entail sacrifice on his part, but that would be “a Christian leader actually providing solutions to problems.”

and I respond:

Are you terminally silly, or aspiring to be a troll? We have had discussions in the past, among other things about WO. Rome regards “Anglican Orders” as invalid and WO as an impossibility. But you ask the Catholic Church to “offer more” by “declaring the RC church to be in communion with us.” Well, okay, but is “us” prepared to renounce WO and to seek to bring its teaching and doctrine into conformity with that of the Catholic Church, so that it can be “in communion?” After all, Rome, like the Orthodox and all ancient apostolic churches, and conservative Lutherans also, require doctrinal agreement as a prerequisite to sacramental communion — being “in communion” is not a reward handed out, like a British knighthood or the congressional Medal of Freedom, to “good guys” of who we happen to approve. What you seem to want is for the Catholic Church to conduct itself as though it were a moderately conservative Protestant denomination, like the Christian Reformed Church or the Evangelical Presbyterian Church — or for that matter the new ACNA. It simply isn’t going to happen.

I think Michael D telling me “you can’t do that” has had the effect of being “double-dog” dared.

Chris,

In their response to the Pope’s Offer, the Global South told the ABC what they expect – that he do as the Primates have decided and they want all parishes and dioceses as well as Provinces to be allowed to sign the Covenant.

The Global South have not said what they have not will do if the ABC does not meet their expectations.

The first rule of parenting is to state your reasonable expectations clearly and also state the reasonable and certain consequences if that is not done.

The Global South gets it half (50%) right. They forgot to state the consequences.

Lone Star: I certainly wasn’t intending to “dare” you . It simply never occurred to me that the “Anglican Heritage” that you desired to retain did not include Anglican theology. It would be like “retaining your American heritage” without bothering with democracy or the rule of law.

William: if given a choice between troll or silly, I would choose silly. And in this case I was full aware that the Pope could not (in any conceivable universe) declare himself to be in communion. To do so he would have to contravene Roman Catholic polity, and the thoughht of him doing that is just silly.

In my defense I point out that I was egged on by Chris suggesting that the pope has done so much for Anglicans and then double-dog-daring me to point out what ACNA had done. And the reality is that the members of ACNA have had go to extreme lengths, even contravening Anglican polity, to provide an Anglican way forward for faithful parishioners in America.

So my whole silly argument was not to encourage the RC church to do anything for us, but rather to refute Chris’s suggestion that only the Pope has done anything significant. I’m not asking anything from the Roman Catholics. And in my opinion, neither are they offering anything of significance.

Aside from forming a group called ACNA, what’s ACNA actually done? Has it pissed anybody off at all, has its official actions caused charges to be filed somewhere or other? If it has, it’s escaped me.

Fact of the matter is that the Pope is the only person who has proposed anything significant to deal with the Anglican situation.

Will I avail myself of it? Probably not. Right now, I’m still quite the Reformed Protestant. But I know who’s offered solutions and who hasn’t.

Well, a fair number of ACNA clergy have been deposed, and numerous parishes and dioceses are in court over property issues. That’s something. I realize ACNA is working towards recognition as a legitimate Anglican province, but that’s really the only definition of being “Anglican”.

Despite Michael’s comments, there simply isn’t one “Anglican theology”. Evangelicals and Anglo-catholics can kneel side by side and receive Communion, one believing it’s substantially the Body and Blood of Christ, the other engaging in a psychological process of “remembrance”. In my younger years, we even saw charismatic theology integrating evangelical and sacramental theologies, but the union was problematic and unstable. But, hey, we were all Episcopalians.

Clericalism is a liberal as well as conservative problem

Ain’t that the truth! If I had a clue how to do cross-stitch, I’d sew that one into a sampler.

authority of scripture, etc.) must be left behind

No problem with the authority of scripture at all; its your rejection of the rest of the deposit of faith that’s problematic.

Chris, ACNA has pissed off lots of people. Shori is so mad she won’t allow any seized church property to be sold back to them, and she’s in lawsuits with lots of ACNA folks. Same situation in Canada, with property seizures and lawsuits.

Your complaint appears to me to be that ACNA hasn’t yet solved the international Anglican crisis. That’s true. What I think is happening is a gradual evolution towards a Communion run by a Primates’ Council, which may or may not include England unless we get a solid Archbishop in Canterbury. I do consider this a problem, but I can’t accept “everything that the Church teaches” from Rome’s point of view, so I’m stuck. I’m having problems understanding why it bothers you so much, being a Reformed type to a much larger extent.

Also, this Vatican action follows many years of requests from the TAC and probably quietly from within the CofE. The Vatican moves glacially. Just look at, for instance, the continued intransigence of many “Catholic” universities in the USA, in spite of strong Vatican insistence that they be actually Catholic. It’s messy, and complete resolution will take a while. Anglicans are in a very, very messy patch, and may or may not put something together, but one way or the other it’s not going to be fast. Patience and quiet perseverance are not common American virtues. We want it solved NOW.

