8 ms·

For me, what’s it’s primarily “about,” of course, is the making present in an unbloodied manner the eternal and propitious Sacrifice of Christ, “proclaim[ing] t

For me, what’s it’s primarily “about,” of course, is the making present in an unbloodied manner the eternal and propitious Sacrifice of Christ, “proclaim[ing] the Lord’s death until he comes” (1 Cor 11:26). And in the Eucharist we receive the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ truly present under the species of bread and wine. I would imagine that our Eucharistic theologies are generally not dissimilar. But what I meant by that particular comment was that there was a fitting consonance between using bread whose proceeds went toward helping those in need and the works of love and mercy to which the Eucharistic Lord calls us. Edit: And I certainly didn’t read any dunking into your question! Anglican Eucharistic theology is sort of all over the place. The vast majority of Anglicans adhere to some understanding of the Real Presence (and the Anglican theological tradition has generally tended to exclude memorialist understandings of the Eucharist, fwiw). I tend to have a very “Anglo-Catholic” sacramental theology.

User23 4y ago
With full respect for your freedom of conscience, should you ever wish to discern whether to become Catholic the Ordinariate of the Chair of Saint Peter[1] makes retaining many if not the majority of your Anglo-Catholic traditions possible. They permit married priests and use a liturgy that is strongly influenced by the Book of Common Prayer while being in full communion with Rome. In fact, the chaplain for Catholic Answers is an Anglican priest who converted[2]. I find the segments where he’s on quite interesting. Many people are surprised to learn that there are Catholic priests who are married with children! [1] https://ordinariate.net/ https://ordinariate.net/ [2] https://www.catholic.com/profile/fr-samuel-keyes https://www.catholic.com/profile/fr-samuel-keyes
- walrus01 4y ago
  Serious question, but isn't anything that is a "married priest" not actual catholicism, as it would be recognized and approved by church HQ in Rome? I'm confused because it does seem somehow officially okay. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_Ordinariate_of_the_Chair_of_Saint_Peter?wprov=sfla1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_Ordinariate_of_the_Ch...
  - the_jesus_villa 4y ago
    Not answering your question but Patricia Lockwood (one of my favorite authors) wrote a very amusing memoir called Priestdaddy about growing up with a father who was a Catholic priest (having converted from Anglicanism I believe). The book also doesn't really answer your question, but it's fantastic despite the awful name.
  - aeneasmackenzie 4y ago
    Clerical Celibacy is a disciple rather than a dogma. It is especially prominent in the Latin rite. There are other rites in the Roman Catholic Church and some of them have married priests. When priests convert to Catholicism they are usually allowed to remain priests if they wish. They often have to be actually ordained. If they were married and ordained both stick. Neither is reversible. If they are married and "ordained" they can still be ordained.
  - bombcar 4y ago
    Married priest are rare in the Roman Catholic Church but that is only one of the 27 Catholic Churches. There are various Eastern Catholic Churches under the Pope with their own particular laws (and many have married priests).
  - User23 4y ago
    It's a totally reasonable thing to be confused about. I was baptized at a Catholic parish as a child and I only relatively recently learned of the existence of many other rites besides the Latin one. Here[1] is an article by a canonist going into some detail. The short version is there are many churches in full communion with Rome that retain their own traditions, including married priests. Theoretically even a Latin rite priest could have the discipline of celibacy dispensed, but I've never even heard of that actually happening[2]. I wouldn't be gobsmacked if it has though. [1] https://canonlawmadeeasy.wordpress.com/2007/09/20/are-they-really-catholic-part-i/ https://canonlawmadeeasy.wordpress.com/2007/09/20/are-they-r... [2] Edit: I think it is sometimes done for laicized ("defrocked") priests, but such persons wouldn't be permitted any active priestly ministry, except for a few rare exceptions like someone in immediate danger of death asking the laicized priest to hear his confession.
  - 4y ago
- cbfrench 4y ago
  For me, the primary obstacle to my joining the Ordinariate is the requirement of absolute (rather than conditional) ordinations and confirmations for people coming over from Anglicanism. To me, submitting to that would be an implicit admission that I was effectively just “playing church” for all the years I’ve been a priest. It would be to acknowledge that the sacraments (baptism excepted) that I’ve administered to my people were in some sense a sham. And yes, I’ve read Lumen Gentium, Ut Unum Sint, Unitatis Redintegratio, etc., so I know that the current position of the Vatican is somewhat more nuanced than it used to be w/r/t the grace operative among those ecclesial bodies deemed to be in “impaired communion” with Rome. There is an acknowledgement that grace (perhaps even salvific grace) is present in the sacramental acts of non-Roman and non-Orthodox churches, but it’s never really clarified what, exactly, that would mean from an ecumenical standpoint. Nonetheless, the situation doesn’t seem to have developed much since Apostolicae Curae: Anglican orders remain “absolutely null and utterly void” in the eyes of Rome. I think there are serious theological flaws with that bull, and those flaws are reified in the handling of Anglicans entering the Roman communion under the Ordinariate. It seems fundamentally anti-ecumenical. (And, I would note, there’s no reason why these ordinations couldn’t be conferred conditionally; there are at least a couple of examples of Anglicans priests—such as Fr. John Jay Hughes—who were so ordained.) After much research and prayer, I remain convinced that my orders are valid, and I cannot in good conscience consent to the repetition of two sacraments of character (namely, confirmation and ordination). I don’t begrudge anyone who examines the case and arrives at a different conclusion, who feels that the imperative of full and visible unity outweighs the qualms that I have. The situation in the Church generally is such a mess these days that we all have to pray, think, and hope for the best. So, that’s the major issue. Beyond that, I have some objections to a few of the papal claims. Plus, I’m not convinced there is much of a future for the Ordinariate. I’ll be surprised if it makes it a full generation before it disappears or is effectively suppressed, as the TLM communities have been. Maybe I’m wrong about that, and I sincerely hope I am, but I’ve gotten that sense from conversations with folks in the Ordinariate (including folks who are close to the hierarchy).
