Goodbye

[DeoJuvante]

Meh. In many ways, I'm a pragmatist. Will I be in a position to receive the sacraments from an Anglican priest in future? Unlikely. Does that mean that I should take it upon myself to judge who is or is not in valid Orders? I don't think so.

ETA: Does it matter in the scheme of things? If it should come to pass that the Anglicans and Catholics agree to enter full communion with one another then it is something that would need to be addressed. Until that time, though, it doesn't seem all that important.

 

[Fish and Bread]

Having said that, though, I should probably point out that there is at least one instance of an Anglican priest being only conditionally re-ordained because the valid ruled that in his specific case there was a chance that his Anglican ordination may have been valid. However, that was because of events that had occurred after the papal bull in question was issued.

 

[Aymn27]

Here is said list:
"Regarding historical papal documents, Catholic theologian and church historian Klaus Schatz made a thorough study, published in 1985, that identified the following list of ex cathedra documents (see Creative Fidelity: Weighing and Interpreting Documents of the Magisterium, by Francis A. Sullivan, chapter 6):

• "Tome to Flavian", Pope Leo I, 449, on the two natures in Christ, received by the Council of Chalcedon;
• Letter of Pope Agatho, 680, on the two wills of Christ, received by the Third Council of Constantinople;
• Benedictus Deus, Pope Benedict XII, 1336, on the beatific vision of the just prior to final judgment;
• Cum occasione, Pope Innocent X, 1653, condemning five propositions of Jansen as heretical;
• Auctorem fidei, Pope Pius VI, 1794, condemning seven Jansenist propositions of the Synod of Pistoia as heretical;
• Ineffabilis Deus, Pope Pius IX, 1854, defining the immaculate conception; and
• Munificentissimus Deus, Pope Pius XII, 1950, defining the assumption of Mary."

This is not taught by the Church at large - only the IC and the Assumption are ex cathedra statements that are required beliefs - now the ultra-montanists may disagree, but I think the bulk of theologians would be on my side...

 

[AngCath]

This is not taught by the Church at large - only the IC and the Assumption are ex cathedra statements that are required beliefs - now the ultra-montanists may disagree, but I think the bulk of theologians would be on my side...

you don't think the two natures of Christ are required belief?!

 

[Aymn27]

you don't think the two natures of Christ are required belief?!

oh - yes, I do - but those are not Papal pronouncements of infallibility - the only two "official" announcements excercising infallibility are the IC and Assumption of BVM - you see the Pope had no such power prior to VI, this is one of those "development of doctrine" s that the RCC says it has the authority to put in place--

 

[AngCath]

this is one of those "development of doctrine" s that the RCC says it has the authority to put in place

You apparently do not accept this idea, which is not exclusively RC.

 

[Fish and Bread]

There are a lot of beliefs to which one is technically (I say technically, because obviously many don't in practice) required to give assent to as a Roman Catholic. The vast majority of these, regardless of who's list one uses, are not considered infallible dogma as per the Vatican I definition. I thought that clarification might help the discussion a couple posts above.

 

[AngCath]

There are a lot of beliefs to which one is technically (I say technically, because obviously many don't in practice) required to give assent to as a Roman Catholic. The vast majority of these, regardless of who's list one uses, are not considered infallible dogma as per the Vatican I definition. I thought that clarification might help the discussion a couple posts above.

which is why I posted the list of instances which are examples of the Pope's infallibility so we would all see how much is NOT on it.

 

[masuwerte]

You realize, SO, that you will be asked to make a declaration like, "I believe and profess all that the Holy Catholic Church (and they mean the RCC) believes and teaches to be true." While I wouldn't agree with that statement, I wish you luck and hope everything will work out for you.

 

[longhair75]

One of the issues which led to my sudden departure from the church of Rome was Papal Infallibility. I did not necessarily disagree with the statements issued Ex Cathedra themselves, but with the very idea of this Infallibilty.

I do wish my friend SaepiusOfficio a safe journey and the hope that he finds fulfilment at the destination.

 

[pmcleanj]

You realize, SO, that you will be asked to make a declaration like, "I believe and profess all that the Holy Catholic Church (and they mean the RCC) believes and teaches to be true." While I wouldn't agree with that statement, I wish you luck and hope everything will work out for you.

