Anglican Nuns Going Roman

[puellapaschalis]

[quote name='Veritas' post='1892594' date='Jun 16 2009, 09:13 AM']+

No, they don't have unbroken apostolic succession.[/quote]

Wellllllll, there might be some confusion about that, because of some Catholic bishops who later became Anglican. Presumably any men they later ordained would have valid orders (as opposed to the "null and void" of most Anglican clergy), and would be able to properly confect the Eucharist. That's a horrible situation, but it's one of the painful scars of disunity.

[OraProMe]

I believe Leo XIII ruled that the Rite used for the ordination of Anglican ministers did not correctly convey the sense of a sacrificial priesthood and thus the form of the sacrament was altered so much that it was no longer valid.
So even if there are valid bishops in the Anglican Chuch, if they use the Anglican Rite of ordination then it's still invalid.

[VeniteAdoremus]

I have a hard time answering here because it would be debate-like. On the other hand, I wouldn't like to take it to the Debate Table because the tone and public there tend to be very different. I don't mean to debate. I am, however, interested.

So, here goes.

I honestly want to know - this is not rhetorical and I don't have an agenda: why would a non-RC denomination care what the Catholic Church thinks of its validity? Why would you be upset if we call your Eucharist invalid?

My own Queen is a member of a denomination with a founding document that says the "popish Mass" is an "accursed idolatry". Shrug. Their loss. It would only be upsetting to me [i]if I thought they were right[/i]. In which case there also isn't a problem, really, I would just hop over to the nearest Reformed church...

[OraProMe]

The Mass an accursed idolatry? :|

Sacred Heart of Jesus, pray for us.

Also, I share a similar experience with you. My queen, and any future monarch of Australia (Britains), cannot be a Catholic. And if they convert they must resign.

Edited June 16, 2009 by OraProMe

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Luigi' post='1892421' date='Jun 16 2009, 01:40 AM']OraProMe wrote: Any soul that does not have The Anglicans do have Our Lord in the Eucharist. They believe in transubstantiation, not just the symbolism of bread & wine as the body & blood of Christ, and they have the unbroken apostolic succession.[/quote]

Pope Leo XIII disagrees with you about the validity of Anglican ordinations:

"Wherefore, strictly adhering, in this matter, to the decrees of the pontiffs, our predecessors, and confirming them most fully, and, as it were, renewing them by our authority, of our own initiative and certain knowledge, we pronounce and declare that ordinations carried out according to the Anglican rite have been, and are, absolutely null and utterly void." (Pope Leo XIII,[i] Apostolicae curae[/i], 36)

Edited June 16, 2009 by Resurrexi

[VeniteAdoremus]

[quote name='OraProMe' post='1892763' date='Jun 16 2009, 12:07 PM']The Mass an accursed idolatry? :|

Sacred Heart of Jesus, pray for us.[/quote]

Oh, they've been saying that for four centuries, you get used to it. All we can do is explain, explain, explain. It's based on the erroneous idea that Catholics think [i]Mass[/i] saves us, not the single act of Jesus dying on the Cross.

What's really unfortunate is that the only two political parties who oppose abortion both use those old texts, so I'll never be a member of a party.

[quote name='OraProMe' post='1892763' date='Jun 16 2009, 12:07 PM']Also, I share a similar experience with you. My queen, and any future monarch of Australia (Britains), cannot be a Catholic. And if they convert they must resign.[/quote]

It would be a bit weird to be head of one church and member of another We're in luck, our Crown Prince married a Catholic (even though his children are being raised Protestant). The Crown Princess even wears a mantilla to protestant services

[Grace06]

[quote name='Veritas' post='1892589' date='Jun 16 2009, 04:10 AM']+

Wow, I didn't see any name-calling before this post. I'm not sure how "bigoted" and "unkind" could be considered charitable... :-(

This poster seems to not be able to follow her own advice.

And finally, sigh, why is it when people advocate for a right and wrong and supply evidence they are then titled "bigoted" and "unkind". That is just a complete non-sequitur.

I wish the poster above, she is welcome here, but she might do well to listen a bit before calling names.[/quote]

Since I am that poster, I will reiterate that lack of charity is what I have found in some of the responses in this topic and in other topics on phatmass. I will stand by that opinion and add that as posts have continued, it has raised it's ugly head again and again. If you consider the truth unkind, then I am guilty. Did anyone even consider why I came to that opinion, rather than blame me? Was I unkind, sure, but I did apologize.

To set the record straight, I was originally responding to being called a "poor soul", but the poster edited their post, therefore my response seemed to be to everyone, which it was not.

I apologized twice, maybe three times, if I offended anyone. No one apologized to me, rather continued on the attack, even in a private message. I do try to follow what I wrote concerning kindness, but no one cared to read those words.