Everybody see Wretchard’s take (The Belmont Club, at Pajamas Media) on the Anglican situation?

http://pajamasmedia.com/richardfernandez/2009/10/22/the-lighting-of-the-beacons/#more-6460

Fascinating to see his insightful analysis turned in this direction; as he usually does, he points out that the threat everyone is talking about is really a secondary threat, or a symptom arising from a cause so obvious no one is talking about THAT.

Thank you, M.L. Martin, for the helpful reference and link to Lumen Gentium. (1968)

It would be interesting to know if the RC position and the Catechism statements about Mohammedism have changed over the last couple of centuries.

In relation to Judaism, Benedict XVI has decided to change the wording of a Latin Mass in regard to Jews because of protests. It will also be interesting to see how much is changed.

Has it pissed anybody off at all,

Well, you for starters apparently.

ACNA is going about its job of ensuring that should some future Archbishop of Canterbury wish to return to promoting and defending orthodoxy, there will still be an Anglican Communion for him to return to.

We are way past the point of aiming to do things that “piss off” Fred Hiltz or Rowan Williams or anyone else. There’s a gospel to preach and a world to win. Let the dead bury their own dead.

i, for one, don’t entirely buy the “transitional” label on Benedict XVI. Yes, he was already quite old when selected, and is now older still.

However, i have to believe that if the cardinals in the conclave wanted to pick someone to mark time for a few years, there are plenty of other cardinals they would have selected. Benedict has done things that have at times surprised folks on either of the spectrum, but i think that is merely because he is smart enough to know the difference between heading a Congregation and heading a church.

That’s just it, Toral. Conservative Anglicanism has run out of time. They’re doing things now that should have begun four or five years ago. Allowing Dr. Williams to game the last Lambeth Conference should have been intolerable. They should have demanded a resolution to the American question right then and there.

I agree that individual conservative parishes are doing great things for the Lord. All I’m saying here that as an international presence, conservative Anglicanism, whatever name it gives itself, has been inexcusably timid. Conservatives should have acted with the boldness the Pope just displayed. If and when they get around to it, there probably won’t be many people left in their pews to applaud them.

M.L. Martin,

Is it somehow more tolerable for an Anglican priest to accept that *only* Holy Communion, Reconciliation (Confession) and Anointing are “invalid”?

The vast majority of the public ministry of a priest is Holy Communion. That is where his congregation sees him; where they listen to his preaching; where they come to receive the Body and Blood of Christ. I gather from your comment that you consider pastoral counseling and church suppers to somehow outweigh Sunday Worship.

This is a perfect example of what I feel is “misinformation” and/or “oversimplification” regarding the impact of conversion upon Anglican clergy. I’m not trying to put words in anyone’s mouth, but these are concepts that I’ve heard expressed by very well-meaning RCC’s:

“They really weren’t Sacraments, so it shouldn’t be a problem to say you never did them.”

“You were a valued minister of the Gospel, even if you never did anything sacramental.”

And, you imply in saying “but I think you overstate the matter if you say that they must ‘deny their ministry in its entirety’” that the RCC accepts some part of Anglican orders as valid, or some portion of their ministry as valid. How does “null and void” fit into this? (Please consider – I recognize that there is a great deal of acceptance and value placed upon what Anglican clergy do by many RC’s. But, what counts is what the official, documented position is – because that is what one must be prepared to accept.)

I concur with FW Ken, and he I are actually on the same page, insofar as theory goes. I know that he would be merciful and just regarding an Anglican Priest, but it’s the “officials” that have to be considered – and what they say and do does not necessarily reflect the position of most of the faithful people in the RC church, *or*, in practice, the intent of its leader.

Test failed………..

Have y’all seen Jeffrey Steenson’s piece yet? Of particular interest to those concerned about the validity of orders will be this paragraph:

Those dear friends at the Irish College sometimes teased me about my “five ordinations and a wedding.” Some Anglican clergy, even as they welcome this initiative from the Holy Father, want to reopen the question of the validity of Anglican orders, because they object to the general rule of absolute ordination. I did not find this a difficulty, for I did not think of my ordination in the Catholic Church as a repudiation of the Anglican ministry. Anglican ordinations are what they are. It may be reasonable to criticize Leo XIII’s 1896 encyclical on Anglican orders, Apostolicae Curae, for speaking in the harsh idiom of a different age, but it can certainly be read in a positive light. Friends do not eschew plain speaking, and it is likely that this text has been responsible for much of the ecumenical progress already realized, by provoking Anglicans to reflect more deeply on the theology of ministerial priesthood. I treasure the times I was able to pray near the tomb of Pope Leo XIII at St. John Lateran last year. Anglicanism’s chief antihero remains, ironically, a potent spiritual force for Christian unity.

James G

Building on what Fr. Steenson wrote I think one way of looking at it is that Anglican orders are just that, Anglican orders. In the same way that a Lutheran or Presbyterian pastor’s orders are those of his denomination so to Anglican orders are the orders of Anglicanism. Only when one wants to equate an Anglican clergyman with a Catholic priest do we run into problems.

The nullity of Anglican orders is in regards to them being valid Catholic orders. A Protestant clergyman is not identical nor interchangeable with a Catholic priest; and I don’t think most would want to be. If an Anglican clergyman does not believe himself to be a Catholic priest then why should there be any trouble about acknowledging that fact? If an Anglican clergyman doesn’t believe in Transubstantiation then where is the denial of his past ministry in admitting that that is not what happened when he presided at the Lord’s Table?