  - User23 4y ago
    > For me, the primary obstacle to my joining the Ordinariate is the requirement of absolute (rather than conditional) ordinations and confirmations for people coming over from Anglicanism. To me, submitting to that would be an implicit admission that I was effectively just “playing church” for all the years I’ve been a priest. It would be to acknowledge that the sacraments (baptism excepted) that I’ve administered to my people were in some sense a sham. I can see where you're coming from and I bet I'd feel the same if I were in your shoes. I'm just a lay Catholic who likes to read, but I also can't see any reason a conditional conferral of those sacraments should be a problem. Of course as a somewhat educated lay Catholic I'm obliged to believe what the Church teaches with respect to Anglican orders, but as you say I think there's some nuance there and I don't claim to understand the theological technicalities. Nevertheless, I think it's fair to say that we both believe Apostolic succession is of vital importance to the Church that Jesus personally founded and that we're both members of. I would however urge you to never view your current ministry as in any respect a sham, regardless of where God guides you. I do believe that some of the goofier Episcopalians are playing Church, especially the ones ordaining women and otherwise going all in on scandal of various sorts, but that's not you. Obviously I don't know you, but based on charity and your other comments I'm inclined to believe that God has conferred real and significant graces on you to aid in your ministry. > After much research and prayer, I remain convinced that my orders are valid, and I cannot in good conscience consent to the repetition of two sacraments of character (namely, confirmation and ordination). Given those conditions, your position is entirely theologically sound to my understanding and I wouldn't dream of telling you to go against your conscience. I'm no apologist so I won't try to change your mind, but know that I'll pray for you and that I wish you the most successful possible ministry. I'll also pray that the Catholic hierarchy understands and properly addresses the concerns you have and share with many other Anglicans. > Beyond that, I have some objections to a few of the papal claims There's a fair bit the various Popes have said that I also disagree with where I'm free to do so. > Plus, I’m not convinced there is much of a future for the Ordinariate. I’ll be surprised if it makes it a full generation before it disappears or is effectively suppressed, as the TLM communities have been. Yes, the current Pope's desire to enforce uniformity at the expense of unity strikes me as grossly imprudent and a huge step back from the achievements of his two immediate predecessors. It would appear that some of the hierarchy have a paranoid fantasy of sedevacantists hiding behind every copy of the 1962 Roman missal. All I can do is pray for him and them and accept that perhaps they have knowledge that I don't that makes these apparently wrong decisions make sense. But in any event, popes come and go—it's the magisterium that endures. That's not to dismiss the reality that the successor of Peter is the visible head of the Church, but I'm confident that Latin will not only retain its place in the Latin rite, but its role will continue to grow, by the grace of God. I'm a little surprised that the Ordinariate is getting caught up in that panic though. It's indisputable that no Anglican seeking communion with Rome can possibly be a sedevacantist. Similarly I'm not aware of any movement to suppress any of the eastern rites. But there's much that I'm not aware of, so take that with a grain of salt. God bless you.
4364Synapse 4y ago
I don't have much to add to the conversation, but as an Anabaptist (Mennonite), it is great to see various denominations getting along in a manner expected of us. It warms my heart, and gives me hope, that the brotherhood of God's children is alive and well.
- aeneasmackenzie 4y ago
  Well, HN is not for flame wars or religious dispute. And I don't think it would be very effective. More seriously, I think there is still hope for a full reunification. The Miaphysite heresy was resolved in 1990 after 1549 years. The Great Schism could go another 500 on that track record, and the protestants another 1000. At the rate things are going though, most denominations will just disappear from evaporation and increasingly lax doctrine long before that.
  - kjellsbells 4y ago
    > most denominations will just disappear from evaporation and increasingly lax doctrine long before that. Curious about this statement. Are you saying that doctrinal purity is required? I would have thought that Anglicanism especially tolerated an incredibly wide set of viewpoints. I still recall a one time Bishop of Durham saying that we had no right to insist on the veracity of the Virgin Birth. Is doctrinal laxity something measurable or simply a complaint the orthodox make when their fellow believers have moved away from them but are simply in the process of coalescing around a new set of principles?
    - alexvoda 4y ago
      I think purity and lack of purity are both required for a religion to be a successful meme. To much purity and the religion faces a "no true scotsman" decline resulting in schisms and deconversion To little, and it becomes too diluted to hold any significance. The way a religious macromeme manages the level of purity in an evolving social environment is natural selection at work.
    - aeneasmackenzie 4y ago

