What's the Trad Opinion On Anglicans/Episcopalians Joining the Catholic Church?
#31
(01-05-2012, 02:51 AM)SPB Wrote: Anglo-Catholics are Anglicans who considered themselves Catholic - by some invisible Church theory and some revisionist history regarding Apostolic succession.

Anglo-Catholicism has nothing to do with any 'invisible Church theory'. The believe that there are three 'Branches' of the True Church, Rome, Constantinople and Canterbury. And when it was first proposed, in the middle 19th century, it was an open question as to whether or not the Anglicans possessed valid Orders. They held (and still hold) that they do. Many Catholics held that they did as well and, in fact, the Bull Apostolicae Curae (issued 18 September 1896 by His Holiness Pope Leo XIII), declaring Anglican orders 'absolutely null and void' was occasioned by requests from Catholics for a decision in favour of the Anglicans in the hope of 'Corporate Reunion'.
Reply
#32
(01-05-2012, 03:03 AM)jovan66102 Wrote:
(01-05-2012, 02:51 AM)SPB Wrote: Anglo-Catholics are Anglicans who considered themselves Catholic - by some invisible Church theory and some revisionist history regarding Apostolic succession.

Anglo-Catholicism has nothing to do with any 'invisible Church theory'.

Apologies for my mistake. I am only passing on that which I have read and heard from Anglo-Catholics themselves and from Catholics who have written on them. My intention is not to sit in this thread and prove/argue that they adhere to such a theory, though, so I submit.
Reply
#33
I do find this "three Church" theory quite hilarious.  Rome can fall on Saint Peter.  Constantinople at the vest least may have Saint Andrew.  What the hell does Canterbury fall back on?  That's just arrogance  :LOL:.
Reply
#34
(01-05-2012, 03:03 AM)jovan66102 Wrote:
(01-05-2012, 02:51 AM)SPB Wrote: Anglo-Catholics are Anglicans who considered themselves Catholic - by some invisible Church theory and some revisionist history regarding Apostolic succession.

Anglo-Catholicism has nothing to do with any 'invisible Church theory'. The believe that there are three 'Branches' of the True Church, Rome, Constantinople and Canterbury. And when it was first proposed, in the middle 19th century, it was an open question as to whether or not the Anglicans possessed valid Orders. They held (and still hold) that they do. Many Catholics held that they did as well and, in fact, the Bull Apostolicae Curae (issued 18 September 1896 by His Holiness Pope Leo XIII), declaring Anglican orders 'absolutely null and void' was occasioned by requests from Catholics for a decision in favour of the Anglicans in the hope of 'Corporate Reunion'.

Are all their "priests" being ordained? I would assume so, since they are invalid, but it seems very unalike the modernists, just look how conditional baptisms for protestant converts have disapeared.
Reply
#35
Anglican orders are "null and void," per Leo's XIII bull, but there might be some exceptions to that rule since it seems some Anglican bishops have been ordained ever since by Old Catholics.
Reply
#36
(01-05-2012, 07:13 AM)City Smurf Wrote: I do find this "three Church" theory quite hilarious.  Rome can fall on Saint Peter.  Constantinople at the vest least may have Saint Andrew.  What the hell does Canterbury fall back on?  That's just arrogance  :LOL:.

I think they will generally tell you that the Anglican church was founded by St. Gregory the Great and St. Augustine of Canterbury.
Reply
#37
(01-05-2012, 08:34 AM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: Anglican orders are "null and void," per Leo's XIII bull, but there might be some exceptions to that rule since it seems some Anglican bishops have been ordained ever since by Old Catholics.

However, even then they would use the Anglican formula for ordination, which Leo XIII said is null and void. 
Reply
#38
(01-05-2012, 04:09 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote:
(01-05-2012, 07:13 AM)City Smurf Wrote: I do find this "three Church" theory quite hilarious.  Rome can fall on Saint Peter.  Constantinople at the vest least may have Saint Andrew.  What the hell does Canterbury fall back on?  That's just arrogance  :LOL:.

I think thy will generally tell you that the Anglican church was founded by St. Gregory the Great and St. Augustine of Canterbury.

So the anglican "church" was founded by catholics?  :LOL:
Reply
#39
(01-05-2012, 04:12 PM)Someone1776 Wrote:
(01-05-2012, 08:34 AM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: Anglican orders are "null and void," per Leo's XIII bull, but there might be some exceptions to that rule since it seems some Anglican bishops have been ordained ever since by Old Catholics.

However, even then they would use the Anglican formula for ordination, which Leo XIII said is null and void. 

Actually, IIRC, His Holiness only dealt with the Edwardine Ordinal, as, if it were defiecient, the Anglicans had lost valid Orders by the time the 1662 Ordinal was introduced. Thus, if the 1662 Ordinal was sufficient, any Ordinations by Old Catholic Bishops using it would presumably be valid.
Reply
#40
(01-04-2012, 03:50 PM)Crusader_Philly Wrote: The "trad opinion?" Whenever anyone leaves a false sect and joins the Catholic Church, outside of whih there is no salvation, the reaction must be Deo Gratias!

This.

Incidentally, has anyone seen the text for the Anglican Use Mass? It is not identical to the Anglican service, and not only in prayers for the pope, I am given to understand.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)