NonDenom here, at a crossroads.. Catholic or Episcopalian?

[benedictaoo]

Curiously, the Vatican has spoken out on this several times, denying that that there are any Anglican priests. Obviously, an Anglican could be a priest if he was consecrated by Orthodox or some other accepted group.
http://canonlawmadeeasy.com/2011/01/20/the-validity-of-anglican-holy-orders/

I know the women "ordained" aren't valid...

 

[mark46]

Are you talking about "Old Catholics"?

No, my understanding is that "Old Catholics" are primarily a continental Church.

There were Christians in the UK long before Rome saw fit to take jurisdiction. Elizabeth I established the current CofE. BTW, Henry never really "broke" with Rome. His priests were considered priests by Rome. The succession was not considered broken under his rule. The title he used was "Defender Of the Faith", the title given to him by the pope before the refusals to grant annulments.

 

[benedictaoo]

Well, I don't know what you are talking about. And I do know that about Henry.

 

[mark46]

I know the women "ordained" aren't valid...

Agreed.

 

[thecolorsblend]

The succession was not considered broken under his rule.

That's because they were ordained before Henry broke with Rome. The fact that succession remained valid on his watch is no wonderful achievement of his.

 

[QWERTY]

Okay, I'll do your homework for you.

It took every last bit of five seconds to find this. Why it escaped you is quite completely beyond me.

But to address your point (to the extent you've even made one), the Catholic Church's modern day bishops can be traced in succession all the way back to Our Lord Himself.

Further, the Church has not "cancelled" any other communion's holy orders. She simply does not recognize, for example, that the Church of England's apostolic succession goes all the way back to Our Lord. The Catholic Church's view is the COE's succession was valid at the time Henry VIII created the COE but succession was ruptured once the COE made changes to liturgy, doctrine and other things.

Later the COE brought their doctrine, liturgy and other things back into compliance. The Catholic Church recognizes that the Anglican form is now correct but, as I said before, it was too little too late because their orders had been invalidated in the Catholic Church's eyes and no living bishops from the COE's founding still lived to provide valid succession for new priests and bishops. So the COE had the right form but lacked valid succession.

Clearly the COE believes it's apostolic succession is valid. Such is their right. The Catholic Church believes (and teaches) otherwise and such is her right.

This isn't a universal thing. For example the Catholic Church has taught that the Orthodox Church has valid orders, valid sacraments and probably valid other things too but I'm not going to do more homework for you. If you're curious about that, use Google. If you don't know how to do that, I can't help you.

Point is though nobody is "cancelling" anything.

See the part I bolded above. I think you're stuck looking only through that perspective. Being neither Catholic nor Anglican, I can see it from both sides, regardless of the doctrine/dogma of either tradition.

Hence why you tend to get caught up in semantics and legalities and miss things. For instance, the 'homework' you did for me had absolutely nothing to do with what my post's overarching point was.

The point being, the Catholic Church, from their perspective, decided that the Holy orders were invalid/ended/ceased/'cancelled' for the Anglicans. The verses I quoted, from Jesus, told us that we shouldn't get in the way of any person who is doing the Lord's work over which group they follow or don't follow, for they who do the Lord's work are with him and will not miss out on the reward.

If, from the Catholic perspective, Holy orders are of utmost importance in doing the Lord's work, why consider them invalid for the Anglicans and get in the way of them carrying out God's work?

Also, considering the above Jesus quote about the 'reward', why did it take so long for popular Catholic opinion to move away from 'only Catholics can be saved'?

It seems to contradict the overall message Jesus was giving. That was my point.

The Great Semantics Debate of 2015 wasn't necessary

Seeing that Jesus left His Catholic Church in the hands of sinners, who will, well...sin. who's else hands is He going to leave it in? Of course people will make mistakes but the deposit of faith left to His Catholic Church is never mistaken. And cool it with Roman Catholic bit... its derogatory and was created by the Church of England as a dig against Christ's true Church and it's not allowed in OBOB. Thank you! You sure the Anglicans is not a better fit or you? You seem to be more drawn to that.

I was just pointing out your double standard of saying that because the Anglican Church was involved with Evil Henry that it must be all bad, but sinners in the RCC leadership is a necessary evil and never reflects on the Church itself, and must be overlooked.

And I'm sorry if calling the Roman Catholic Church the Roman Catholic Church is insulting to you, but somewhere we have to draw the line. Surely I can call the Church by it's popular name? What if we compromise and I promise to never refer to you personally as 'Roman Catholic'? Will that compromise keep you from being offended?