It seems that the only people who will truly be having a hard time are those Anglican clergyman who actually believe themselves to be Catholic priests. What is one to do in such a situation? It may seem harsh at the time but in the end I think we will all agree that honesty is the best policy even if honesty requires bluntness.

James G

Bill –

I’m not sure what I’m saying that’s different than what I have heard and learned from our local bishop. Moreover, it was the Vatican that authorized the conditional ordination for Fr. Graham Leonard (though not for Clarence Pope). My contention – my only contention – is pretty much what Fr. Steenson had to say a couple of posts up.

In a way, Bill, you are being more Catholic than the pope here, focusing exclusively on the Sacraments as the means of grace. That they are, but God finds those He will find. The Sacraments are contained within the Divine Economy; God is not contained within them. Or rather, He is not restrained by them.

Ken,

It’s intriguing that historically, the RCC has made the sacraments a matter of considerable emphasis and importance, particularly in noting the deficiency of the teachings of various Protestant denominations. (I can’t even begin to count the number of times I’ve heard the Methodists, Presbyterians, Baptists, et al described by Catholics as “non-sacramental churches”.) And I would be surprised if most others on the “far side” of the Tiber did not share this same viewpoint (I can’t think of anyone who has disagreed with this). So when you suggest that I’m over-emphasizing the importance of the Sacraments – well, the mind boggles. It’s like “The sacraments are important – but not all that important, at least when we find another position to be more convenient.”

Either they matter, or they don’t. To me, viewing Anglican orders as both valid and Catholic, they matter most critically. That’s why I find it so important to emphasize the impact upon Anglican clergy of renouncing their ministry – especially the “sacramental” portion thereof.

Am I being more Catholic than the pope? If in making the sacraments the litmus test of a sacramental church I’m being extraordinarily Catholic, I suppose so. But I don’t see where the dual concepts of Apostolic Succession and belief in the graces bestowed by the Sacraments leaves any alternative.

Who has done more to turn Anglicans toward Catholicism. the ABC or the Pope? I would maintain that it was the Pope that pulled the trigger but the ABC provided the gun.

Only two Anglican clergymen have ever been “conditionally” ordained, to my best knowledge, to the Catholic priesthood: Graham Leonard in 1994, and the American PECUSA clergyman John Jay Hughes in 1968. In GL’s cases it was because Old Catholic bishops had been involved, remotely, in the consecration of the Anglican bishop who ordained him to the priesthood in the Church of England, and more proximately in the consecrations of those bishops who consecrated him to its episcopate. In Hughes’ case it was the Archbishop of Muenster in Germany (where Hughes was a graduate student) who did it. Each case appears to have been exceptional; the three other English Anglican bishops who followed Leonard into the Catholic Church, Richard Rutt, bishop of Leicester, John Klyberg, suffragan-bishop of Fulham and Conrad Meyer, suffragan-bishop of Dorchester, were all ordained “absolutely” (unconditionally) to the Catholic priesthood, and no other ECUSA clergyman whose ordaining bishop had bishops of the Polish National Catholic Church (the one “official” American Old Catholic church, which was formally in communion with PECUSA from 1946 to 1978, and which ended the relationship because of WO in that last year) in his episcopal “pedigree” ever rec’d such a concession from Rome.

Despite the photo of Michael Nazir-Ali in the Daily Mail article, the text of the article itself doesn’t say anything about him or whether he is considering joining the Roman Catholic Church.

The Mail edited or rewrote that article because I do remember seeing the quote there. But maybe Nazir-Ali contacted the Mail and asked them to remove his name. Don’t know.

Bill (not IB) -

I haven’t been ignoring your post, just thinking on it over a good night’s sleep. It’s quite possible I am over my head theologically, so I want to be careful to not say too much, nor too dogmatically (so to speak).

First, of course the Sacraments are of importance – crucial, primary importance. So are other things. You have to understand I spent most of my Anglican years in the Diocese of Texas. The common service was Morning Prayer with Sermon and the primary interaction folks had with their priests were parish activities, social and ministerial. So I appreciate preaching and pastoral care as well as other forms of leadership and give them a lot of weight. Also, even though I ended up in the diocese of Dallas, I don’t remember encountering the issue of sacramental validity until I was Catholic. More about that at the end of this.

Nevertheless, I’m sticking by what I said above: the Sacraments are the means of Grace, but God is not limited to them. No valid Eucharist doesn’t mean NO grace. God meets us where we are, and honors the faith we have. I believe that’s in line with Catholic teaching and I know it’s in line with what my own (late) bishop said.

Conceptually (and this is really speculative), Catholics believe the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church. One priest explained that as being rather like the Sun, shining out from this place. Other Churches and ecclesial communities refract that Light. I would even say some magnify it and/or focus it. Sometimes that focus is too narrow and obscures some elements of the Faith, sometimes it’s too diffuse for clarity, and so on, extending the metaphor probably beyond usefulness. The point is that the Light shines in the darkness.

