Reunification...

[benedictine]

Perhaps something can come of it at least......


Can a Papal Bull be repealed, BTW?

 

[PaladinValer]

Perhaps something can come of it at least......


Can a Papal Bull be repealed, BTW?

To which I repeat:

However, your church will not budge on it; the reason being that Papal infallibility is now a dogma in your church. If it were to drop it, it would have to recognize that it hasn't held Truth since Pentecost c. 33 ce.

Unfortunately, the chances of this (or its like in any church or denomination) anytime in my lifetime are so utterly remote that it is more likely that I were to be approached immediately after my PM class today with a check for $10,000,000,000.

Once something is declared dogma, it cannot possibly be wrong. Doctrine might be, but dogma can never be wrong, according to the Vatican Catholic Church, as far as I know.

Now take away Papal Infallibility and you'll recind two additional dogmas declared by popes ex cathedra: St. Mary the Theotokos' Miraculous Conception and her Living Assumption.

It's the domino effect; one goes and the rest fall.

 

[benedictine]

I didn't know a Papal Bull meant dogma. I was actually refering to the opne that effectively blocks any chance of our orders being recognized as valid by the Vatican.

 

[PaladinValer]

Perhaps not all papal bulls, but the very fact that something is a dogma means it cannot possibly be wrong according to Vatican Catholic belief, as far as I know.

 

[benedictine]

So.... Benedict XVI could possibly nullify/repeal Leo's(?) bull that declared our orders invalid?

 

[PaladinValer]

Is it dogma?

 

[Bonifatius]

Is it dogma?

I don't think it is, but certainly B16 will not repeal Apostolicae Curae. Some time ago he pointed out that the nullity of Anglican orders in his eyes is one of the eternal truths that cannot be changed - in the same way the church has declared the impossibility of ordaining women to the priesthood.

The way out of this is that we have to find a way not to repeal Ap. Curae but still to bring our two churches together. One option imho could be to find a new understanding of Apostolic Succession that leads away from only looking on the correctness of the ordinal (that's so legalistic!). And as far as I can see Cardinal Ratzinger has thought in the direction of a more holistic understanding of succession. This could be a way of getting round the stumbling block of Apostolicae curae without openly repealing it.

Greetings
Tom

 

[Dominus Fidelis]

Don't be fooled. Any reunification would involve us submitting to his authority.

What did you expect exactly? Don't you submit to someone's authority right now? Its just a question of who is in charge, no?

As far as the validity of your orders being in question...your Bishops could receive a laying-on of hands and the matter would be closed.

 

[Cjwinnit]

This could be a way of getting round the stumbling block of Apostolicae curae without openly repealing it.

The other way of course is to include as many fellow "ecclesial unions" in the consecration of our Bishops and make the bull out-of-date, a process we have started in earnest thanks to the Old Catholics and the occasional Orthodox bishop.

 

[pmcleanj]

What did you expect exactly? Don't you submit to someone's authority right now? Its just a question of who is in charge, no?

As far as the validity of your orders being in question...your Bishops could receive a laying-on of hands and the matter would be closed.

We submit to the authority of our Bishops. And because our Bishops are equal in doctrinal authority, they must gradually form consensus through the working of the Holy Spirit. And because they understand that reality, and work in the awareness that the Holy Spirit guides the Church as a body, not a single power structure, they also consider the consensus of their people in the process. No one Bishop has the power to subvert or overrule or usurp authority over that consensus-forming action of the Holy Spirit acting on the whole Body.

That's an entirely different understanding of authority than is expressed in "Don't you submit to someone's authority right now? Its just a question of who is in charge, no?". No, it's not just a matter of whose in charge.

As far as the validity of our orders being in question, yes our Bishops and Priests could all be reconsecrated and all our laity re-confirmed -- if we were to accept the lie that our Bishops aren't and haven't been Bishops and our Priests aren't and haven't been priests, and the Eucharist that has sustained us since our Baptisms hasn't really been the Eucharist.

Any one of us who wishes to submit to clerical authority and accept the debasement of our orders and sacraments has that option today. Conversion disguised as "Reunification" is still conversion, and in the case of accepting clerical hierarchicalism would still be acceptance of a false doctrine.

 

[Colabomb]

There may be hope, yet...

It would only happen if we submitted to Rome.

 

[Colabomb]

What did you expect exactly? Don't you submit to someone's authority right now? Its just a question of who is in charge, no?

As far as the validity of your orders being in question...your Bishops could receive a laying-on of hands and the matter would be closed.