User23 4y ago

With full respect for your freedom of conscience, should you ever wish to discern whether to become Catholic the Ordinariate of the Chair of Saint Peter[1] makes retaining many if not the majority of your Anglo-Catholic traditions possible. They permit married priests and use a liturgy that is strongly influenced by the Book of Common Prayer while being in full communion with Rome. In fact, the chaplain for Catholic Answers is an Anglican priest who converted[2]. I find the segments where he’s on quite interesting. Many people are surprised to learn that there are Catholic priests who are married with children! [1] https://ordinariate.net/ https://ordinariate.net/ [2] https://www.catholic.com/profile/fr-samuel-keyes https://www.catholic.com/profile/fr-samuel-keyes

walrus01 4y ago
Serious question, but isn't anything that is a "married priest" not actual catholicism, as it would be recognized and approved by church HQ in Rome? I'm confused because it does seem somehow officially okay. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_Ordinariate_of_the_Chair_of_Saint_Peter?wprov=sfla1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_Ordinariate_of_the_Ch...
- the_jesus_villa 4y ago
  Not answering your question but Patricia Lockwood (one of my favorite authors) wrote a very amusing memoir called Priestdaddy about growing up with a father who was a Catholic priest (having converted from Anglicanism I believe). The book also doesn't really answer your question, but it's fantastic despite the awful name.
- aeneasmackenzie 4y ago
  Clerical Celibacy is a disciple rather than a dogma. It is especially prominent in the Latin rite. There are other rites in the Roman Catholic Church and some of them have married priests. When priests convert to Catholicism they are usually allowed to remain priests if they wish. They often have to be actually ordained. If they were married and ordained both stick. Neither is reversible. If they are married and "ordained" they can still be ordained.
- bombcar 4y ago
  Married priest are rare in the Roman Catholic Church but that is only one of the 27 Catholic Churches. There are various Eastern Catholic Churches under the Pope with their own particular laws (and many have married priests).
- User23 4y ago
  It's a totally reasonable thing to be confused about. I was baptized at a Catholic parish as a child and I only relatively recently learned of the existence of many other rites besides the Latin one. Here[1] is an article by a canonist going into some detail. The short version is there are many churches in full communion with Rome that retain their own traditions, including married priests. Theoretically even a Latin rite priest could have the discipline of celibacy dispensed, but I've never even heard of that actually happening[2]. I wouldn't be gobsmacked if it has though. [1] https://canonlawmadeeasy.wordpress.com/2007/09/20/are-they-really-catholic-part-i/ https://canonlawmadeeasy.wordpress.com/2007/09/20/are-they-r... [2] Edit: I think it is sometimes done for laicized ("defrocked") priests, but such persons wouldn't be permitted any active priestly ministry, except for a few rare exceptions like someone in immediate danger of death asking the laicized priest to hear his confession.
- 4y ago
cbfrench 4y ago
For me, the primary obstacle to my joining the Ordinariate is the requirement of absolute (rather than conditional) ordinations and confirmations for people coming over from Anglicanism. To me, submitting to that would be an implicit admission that I was effectively just “playing church” for all the years I’ve been a priest. It would be to acknowledge that the sacraments (baptism excepted) that I’ve administered to my people were in some sense a sham. And yes, I’ve read Lumen Gentium, Ut Unum Sint, Unitatis Redintegratio, etc., so I know that the current position of the Vatican is somewhat more nuanced than it used to be w/r/t the grace operative among those ecclesial bodies deemed to be in “impaired communion” with Rome. There is an acknowledgement that grace (perhaps even salvific grace) is present in the sacramental acts of non-Roman and non-Orthodox churches, but it’s never really clarified what, exactly, that would mean from an ecumenical standpoint. Nonetheless, the situation doesn’t seem to have developed much since Apostolicae Curae: Anglican orders remain “absolutely null and utterly void” in the eyes of Rome. I think there are serious theological flaws with that bull, and those flaws are reified in the handling of Anglicans entering the Roman communion under the Ordinariate. It seems fundamentally anti-ecumenical. (And, I would note, there’s no reason why these ordinations couldn’t be conferred conditionally; there are at least a couple of examples of