That’s all well and good, but I want to end on an two entirely practical notes. First, when I was still Episcopalian, my rather liberal (“Affirming Catholic” we would say today) rector anointed me after Confession a couple of times when I had lingering health problems. Both times the problem cleared in a few days (Nothing dramatic, just ongoing sinus or breathing allergies; that sort of thing). Whether the anointing was a “valid sacrament” or not, I got well.

The second, and more important practical comment: I’m really the wrong one to talk about this. Fr. Steenson’s comment,linked and quoted above, is probably typical of most men who move from Anglican to Catholic. It just doesn’t seem to be an issue with them, which may not be surprising, but I wonder how they resolved it. I suspect most have gone the way of Fr. Steenson, with a shrug of the shoulders and appreciation for what God did through their ministries as Anglicans. Again, I tell the story of two ordinations at which my bishop spoke of the this in these terms: that’s pretty official.

The nullity of Anglican orders is in regards to them being valid Catholic orders. A Protestant clergyman is not identical nor interchangeable with a Catholic priest; and I don’t think most would want to be. If an Anglican clergyman does not believe himself to be a Catholic priest then why should there be any trouble about acknowledging that fact? If an Anglican clergyman doesn’t believe in Transubstantiation then where is the denial of his past ministry in admitting that that is not what happened when he presided at the Lord’s Table?

EGGzackly!!

James and diane -

But there is a wide swath of Anglicans who do regard themselves as “Catholic” and the ordained person as Catholic priests and bishops. Some Anglicans do believe in Transubstantiation, and many more believe in the Real Presence, without a specific explanation attached.

That’s what all the discussion is about. That’s why the whole issue of validity is so important to them.

Ken –

Again, thanks for your patience and persistence.

Your last comment is spot-on. There is a very strong “Catholic” element within the Anglican church, that takes Apostolic Succession, Sacramental Theology, “Real Presence” (transubstantiation, consubstantiation, or just plain miracle; the exact means is not so important as the basic concept) and other core RCC doctrine most seriously. That’s what makes the rejection part so difficult – to a true “Anglo-Catholic”, their orders ARE on a par with an RCC or Orthodox priest, and they believe better than 98% of the same things.

This is the “elephant in the room” from, as I call it, the “far side of the Tiber.” The notion that Anglicans consider themselves to be a valid expression of the “Holy Catholic Church” is beyond the grasp of so, so many of those in the RCC. It’s extremely hard for us to say “We accept you completely, although a very few of your doctrines [none related to Christ] present us with problems. But you don’t accept US, other than in a token and empty fashion.

I would not be at all surprised to see a new Vatican ruling on Anglican orders, right after the LeFebvrists are welcomed back into the fold.

FW Ken and Bill,

I am very personally aware that many Anglicans do believe they possess Catholic orders (how those who reject Transubstantiation can hold to that still escapes me though). The wife of my youth’s grandfather is an Anglican priest. He is a man that I greatly respected. His orders are very dear to him and after 50 years he is incapable of entertaining the thought that they may be invalid. I still remember when he learned of Father Al Kimel’s ordination as a Catholic priest; he felt so betrayed. I still do not fully understand why since he does not know Fr. Kimel but I do remember the pain in his voice. Orders are a precious thing; as sacred as wedding vows.

What I share now I share in hopes of giving others a new perspective. When I got home last Friday a letter from the diocese was waiting for me. It was from the Tribunal informing me that they had found in favor of my petition for a declaration of nullity. I still don’t know if this is good or bad news. Now it proceeds to the automatic appeal to a neighboring diocese.

When I said my vows I knew exactly what I was getting into and what I intended. Unfortunately it has become painfully apparent that the wife of my youth was incapable of making the same commitment. Therefore I had to take the difficult but I believe necessary steps to determine whether our marriage was valid or not. This is a decision which weighs heavily upon my soul and cuts deeper with every step.

It is especially painful to grasp the implications. If my marriage was not valid then that means that we did not have what I thought we had; we did not have a Sacramental union. It means that the bond we had was not the marriage bond. The thought of such a thing is agonizing beyond description. Yet I must follow the truth.

What has allowed me to go forward at all is the realization that even if what we had was not a true marriage does not mean that it was meaningless. I truly love her and I believe that she truly loved me. We shared and share something special that cannot be diminished even if that something is not marriage.

This is what I wrote her in the letter informing her that I was having our marriage investigated:

“In no way does this diminish the life we shared or the love we had for each other. You truly were my beloved in whom I delighted and you will always have my love. …I love you and you can be assured that you will forever occupy your sacred place in my heart; you will always be my Love. I will be there for you if you ever need me. The years we shared together were the happiest of my life and I will cherish their memory forever. I have no regrets over our life together or in marrying you. You are a truly wonderful person, a great gift from God.”

I tell you all this so that you will know from my personal experience that even if what many thought was a Sacrament was in fact invalid does not mean that it was devoid of any good. That Anglican orders are in fact invalid does not mean that their ministry is all for not. I was truly blessed in what I shared with the wife of my youth and theirs was a grace filled ministry. What they had can never be taken from them. Do not diminish it by wanting it to be what it can never be. Rather celebrate it for what it was.

James G

James,

Your comment derives from the a priori position that Anglican orders are invalid.