Being Catholic is not the only way to God. When non-catholics may reading these posts, why must so many continue to be almost insulting to these readers? I don't understand this forum, why members seem to be so absolute in their opinions. That is what I meant by unkind - there seems to be little reaching with a loving welcome.

Edited June 16, 2009 by Grace06

[OraProMe]

First, Grace06, I'd like to ask that if you respond to please address the theological aspects of my post and not let this degenerate into emotional arguing, because that doesn't get us anywhere and I am honestly interested in your responses.

[i]If you consider the truth unkind, then I am guilty. [/i]
I think I and the other members faithful to the magisterium here could say the exact same thing in response to being called bigoted

[i]Did anyone even consider why I came to that opinion, rather than blame me? Was I unkind, sure, but I did apologize.[/i]
I would sincerely love to know how you came to your opinion. My problem wasn't with your opinion that non Catholic religions can lead to salvation. My problem was that you said it was a "pre VatII" mentality. Which imples i) That Catholic doctrine can change ii) That Vatican II taught that the Church is not neccesary for salvation. Both of which are incorrect.

[i]To set the record straight, I was originally responding to being called a "poor soul", but the poster edited their post, therefore my response seemed to be to everyone, which it was not.[/i]
That was me. And to set the record straight it was not meant to be derogatory however immediately after I posted it I thought it may be interpreted that way so edited it before anyone had replied. But I suppose you were reading the original while I was editing.

[i]I apologized twice, maybe three times, if I offended anyone. No one apologized to me[/i]
*violins*

[i]Being Catholic is not the only way to God.[/i]
You're welcome to believe that and please feel free to start a thread in the debate table or open mic explaining your belief. I'd really love to see it.
But you stated that the Catholic Church taught your opinion in an ecumenical council, which is both doctrinally and factually incorrect.

[i]When non-catholics may reading these posts, why must so many continue to be almost insulting to these readers?[/i]
The faith is based on truth and reason not on emotion. That's why I asked you to consider the parable of the man that builds his house on the sand. Perhaps many of us here seem insulting but in reality a lot of phatmassers have had to sacrifice their own personal benefit to serve the Lord. One member has to remain single because she is infertile, another cannot persue her vocation to the religious life because of a medical condition, I've had to end a loving relationship with another man, one member has had to remain single because she can't attain an annulment etc. etc.
I'm just trying to show you why some members here don't seem to leave much room for emotion or feelings when it comes to the nitty gritty of the Church.

[i]I don't understand this forum, why members seem to be so absolute in their opinions.[/i]
Because they're not just our opinions. They're the infallible teachings of the Church. Like I said, my problem wasn't with your belief, it was that you tried to pass it off as a change in catholic doctrine.

[i]That is what I meant by unkind - there seems to be little reaching with a loving welcome.[/i]
prayers for you.

Edited June 16, 2009 by OraProMe

[Lil Red]

[quote name='FSM Sister' post='1892051' date='Jun 15 2009, 08:07 PM']Perhaps the best thing to do when we read a post that stings a bit would be to bear wrongs patiently and respond in kindness, not in kind.[/quote]
+J.M.J.+
how nicely said.

[Lil Red]

+J.M.J.+
this is getting moved to debate table

[jkaands]

[quote name='OraProMe' date='Jun 16 2009, 08:36 AM' post='1892944']

[i][b]One member has to remain single because she is infertile,[/b][/i]

I have never heard of this in the Catholic Church. My understanding is that intercourse has to be open to the possibility of conception, not that it is forbidden to marry if you are medically infertile. If medically infertile, you are not using artificial means to prevent conception.

Any theologians on the phorum who can comment on this?

[juchu]

I am getting a little confused here, there used to be a post I wanted to reply to, but now it is no longer there... But okay, then I will just skip it...


but another topic:


[quote name='VeniteAdoremus' post='1892745' date='Jun 16 2009, 04:59 AM']I honestly want to know - this is not rhetorical and I don't have an agenda: why would a non-RC denomination care what the Catholic Church thinks of its validity? Why would you be upset if we call your Eucharist invalid?[/quote]


I do not know if this refers to me, since I talked about Eucharist in my posting. But I will answer it from my point of view anyhow:

It is not that I care that somebody says that my faith, my soul, my eucharist is not valid. Because I truly believe it is. But claiming my belief to be true, does not necessarily give me the right to say that other ppl. beliefs are not valid. (as I gave the example with the eucharist - you have the words of instiution, the bread and wine, an ordained minister - of course, catholic Eucharist is valid (from my lutheran eyes) )

It is not only now here from the Roman Catholic side that I have heard this arguments, but rather from several protestants (especially in North America...) who do the same thing about other churches. (E.g. saying: the truth is not in the catholic church, b/c they "just pray to the saints" and do not care about Jesus, etc. and are not "saved", I guess you get what I mean... )

It is this attitude I feel sorry for. And yes, the body of Christ is supposed to be one. But all Christians have to strive for unity. I know that the RC theory of unity is that of "coming home" to the catholic church.