Anglicans priests—such as Fr. John Jay Hughes—who were so ordained.) After much research and prayer, I remain convinced that my orders are valid, and I cannot in good conscience consent to the repetition of two sacraments of character (namely, confirmation and ordination). I don’t begrudge anyone who examines the case and arrives at a different conclusion, who feels that the imperative of full and visible unity outweighs the qualms that I have. The situation in the Church generally is such a mess these days that we all have to pray, think, and hope for the best. So, that’s the major issue. Beyond that, I have some objections to a few of the papal claims. Plus, I’m not convinced there is much of a future for the Ordinariate. I’ll be surprised if it makes it a full generation before it disappears or is effectively suppressed, as the TLM communities have been. Maybe I’m wrong about that, and I sincerely hope I am, but I’ve gotten that sense from conversations with folks in the Ordinariate (including folks who are close to the hierarchy).
- User23 4y ago
  > For me, the primary obstacle to my joining the Ordinariate is the requirement of absolute (rather than conditional) ordinations and confirmations for people coming over from Anglicanism. To me, submitting to that would be an implicit admission that I was effectively just “playing church” for all the years I’ve been a priest. It would be to acknowledge that the sacraments (baptism excepted) that I’ve administered to my people were in some sense a sham. I can see where you're coming from and I bet I'd feel the same if I were in your shoes. I'm just a lay Catholic who likes to read, but I also can't see any reason a conditional conferral of those sacraments should be a problem. Of course as a somewhat educated lay Catholic I'm obliged to believe what the Church teaches with respect to Anglican orders, but as you say I think there's some nuance there and I don't claim to understand the theological technicalities. Nevertheless, I think it's fair to say that we both believe Apostolic succession is of vital importance to the Church that Jesus personally founded and that we're both members of. I would however urge you to never view your current ministry as in any respect a sham, regardless of where God guides you. I do believe that some of the goofier Episcopalians are playing Church, especially the ones ordaining women and otherwise going all in on scandal of various sorts, but that's not you. Obviously I don't know you, but based on charity and your other comments I'm inclined to believe that God has conferred real and significant graces on you to aid in your ministry. > After much research and prayer, I remain convinced that my orders are valid, and I cannot in good conscience consent to the repetition of two sacraments of character (namely, confirmation and ordination). Given those conditions, your position is entirely theologically sound to my understanding and I wouldn't dream of telling you to go against your conscience. I'm no apologist so I won't try to change your mind, but know that I'll pray for you and that I wish you the most successful possible ministry. I'll also pray that the Catholic hierarchy understands and properly addresses the concerns you have and share with many other Anglicans. > Beyond that, I have some objections to a few of the papal claims There's a fair bit the various Popes have said that I also disagree with where I'm free to do so. > Plus, I’m not convinced there is much of a future for the Ordinariate. I’ll be surprised if it makes it a full generation before it disappears or is effectively suppressed, as the TLM communities have been. Yes, the current Pope's desire to enforce uniformity at the expense of unity strikes me as grossly imprudent and a huge step back from the achievements of his two immediate predecessors. It would appear that some of the hierarchy have a paranoid fantasy of sedevacantists hiding behind every copy of the 1962 Roman missal. All I can do is pray for him and them and accept that perhaps they have knowledge that I don't that makes these apparently wrong decisions make sense. But in any event, popes come and go—it's the magisterium that endures. That's not to dismiss the reality that the successor of Peter is the visible head of the Church, but I'm confident that Latin will not only retain its place in the Latin rite, but its role will continue to grow, by the grace of God. I'm a little surprised that the Ordinariate is getting caught up in that panic though. It's indisputable that no Anglican seeking communion with Rome can possibly be a sedevacantist. Similarly I'm not aware of any movement to suppress any of the eastern rites. But there's much that I'm not aware of, so take that with a grain of salt. God bless you.