Our Bishops HAVE recieved the Laying on of Hands. That is the whole point!

 

[gitlance]

I suggest that all our Roman Catholic friends who wish to question our orders read this document, the Saepius Officio:

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~ucgbmxd/saepius.htm

 

[Cjwinnit]

Our Bishops HAVE recieved the Laying on of Hands. That is the whole point!

It's a new perfume. Contradiction!.

 

[Fish and Bread]

As far as the validity of our orders being in question, yes our Bishops and Priests could all be reconsecrated and all our laity re-confirmed -- if we were to accept the lie that our Bishops aren't and haven't been Bishops and our Priests aren't and haven't been priests, and the Eucharist that has sustained us since our Baptisms hasn't really been the Eucharist.

Any one of us who wishes to submit to clerical authority and accept the debasement of our orders and sacraments has that option today. Conversion disguised as "Reunification" is still conversion, and in the case of accepting clerical hierarchicalism would still be acceptance of a false doctrine.

I think a solution to this problem might be to do with the Roman Catholics as we have asked the Lutherans to do under the terms of our agreement with ELCA in 2001. If it is the only barrier remaining to unification at some distant point in the future, I see little problem with having a Roman Catholic bishop present at all future Anglican consecrations. Eventually, we would be brought into their succession and have that as well as our own. To make it an equal concordant, we could ask that they have one Anglican bishop at every Roman Catholic consecrations as a sign of unity. That would leave them with the issue of those who were consecrated/ordained/confirmed before this future agreement who would continue on in ministry, but I have a feeling that if we ever reach the point of any sort of reunification agreement, by that point enough theological and political ground will have been covered that the RCC will recognize our orders as "most likely valid" in any event and will just want their bishops present at our consecrations "just in case".

Let's face it, though, this isn't going to happen anytime soon. I'd like unity with Rome, but not at the expense of agreeing to heresies like Papal Infallibility, Mary as Co-Redemtrix, salvation by works, etc. If we agreed to unity with Rome by accepting those sorts of doctrines, I'd quit and become a continuing Anglican or a Lutheran rather than go along with it, as I think many others would as well.

John

 

[Albion]

As far as the validity of your orders being in question...your Bishops could receive a laying-on of hands and the matter would be closed.

That, of course, is not so. First, the Roman Catholic Church would not be united with another if the faiths were different. Are you suggesting that a laying on of hands with no acceptance of Roman Catholic teachings including Papal Infallibility, for instance, would make for a reunited church and that this would be fine with the Vatican? And second, the RCC already aknowledges the validity of some other churches' bishops. Yet they remain separated, so we know that the lines of succession are not the big issue. Besides, we already know the approach to reunification because it's been worked on for many years between the Vatican and Lutherans, the Vatican and Anglicans, etc. That's to address doctrines first. Regularizing the Orders would be the LAST item to fall into place.

 

[Albion]

Everyone--

Pmcleanj's point deserves not to be forgotten here.

We do not become something we are not because the Roman Catholic Church decides to approve of us. That is their problem to solve, not ours. We already accept them as equals in Christ and in principle have no lack of union with them. They can commune in our churches. Their priests are considered valid by us. We only await them to decide to accept unity with us.

.

 

[julian the apostate]

i completely agree with albion
(heaven help me)
he is awfully anglican
pmcleanj as well

i would like to point out one little thing here, that cant be overlooked or forgotten

the vast majority of roman catholics (laity and clergy) in practice and attitude are in fact practicing

episcopalians

 

[gtsecc]

i completely agree with albion
(heaven help me)
he is awfully anglican
pmcleanj as well

i would like to point out one little thing here, that cant be overlooked or forgotten

the vast majority of roman catholics (laity and clergy) in practice and attitude are in fact practicing

episcopalians

I think this is certainly true.
But, then one could also suggest that some (not a vast majority) of Episcopalians (laity and clergy) in practice and attitude are in fact practicing Methodists.

 

[Cjwinnit]

Let's face it, though, this isn't going to happen anytime soon. I'd like unity with Rome, but not at the expense of agreeing to heresies like Papal Infallibility, Mary as Co-Redemtrix, salvation by works, etc.

I don't entirely disagree.

I think this is certainly true.
But, then one could also suggest that some (not a vast majority) of Episcopalians (laity and clergy) in practice and attitude are in fact practicing Methodists.

Ah, but Methodists are just schismatic Anglicans so.. um.. kittens?