Great but Jesus didn't start it, Henry did.

If the church does the work of the Lord, what does it matter? Paul didn't exactly start out the best guy in the Bible, but we don't condemn him for his past, we celebrate what he became.

 

[FlaviusAetius]

See the part I bolded above. I think you're stuck looking only through that perspective. Being neither Catholic nor Anglican, I can see it from both sides, regardless of the doctrine/dogma of either tradition.

Hence why you tend to get caught up in semantics and legalities and miss things. For instance, the 'homework' you did for me had absolutely nothing to do with what my post's overarching point was.

The point being, the Catholic Church, from their perspective, decided that the Holy orders were invalid/ended/ceased/'cancelled' for the Anglicans. The verses I quoted, from Jesus, told us that we shouldn't get in the way of any person who is doing the Lord's work over which group they follow or don't follow, for they who do the Lord's work are with him and will not miss out on the reward.

If, from the Catholic perspective, Holy orders are of utmost importance in doing the Lord's work, why consider them invalid for the Anglicans and get in the way of them carrying out God's work?

Also, considering the above Jesus quote about the 'reward', why did it take so long for popular Catholic opinion to move away from 'only Catholics can be saved'?

It seems to contradict the overall message Jesus was giving. That was my point.

The Great Semantics Debate of 2015 wasn't necessary



I was just pointing out your double standard of saying that because the Anglican Church was involved with Evil Henry that it must be all bad, but sinners in the RCC leadership is a necessary evil and never reflects on the Church itself, and must be overlooked.

And I'm sorry if calling the Roman Catholic Church the Roman Catholic Church is insulting to you, but somewhere we have to draw the line. Surely I can call the Church by it's popular name? What if we compromise and I promise to never refer to you personally as 'Roman Catholic'? Will that compromise keep you from being offended?



If they both do good, what does it matter? Paul didn't exactly start out the best guy in the Bible, but we don't condemn him for his past, we celebrate what he became.

All Henry VIII became was a heretic who spawned a schismatic who allowed one the most powerful nations to become an anti Catholic super power spreading a black legend about Catholicism through the Old and New World.

A thousand damnations to Henry and Elizabeth!

 

[QWERTY]

All Henry VII became was a heretic who spawned a schismatic who allowed one the most powerful nations to become an anti Catholic super power spreading a black legend about Catholicism through the Old and New World.

A thousand damnations to Henry and Elizabeth!

Henry VIII, you mean?

 

[FlaviusAetius]

Yes, but I'm sure you knew that already. So do you have anything to say about defending the man who brought violent anti Catholicism to the British Isles?

 

[benedictaoo]

All Henry VIII became was a heretic who spawned a schismatic who allowed one the most powerful nations to become an anti Catholic super power spreading a black legend about Catholicism through the Old and New World.

A thousand damnations to Henry and Elizabeth!

this gets a high five.

 

[QWERTY]

Yes, but I'm sure you knew that already. So do you have anything to say about defending the man who brought violent anti Catholicism to the British Isles?

I never defended Henry VIII. I merely said you can't judge an entire Christian tradition, the Anglicans, by that one man. Regardless of who started the church, if the church is a Church of God and does God's work now, it doesn't matter where it came from.
Hence why I called out benedictaoo on their inflammatory language towards that entire church body. It is an unfair attitude to have. It would be like someone judging the RCC by only the bad parts of its history instead of the plethora of good it has going for it, and saying "See that, who could be a member of that church?"

I look for the good in every Christian church, as the Lord would want me to.

 

[thecolorsblend]

Being neither Catholic nor Anglican, I can see it from both sides, regardless of the doctrine/dogma of either tradition.

...

You still don't see it, as per...

The point being, the Catholic Church, from their perspective, decided that the Holy orders were invalid/ended/ceased/'cancelled' for the Anglicans. The verses I quoted, from Jesus, told us that we shouldn't get in the way of any person who is doing the Lord's work

The stuff that has been underlined has nothing to do with the stuff that's been bolded. They are two completely different, wholly unrelated subjects. You are commingling them with one another; you should not do that.

The above is literally the simplest I can make this for you. If you still don't understand after that, I'm out of ideas on how to show you your error.

 

[benedictaoo]

QWERTY, Ah, its historical fact. And I can have what ever opinion I want to have about its origins. I simply said I'll never in a million years understand how the Cof E stands seeing how it came about. After Henry the Church England should have reunited. What the C of E is about today, I don't know seeing how there's so many beaches off it but, some braches ordaining woman and allowing open gay homosexuality among bishops. I don't know... You really have to ask why I'm not a fan? Not much has changed since Henry. But hey, if you alleign with that, why are you here?