4364Synapse 4y ago

I don't have much to add to the conversation, but as an Anabaptist (Mennonite), it is great to see various denominations getting along in a manner expected of us. It warms my heart, and gives me hope, that the brotherhood of God's children is alive and well.

aeneasmackenzie 4y ago
Well, HN is not for flame wars or religious dispute. And I don't think it would be very effective. More seriously, I think there is still hope for a full reunification. The Miaphysite heresy was resolved in 1990 after 1549 years. The Great Schism could go another 500 on that track record, and the protestants another 1000. At the rate things are going though, most denominations will just disappear from evaporation and increasingly lax doctrine long before that.
- kjellsbells 4y ago
  > most denominations will just disappear from evaporation and increasingly lax doctrine long before that. Curious about this statement. Are you saying that doctrinal purity is required? I would have thought that Anglicanism especially tolerated an incredibly wide set of viewpoints. I still recall a one time Bishop of Durham saying that we had no right to insist on the veracity of the Virgin Birth. Is doctrinal laxity something measurable or simply a complaint the orthodox make when their fellow believers have moved away from them but are simply in the process of coalescing around a new set of principles?
  - alexvoda 4y ago
    I think purity and lack of purity are both required for a religion to be a successful meme. To much purity and the religion faces a "no true scotsman" decline resulting in schisms and deconversion To little, and it becomes too diluted to hold any significance. The way a religious macromeme manages the level of purity in an evolving social environment is natural selection at work.
  - aeneasmackenzie 4y ago