You could always try "I believe most constantly in my heart, and with my mouth I confess, one holy and catholic church visible, without the which there is no salvation; and thereof I acknowledge the bishop of Rome to be supreme head in earth, whom I acknowledge to be the highest bishop and pope, and Christ's vicar, unto whom all christian people ought to be subject. ... Finally, in all things I profess, that I do not otherwise believe, than the catholic church and church of Rome holdeth and teacheth: I am sorry that ever I held or thought otherwise."

Right handed, or left?

Well, whichever, good luck on your journey (and be careful around fire, eh?)

 

[DeoJuvante]

...

Right handed, or left?

Well, whichever, good luck on your journey (and be careful around fire, eh?)

I don't understand what this means.

 

[No Swansong]

I'm sorry I brought up the Papal Infallibility issue.

Go in peace my friend.

 

[pmcleanj]

I don't understand what this means.

The quote is an excerpt from Cranmer's recantation. The full recantation is actually a fairly normative renunciation of heresy, with a few specific words addressing Cranmer's specific situation.

Cranmer, being right-handed, signed it with his right hand. But he was sentenced to be burned alive for his heresy anyway. At his execution, his judges expected him to verbally confirm his recantation: instead, he recanted it, and avowed to punish his right hand for having signed it by holding it into the fire to burn first.

A most ambiguous hero, Cranmer; one that is hard to hold up as any sort of example other than poet and liturgist. But, a role-model by which you can claim that, in recanting of Anglicanism, you are following in the best Anglican tradition!

 

[Fish and Bread]

The quote is an excerpt from Cranmer's recantation. The full recantation is actually a fairly normative renunciation of heresy, with a few specific words addressing Cranmer's specific situation.

Cranmer, being right-handed, signed it with his right hand. But he was sentenced to be burned alive for his heresy anyway. At his execution, his judges expected him to verbally confirm his recantation: instead, he recanted it, and avowed to punish his right hand for having signed it by holding it into the fire to burn first.

A most ambiguous hero, Cranmer; one that is hard to hold up as any sort of example other than poet and liturgist. But, a role-model by which you can claim that, in recanting of Anglicanism, you are following in the best Anglican tradition!

Are you suggesting he walk into a fire next? Now, that's hardly charitable of you, is it?


*Note: I'm kidding. No disrespect to anyone intended.

 

[pmcleanj]

Are you suggesting he walk into a fire next? Now, that's hardly charitable of you, is it?

No! No! No!

You see, that's the problem with Anglican tradition: you have to follow it up to the point at which it stops being reasonable, and no farther! It's all those blasted judgement calls and discernment issues that keep life (and liturgy) complicated.

 

[gtsecc]

Says nothing about being believed by the majority of the Church. And no that is not correct.

Papal Infallibility states that when a Pope speaks "ex cathedra" he is prevented from teaching error and thus his statements are infallible.

yeah...which says the same thing I said, using jargon.
And, I think you are wrong. No "infallable" statement is made up from nothing. All have been believed by the majority of the faithful well before they were declaiered.

 

[Aymn27]

yeah...which says the same thing I said, using jargon.
And, I think you are wrong. No "infallable" statement is made up from nothing. All have been believed by the majority of the faithful well before they were declaiered.

Well that certainly depends on with whom you speak - if you asked one of the ultra-montanists whether or not the teaching on Birth Control is infalliable, they would argue that it was - yet something like 80%+ of RCs practice birth control....

as far as the statments in RE to Mary - I honestly don't see the point in declaring such dogma - its addition to anything anyone needs in regards to salvation...

 

[norbie]

"You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it" (Matt. 16:18).
So what is our problem with this? How do we understand this? It's written in the Gospel. Will someone explain this to me?? I tink myself that gtsecc comes to closest in this Thread.

 

[norbie]

So, in other words, I think papal infallibility is more or less a logical tautology and the practical applications are extremely limited.
Thats right, I believe this too. There won't be any single decision at all. There would be hunderts of Cardinal discuss something for a very long time and only then would the Pope come out with it.
So we realy should be not to worry about a little thing like this,
More important to worry is that we hope the R.C Church sticks with it's teaching close to the Bible.
And this can also be said of the Sydney Anglican Church, as we said in an other post: ..and this IS the word of God!