Hence, anything that you offer to Anglicans is charitable, understanding, and generous – from your perspective. For them, matters are more than slightly different. My basic premise remains, and you haven’t really addressed it. Anglo-Catholics readily acknowledge the RCC and the Eastern Orthodox Church, and believe themselves to be on an equal playing field. But they are met with either contempt or “polite humoring”; their position is denied, with, in general, much less respect than they offer to others. When you start from a position of “you’re mistaken or deluded, even though I love you” it’s awfully hard to be convincing when saying that you’re reaching out to try and be understanding. Someone who has been whopped over the head with a baseball bat tends to be sceptical when asked to live with their migraine.

Or, to put it another way – when you treat people like lepers, don’t be surprised if they seem diseased to you.

With the infallible (and yes, it’s one of the very few truly authentic “infallible” proclamations) declaration that Anglican orders are “null and void”, there’s not much room for maneuvering.

I read something recently that said the infallibility of this bull was questioned. This is all that I could find on it on short notice (see the Authority section at the end):

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01491a.htm

Bill,

I like you; I really do. You are an honest and charitable man and I usually agree with you. You have always been kind to us Catholics even when in the past you have been beat-up in the combox undeservedly.

But what do you want from us? You ask for what cannot be given – you want us to tear down Heaven and Earth for the sake of your position.

Yes, I come from an a priori position that Anglican orders are invalid and that is because the Church teaches so. The Church which has been teaching the Truth for 2000 years; the Church which is right even when I am wrong. I have tried in the past to go against her on what I thought were small, insignificant matters – matters of personal conscience that were no one else’s business. And I learned the hard lessons that she is always right and that I ignore her to my own peril.

Many of us would be overjoyed if we could say “Yes, your priests are the same as ours. Yes, you share in the same Sacrifice upon the altar as us.” But if it is not true than we cannot say it. Honesty must come first even if we desire so much to say a comforting lie. The Church, the pillar and foundation of the Truth has spoken and found that Anglican orders are not Catholic orders. I cannot say to you what you want to hear because even if I did it would be a lie.

I have true sympathy for you and I’ve tried to share in your plight as much as possible. I have opened my heart to try and bridge the gulf in understanding between us. But I cannot accept your position. I cannot turn from she who has given me the words of eternal life even in the face of this hard saying.

You wish to be acknowledged in the same way that you acknowledge us – but we cannot. Do Anglo-catholics acknowledge Baptist ministers as fellow priests in the Apostolic succession? Then neither can Catholics acknowledge Anglo-catholics as such. It’s not a strict apples to apples comparison but you are both still Protestants.

Continued…

Kinsman wrote in Salve Mater:

The Ordinal of 1552 was a substitute and can only be understood by comparison with what it superseded. The Sarum Pontifical, like all Catholic forms of ordination, Easter as well as Western, created Mass-priests. The essential matter in ordination is the laying on of hands with prayer; the context of this, word, and ceremonial, constitute the form showing with what special intention and significance hands are imposed. Priests are set apart to “offer,” to absolve, to bless, to preach, and to rule; but the special function emphasized by the ritual of ordination is the power to offer the unbloody sacrifice of the Mass. The special characteristic of priesthood is sacrifice. Other functions are not forgotten. The ministry of the Word as well as Sacraments was indicated in the Sarum Pontifical; there was symbolical tradition of the Bible to Bishops as well as of the Chalice and Paten to Priests; but the dominating and central thought of Catholic Ordinals is that the special function of the Christian priesthood is the offering of the Eucharistic Sacrifice.

From Cranmer’s Ordinal of 1552, as from his Prayer Book of the same date, every reference to the Eucharistic Sacrifice was expunged: there was no specific reference to the Eucharist, nothing but the vague “and Sacraments.” He retained everything that related to the ministry of the Word, and enlarged on this, defining the duties of the ministry as consisting of the study and preaching of Scripture and the cultivation of domestic virtues. He commissioned not Mass-priests but married preachers. p 175

To those who believe in Mass-priests, the determination of the relation of the English Ordinal to these is decisive. The questions, Did the Prayer Book continue the Mass? and Did the Ordinal continue the Priesthood? go together. To all, whether or not they believe in the Mass and the Priesthood as its correlative, it must be quite clear that, if Cranmer did alter the Ordinal in this respect, there was no truth in the claim that the old Orders had been continued, and that his formation of a new ministry was as radical a breach with the past as the corresponding acts of Luther and Calvin. There is no irresistible magic in the imposition of episcopal hands. pp177-178

Your desires, though not unimportant, ultimately do not determine the truth. The intentions and belief of an individual – even individual priests and bishops – does not determine the mind of their communion. You may believe that what you receive is verily the Body and Blood; an Anglo-catholic priest may intend to offer the un-bloody Sacrifice of the Mass; an Anglican bishop may truly believe that he is ordaining Mass-priests for the one, true Church but in all cases this belief is denied by your communion’s Articles, ordinals and Prayer Books. As long as one is an Anglican and holds to these Anglican distinctives then no matter how many Dutchmen have touched one’s predecessors or how blurring a prayer book revision is one is still a Protestant and protesting against the very thing they wish to affirm.

James G

I’d like to comment on the matters raised in the last 4 comments.