 

[FlaviusAetius]

I never defended Henry VIII. I merely said you can't judge an entire Christian tradition, the Anglicans, by that one man. Regardless of who started the church, if the church is a Church of God and does God's work now, it doesn't matter where it came from.
Hence why I called out benedictaoo on their inflammatory language towards that entire church body. It is an unfair attitude to have. It would be like someone judging the RCC by only the bad parts of its history instead of the plethora of good it has going for it, and saying "See that, who could be a member of that church?"

I look for the good in every Christian church, as the Lord would want me to.

Hence why I pointed out the CoE anti Catholicism. If they taught heathens, their own children and everyone else they influenced that Catholics were evil Papists who needed to be watched then they are not doing the Lord's work because they stand against the Church.

Granted salvation is still possible for a Anglican just like any non Catholic, but it's not assured. If God chooses to save a non Catholic it's not out of the goodness or truth of their false religions.

 

[QWERTY]

...

You still don't see it, as per...

The stuff that has been underlined has nothing to do with the stuff that's been bolded. They are two completely different, wholly unrelated subjects. You are commingling them with one another; you should not do that.

The above is literally the simplest I can make this for you. If you still don't understand after that, I'm out of ideas on how to show you your error.

Interesting that the correlation is lost on you. Seems to me that if Catholics believe that to do the Lords work a church must have valid priests, deacons, and bishops, and if they also believe that being in full communion with their Church is the only way to have valid priests, deacons, and bishops, then the right thing to do, if we are following Jesus' lesson in Mark 9:39-40, is to not do anything that would unnecessarily impede their worship. While they had the right to stop recognizing their Holy Orders, I question whether it was right of them to, in conjunction with Jesus' teachings.

 

[benedictaoo]

And my language was NOT inflammatory towards the "whole church body" but towards the origin of the church Henry founded.

 

[QWERTY]

QWERTY, Ah, its historical fact. And I can have what ever opinion I want to have about its origins. I simply said I'll never in a million years understand how the Cof E stands seeing how it came about. After Henry the Church England should have reunited. What the C of E is about today, I don't know seeing how there's so many beaches off it but, some braches ordaining woman and allowing open gay homosexuality among bishops. I don't know... You really have to ask why I'm not a fan? Not much has changed since Henry. But hey, if you alleign with that, why are you here?

I was just pointing out that there are bad in every tradition. You're entitled to your opinion, I was just letting you know why, in my opinion, it doesn't make much sense. There have been 'bad' in both churches. You just emphasize the bad in the church you're not a member of. It's a common, human thing to do, but not very objective. Still, that is your right.

as for the underlined part:
...because I was curious about Catholicism..?

Is it wrong of me to be here if I come bearing doubts?

 

[mark46]

Granted salvation is still possible for a Anglican just like any non Catholic, but it's not assured. If God chooses to save a non Catholic it's not out of the goodness or truth of their false religions.

And salvation is also possible for Catholics, but it's not assured.

 

[QWERTY]

And my language was NOT inflammatory towards the "whole church body" but towards the origin of the church Henry founded.

Sorry, but...

It was started to justify lust and adultery. I'll never understand in a million years how that church still stands, knowing the history how can anyone be apart of that...but I digress. And Im sure I offended somebody, somewhere and this will be reported but its my opinion, how I feel. Just keeping it 100.

You brought the common people of the church into it as well. You were also worried about offending somebody... Surely not long dead Henry VIII?

All I was saying is that ALL traditions have bad in them somewhere.

 

[benedictaoo]

I was just pointing out that there are bad in every tradition. You're entitled to your opinion, I was just letting you know why, in my opinion, it doesn't make much sense. There have been 'bad' in both churches. You just emphasize the bad in the church you're not a member of. It's a common, human thing to do, but not very objective. Still, that is your right.

as for the underlined part:
...because I was curious about Catholicism..?

Is it wrong of me to be here if I come bearing doubts?

Sigh oh boy... Things always are more complicated then what they need to be.

First, so what? I get your point, but your point in pointless. So what? People are sinners and they suck in everything. The Catholic Church was still founded by Christ and Anglicans were founded by Henry. It is what it is.

And you're doubts... You can doubt till the cows come home but at the end of the day, at the end of the story the Church teaches infallibility what she does, so if you cant reconcile your personal beliefs which are immoral as per the Church teaches, what's left for you to do? No, you should not become Catholic anyway, that would not be a good recommendation.