But this is just not how I see it working. It is like if you try to reunite a family and the grandfather says "you can always come back", but does nothing activley to promote union, dialog and understanding, with his wife, his children, etc.

Edited June 16, 2009 by juchu

[she_who_is_not]

[quote name='puellapaschalis' post='1892635' date='Jun 16 2009, 03:32 AM']Wellllllll, there might be some confusion about that, because of some Catholic bishops who later became Anglican. Presumably any men they later ordained would have valid orders (as opposed to the "null and void" of most Anglican clergy), and would be able to properly confect the Eucharist. That's a horrible situation, but it's one of the painful scars of disunity.[/quote]

Disclaimer: This is just for informational purposes. I make no statements of opinion; merely a factual recounting of my experience as a member of the Episcopal Church.

I was taught that Apostolic succession was restored when after the Union of Utrecht. The Old Catholics entered into communion with the Anglican Church and participated in the ordination of Bishops. According to an Episcopalian priest, all Anglican priests have been the recipient of valid orders since the 1960s.

This is the argument I have always heard to legitimate the Anglican celebration of the Eucharist.

[Gregorius]

[quote name='Graciela' post='1890634' date='Jun 14 2009, 08:13 PM']I hope that they will be happy, but I am little concerned about the triumphalist attitude here about their decision.

Hey, the Episcopal Church just received RC priest, Father Cutie, in Florida a couple weeks ago- his orders have not yet been received so he is still a lay Episcopalian. I don't know whether he plans to discern for priesthood in the Episcopal Church- the Episcopal Church has plenty of priests, so it would not be automatic to receive his orders.

It doesn't matter how many groups of traditional Anglican nuns become Roman- without enough priests, Rome still has a big challenge with providing the faithful with access to the Sacraments, especially Holy Eucharist, the "source and summit" of our Christian life.[/quote]
Thanks be to God that these holy women made this powerful decision! Now the good work that they had already been doing will now be official!

Fr. Cutie joined that ecclesial community on the basis that he is not really leaving the church as the Episcopal view is that they are actually part of the Catholic church by their priesthood. Um, no, they have not had a valid priesthood sine Edward VI changed their rite of ordination, no, Rome says they're not, so they aren't.
The women Fr. Cutie had been seeing is a divorced women, not annulled, so that is adultery on both their parts.
Fr. Cutie had a choice to either give her up or his priesthood up but he spat in his bishop's face and ran off to join the episcopal ecclesial community, where neither he nor the bishop told the archdiocese. It's really not a real choice at all-he's just being selfish, and he's hurting the community he claims to be attached to.

Sorry for going off topic. I'll shut up now.

[jkaands]

[quote name='Graciela' post='1890634' date='Jun 14 2009, 07:13 PM']I hope that they will be happy, but I am little concerned about the triumphalist attitude here about their decision.

Hey, the Episcopal Church just received RC priest, Father Cutie, in Florida a couple weeks ago- his orders have not yet been received so he is still a lay Episcopalian. I don't know whether he plans to discern for priesthood in the Episcopal Church- the Episcopal Church has plenty of priests, so it would not be automatic to receive his orders.

It doesn't matter how many groups of traditional Anglican nuns become Roman- without enough priests, Rome still has a big challenge with providing the faithful with access to the Sacraments, especially Holy Eucharist, the "source and summit" of our Christian life.[/quote]

This community, the ASSP (All Saints Sisters of the Poor) consists of 10 late-middle age and elderly nuns who are converting. They have one novice. They appeared to me to be isolated from the other orders. They were and probably are, dying out. Their parent group in the UK is more liberal. Their rule will have to be accepted by Rome also, reviewed, etc. which could take a long time--they may end up a diocesan order. There is no guarantee that they will be flooded by entrants, as some have predicted. When I reviewed the communities on the IRL list, members of the CMSWR, for each that appears to be thriving there are a number that just appear to be hanging on--all of them in habits. Orders mainly abroad, small regional orders no one on the forums mentions, orders, who, at least on their websites, are small and don't appear to be growing. The IRL includes a statistical profile of each order. The All Saints may end up in this group.

The other Episcopal women's orders won't convert. Several have priests and most appear to be growing or hanging on. Most wear a modified habit, interestingly. In England several have died out, others are growing, but I don't detect any tendency to convert.