First, I’d like to commend Kinsman’s *Salve Mater* (1920) to all readers. Kinsman (1868-1944) was an Oxford-educated Ohio Episcopalian clergyman and church historian who was elected PECUSA Bishop of Delaware in 1908 and resigned to become a Catholic in 1919. The book is his account of his life and of the considerations which led him to make his decision, and is a fascinating read on many levels. It was republished (in a rather ugly format) in 2007 and is easily available for about $20.00:

http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?an=kinsman&bi=0&bx=off&ds=30&sortby=2&tn=salve+mater&x=41&y=17

I would also recommend, while I’m at it, Kinsman’s last book, *Reveries of A Hermit* (1936), which is a fascinating miscellany of personal reminiscence, historical/theological reflections and essays on “Agnosticism,” “Lutheranism,” (which has very little to do with Luther, but rather “religious individualism”), “Calvinism” (which really deals with “the American religious spirit”), Anglicanism (fascinating; multum in parvo) and Catholicism. It is rare, however, and there appear to be only two copies available online, both from Amazon.com:

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_1_7?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=kinsman+reveries&sprefix=kinsman

(Since James G likes my book recommendations, I would urge him to get this one, too.)

Now to Bill (not IB),

I have to ask: is your objection that the Catholic Church does not recognize “Anglican Orders” as the equivalent to Catholic (and Orthodox) Holy Orders, or that the Catholic Church does not recognize the “Orders” of Protestant ministers generally? I ask, because there have been “high-church Presbyterians” (with a capital P) who have wished from time to time to claim that such denominational bodies as the Kirk of Scotland preserved a “succession of presbyters” a the Reformation (a claim which admits of some doubt as to its truth) and that since (so the claim goes) bishops and presbyters were originally “one office,” therefore Scottish Presbyterian “Orders” are as good as those of the Anglicans or even of the Catholics. More recently, there have arisen groups of self-styled “Evangelical Catholic” Lutherans here and there, especially in the USA, at first in the ELCA (where most of them have been doctrinally conservative, but accepting of WO) and latterly in the Missouri Synod (where they have been much more “dogmatically” Lutheran and opposed to WO): these are presbyterians (small p) also, who believe that the (Lutheran) “Holy Ministry” has been transmitted through a “succession of pastors” (pastors = presbyters = bishops) ever since the Reformation, such that there “Orders,” too, are “Catholic.”

Is your objection to Roman non-recognition a purely Anglican one, or a pan-Protestant one? I ask because, if it’s the latter, it seems to sweep aside a whole Noah’s Arkload of ecclesiological, theological and sacrmental differences that are too wide even to touch one here. But if it’s specifically Anglican, then I will point out that it goes right back to the beginning: during the Marian Restoration of Catholicism (1553-58) the English bishops refused to recognize the “Orders” of anyone ordained under Cranmer’s two successive Ordinals (1550, 1552) and required those ordained under those rites who wished to minister in the Marian church and were not married to be ordained anew according to the Pontifical. As a Church of England priest-friend of mine wrote to me some years ago:

“*A Profitable and Necessary Doctrine* (1556), written by Bishop Bonner and one of his chaplains — it was a series of homilies ordered by Pole to be read in the Diocese of Gloucester in 1555 — speaks of ‘the late made Ministers … in the new devised Ordination, having no authoritie … to offer … these late counterfeited Ministers …’ Without going through all the evidence again I feel confident that Messinger and Co win that argument conclusively.” (He alludes here to the arguments in the 1930s between the English Catholic scholar Messinger and his Anglican opponents over whether the Catholic church had consistently and invariably rejected the validity of Anglican ordinations under Cranmer’s rites right from the beginning, which messinger asserted and his opponents denied.)

Rome has regarded Anglican churches right from the 1550s onwards as “Protestant bodies” in the same sense as it has regarded Lutheran churches and Reformed churches as the same sort of thing. From the 1960s Rome has recognized Anglican churches as having preserved an exceptional number and range of “Catholic features,” but it has not budged from its view that Anglican churches are the same type of species as other Reformation bodies — and frankly, I see no reason why Rome should do otherwise.

Mark Windsor,

Please read this (from 1998):

http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFADTU.HTM

and especially the seventh paragraph of section 11 (as numbered in the document itself) in it:

“With regard to those truths connected to revelation by historical necessity and which are to be held definitively, but are not able to be declared as divinely revealed, the following examples can be given: the legitimacy of the election of the Supreme Pontiff or of the celebration of an ecumenical council, the canonizations of saints (dogmatic facts), the declaration of Pope Leo XIII in the Apostolic Letter Apostolicae Curae on the invalidity of Anglican ordinations …37

the canonizations of saints (dogmatic facts),

I understand that in canonization, the Church definitively identifies the saint as a holy person worthy of emulation and honor. But what’s “dogmatic facts” mean in relationship to canonization?

While the most recent comments are clearly written with sincerity and caring, they demonstrate my point aptly.

I’m not saying that the RCC has to change anything. Far from it. As an Anglo-Catholic, my beliefs are as valid and crucial to me as yours are to you, and so I wouldn’t take it upon myself to alter RCC doctrine. But – when people forget (or are unaware) that for Anglo-Catholic clergy, there’s more to crossing the Tiber than just saying “I accept the authority of the Pope”, it requires a rejection of their previous beliefs – I have to point that out. When the notion that refuting their ministry is not a big deal is set forth, I will be vocal – because I believe that to be wrong. And when I feel I’m being patronized, I tend to speak up rather than shrug it off.

So, we have to agree to disagree. For you, it is an element of faith that “null and void” means null and void. For me, it is an element of faith that Anglo-Catholic Sacraments are Sacraments. That circle can’t be squared. Again, my issue is the way in which “null and void” is applied – with charity or with contempt. Most of the commenters here are of the “charity” variety, but there’s been a lot of the “contempt” version set forth at the news of the Vatican’s announcement.

And, I think this horse has been beat to death – as I said, the circle can’t be squared. Remember, I’m not asking anyone to *do* anything, just to acknowledge a concept – that maybe, just maybe, someone with deep faith will be conflicted when faced with the realities of making a full and true conversion from Anglican to Roman Catholic.

PS – William Tighe, in case this isn’t made clear in what I just said, my objection is purely to recognition of Anglican Orders, not Protestant. (The primary issue being Apostolic Succession, which as far as I know has not been reliably followed by others.)

Remember, I’m not asking anyone to *do* anything, just to acknowledge a concept – that maybe, just maybe, someone with deep faith will be conflicted when faced with the realities of making a full and true conversion from Anglican to Roman Catholic.

But, Bill, do you find that a lot of Catholics don’t understand the conflict? To be honest, I think it a lot more likely that, if you asked the average pew-sitter what they thought about this issue, you’d get the usual deer-in-the-headlights expression. The only people that I’ve heard from outside the internet, have been ticked that the AC clergy can be married and cradle clergy can’t.

I’ll tell you a story…

Once upon a time I used to take something of a triumphalist approach to talking to others about my faith and my church. I was a new convert, and I honestly and earnestly wanted to share it with others. I confess that I often came across with this bad attitude when challenged by people. It was something of a defensive reaction on my part. I really didn’t know my faith all that well, regardless of my zeal to share it. So, rather than taking a sensible let-me-look-that-up approach, I did the look-what-we-got-and-you-don’t approach.

After a couple of years, I realized that my sharing had been an abject failure. So I sat back and prayerfully tried to figure out why. What can I say, I’m not a rocket scientist.

What I realized, after a while, was that I had not taken into account how much the person on the other side of the conversation had invested in THEIR side of the argument. Oftentimes, I just tried to bowl them over. I stopped that entirely. Now I try to always remember that people on the other side of the Tiber have their entire spiritual lives invested in their church. This was really brought home in a conversation with a couple of Jehovah’s Witnesses one day, at my dinning room table. They couldn’t let go, no matter how much sense it made, because everything that was them – their psychology, their finances, their time, their energy – was expressed in their faith of the JW beliefs. They were their faith just as I am mine. It can be incredibly difficult to let that go. Doesn’t even really matter if you’re looking at a sacramental priesthood, or sitting in a pew for 20 years.

Maybe you’re right. Maybe this circle can’t be squared. But I’ll only agree with this idea to a certain point. I can’t square it. You can’t square it. But there’s nothing to say that the Spirit can’t. If you look to us Catholics for compassion in this, you’ll oftentimes be disappointed. Most Catholics simply don’t understand the question…and may never understand it, quite frankly.

I feel your pain, Bill. Or, at least, I understand it. I’m just not sure what balm we possess to ease it for you.

Mark –

All I can say is – Thanks.

The fact is, that “Anglican” means, originally, “English,” as in “Ecclesia Anglicana,” the English Church. My long last post shows among other things that those Anglican (= English) bishops who were for the most part colleagues and acquaintances of Cranmer (who drew up his Ordinal of 1550 to reflect his idea of what Orders and ordination meant, and altered it in 1552 to remove Cathlic elements that he had included in 1550) — bishops such as Bonner, Gardiner and Tunstall — who rejoiced in the undoing of the Edwardian “reforms” in Mary’s reign, were in absolutely no doubt about what it was that Cranmer intended and effected in his Ordinal, and that this was to abandon the Catholic theology of Holy Orders and replace it by something else. That is why they were adamant about (re)ordaining all those men ordained under Cranmer’s Ordinal who wished to serve as priests in the Marian Church: they did not consider them to be “Catholic priests.” And from the “other side” all those Elizabethan bishops and theologians who wrote on the subject agreed: Cranmer’s Ordinal’s purpose was to replace “Massing priests” with “preaching ministers.”

Later on, from about the 16teens onwards, some Anglicans began to insist that their clergy were the same thing as Catholic clergy, but not all agreed. When, for instance, Pope Leo XIII in 1896 issued his bull “Apostolicae Curae” declaring Anglican Orders invalid (in Catholic terms) and the Archbishops of Canterbury and York issued an attempted rebuttal entitled “Saepius Officio,” which argued on historical grounds that Anglican Orders were the same Orders as the Orders of the Catholic Church, and hence that AC was in error, a large group of English Evangelical Anglican clergy and theologians issued a formal repudiation of “Saepius Officio,” in which they declared that ordination to be “ministers of the Gospel” was wholly different matter than ordination to “the priesthood” as the Catholic church understood it and expressed it in its ordination rites — in other words, they agreed with Pope Leo that Anglican Orders were “invalid” in any Catholic understanding, but insisted that the Catholic understanding was erroneous and sub-Christian.

In my own historical research and reading, it appears to me that these Protestant Anglicans have by far the better historical case about Cranmer, his Ordinal and what he intended by it than do Anglo-Catholics, and so the problem for me (and for the Catholic Church) is why and on what basis should we prefer and adopt the understanding about Anglican Orders which Bill (not IB) prefers and embraces, when the evidence for the other side seems as strong if not stronger.

Perhaps it may not be amiss for me to paste here the comment that my friend Fr. Alvin Kimel just posted on this thread:

http://www.standfirminfaith.com/?/sf/page/24845/#405413

I do not “play Anglican.” I would gladly have served, though, in an Anglican Use congregation if that option had been available to me; but it wasn’t. The present state of American Catholic pop liturgy is a scandal. The Catholic Church in the U.S. needs the witness and liturgical experience of the Anglo-Catholic tradition. The proposed ordinariate now makes it possible for the Catholic Church to incorporate the Anglican patrimony into her common life. We shall see if God blesses this event.

Of course, no one should become Catholic if he cannot assent to the dogmas of the Catholic Church. Period.

That being said, I do believe that Anglo-Catholics now find themselves in a historically untenable position. If it wasn’t clear before now, surely it is clear today: Anglicanism is a Protestant society. We can argue when this decisively and irreversibly occurred, but I do not believe that anyone can contest that reality today. Parts of the Anglican Communion are liberal Protestant and revisionist; other parts (the most vital parts) are evangelical and charismatic. Within this communion, Anglo-Catholics have no future. They can only remain within it by compromising their basic principles and pretending that the theological, sacramental, and ecclesiological differences do not matter. This is insanity and spiritual suicide.

When my third son was a sophomore in college, I had to give him this counsel: “Bredon, you need to leave the Episcopal Church. Even assuming you and your future wife and children are able to find an orthodox Anglo-Catholic parish, and even if you stay within this parish until your children become adults, there will be no authentic Anglo-Catholic congregations for your children to join when they move away, as they inevitably will. What will they do then?” This, I believe, is a decisive consideration that all parents and pastors need to soberly reflect upon.

Fantasy and denial are luxuries that Anglo-Catholics can no longer afford. The Anglo-Catholic movement never intended to be a mere party within Anglicanism, yet it compromised and accepted this status. Anglo-Catholicism is now but a shadow of what it was even just forty years ago. The sub-culture that supported it throughout the 20th century is gone. It cannot be recovered. History has made its judgment.

Anglo-Catholicism needs to be re-planted in the catholic and ancient soil of either Rome or Constantinople; it cannot survive much longer within the Protestantism that is Anglicanism. Think about the future, not only your personal future but the future of your families. In 20 years time there will be few authentic Anglo-Catholic parishes for your children to worship in. Look to the Catholic Church and its Anglican Ordinariate. Look to the Orthodox Church and specifically the Western-rite option offered by the Antiochians. But look … look and prayerfully consider your future.

“Anglo-Catholicism needs to be re-planted in the catholic and ancient soil of either Rome or Constantinople; it cannot survive much longer within the Protestantism that is Anglicanism. Think about the future ……………………. look and prayerfully consider your future.”

This is part of the source of my frustration. I would truly like the Anglican Church (to be more specific, the Continuing Churches and such portion of other groups as adhere strictly to the 1928 BCP, and therefore male clergy) to be part of the structure of the Roman church, and I would gladly acknowledge the primacy of the Pope. However, there are (and please, let’s not start the “Orders” discussion again; I’ve already got enough to think about from what’s on this thread!) issues with some RC doctrine which are problematic, for me and for others – and since I believe firmly in being a faithful Anglican *or* Roman, I could never convert and just gloss over the problems, as many of the so-called “cafeteria Catholics” do.

So – I do look to the future. Sometimes it looks bright, other times bleak – but I have noticed that slowly, oh-so-slowly, movement is taking place. Five years ago, I couldn’t conceive of a way that Orthodox Anglicans could exist within the Roman Church. Now, that is about to happen. Pope Benedict has been doing a lot towards trying to gathering the Christian church that consider themselves “Catholic” together. I hope he succeeds.

Bill, if you ever want to talk through those doctrines that give you problems, don’t hesitate to let me know. I’ll be happy to help in any way that I can. I’m just an ordinary pew-sitter. No advanced degree in theology, not a deacon, heck, I’m not even a lector anymore. If I can get it, anybody can.

I’ve offered this here before. Some have taken me up on it, some haven’t. You’re call. I’m always around (and hopefully I’ve had enough coffee to get through the day…). If I can help, don’t hesitate.

markwindsor3 (+at*] yahoo.com

Mark, thanks for the offer. I may take you up on it someday. If so, we can make contact through CJ; he knows a fair bit about me, including where to find me.

And again, thanks to *all* – there’s been a great deal of time and effort put into these comments, and they offer a lot to think about.