The Church

The Anglican Question

The following piece is a collection of excerpts from a longer dialogue with an Anglican apologist named Karl.  The main subject revolves around the validity of Anglican orders but also includes issues relating to the authority of the Catholic Church. Karl’s comments are in red. Pacheco's comments are in blue.

Authority

1)

King Henry, as the Eastern orthodox Churches in 1054, was merely asserting the right to autonomy they used to enjoy before it was usurped by the Bishop of Rome.

i) Could you please offer me the specific occasion when this "autonomy" was "usurped" by the Bishop of Rome?

ii) If the Pope did not have ultimate authority in England, then why did King Henry VIII  see the need to seek and obtain a papal dispensation from Pope Leo X to marry Anne Boleyn?

iii) If the Pope did not have primacy of jurisdiction, then why did the King see the need to seek an annulment of the marriage to Catherine from Pope Clement VII?

iv) If King Henry was always the Head of the Church of England, then why were so many Catholic institutions pillaged and Christians killed for pledging allegiance to Rome?  Am I to believe that a good part of the population suddenly would suffer martyrdom (i.e. St. Thomas More and St. John Fisher) because of a presumptuous bishop in Rome?

"If I were to consent that the King is the head of the English Church, I should be guilty of tearing the seamless robe of Christ, the one Catholic Church"  (St. John Fisher).

v) Please recall that in our glorious history, there were two great man who were known as the "Apostles of England"  whose missionary zeal in the sixth century won England for Christ.  Who were these men?  St. Augustine of Canterbury, the first bishop of Canterbury, and POPE GREGORY THE GREAT whose greatest accomplishment was England's conversion.  I see no evidence of Protestant "autonomy" in early English history.  I do see, however, Catholic communion with and dependence on the Chair of Peter.
 

2)

"You look at the Byzantine empire, the emperor was practically supreme head of the Grecian Church. In Russia the Czar had as much authority over the Russian Orthodox Church, as King Henry and Queen Elizabeth II exercised over both the Church of England and the Church of Ireland. The term Anglican was not invented by King Henry, it derives from  Ecclessia Anglicana, which means Church of England. If you look at old English manuscripts, you will see the term Ecclessia Anglicana used a lot in connection with the Church of England when it was in full communion with the Apostolic See."

  Do you see?  The sovereignty of the Church must not be impugned by avaricious or insatiable kings or political rulers.  I already explained above the situation with King Henry IV and Pope Gregory VII. We're talking about the ultimate authority of the Church and where it lies - in the Bishop of Rome or the Head of State. Let me offer some other examples of how the Church refused to submit to secular encroachment:

i) The Roman emperors before Constantine bitterly persecuted the Church.

ii) The Arian heresy in the fourth century would never have gained any steam unless Emperor Constantius did not support it.  In 355 the Emperor convened a council at Milan and officially supported the Arian Creed, but Pope Liberius refused to submit to it and was exiled from Rome.

iii) Then there is the showdown between St. Ambrose, Archbishop of Milan and Emperor Theodosius (390).  St. Ambrose refused the Emperor physical entrance into the Church until he did penance for his massacre order of Thessalonica.

iv) There is, of course, the Iconoclasts in the eighth century.  They were led by the emperor, Leo the Isaurian (717-741), who ordered the destruction of all images in the churches.  His action was condemned by Pope Gregory II.

v) Then there is King Henry II's famous "Constitutions of Clarendon" (1163) which included the following RIDICULOUS provisions:

- that no election should be held for vacant bishoprics or abbacies without the king's permission;
- that no archbishop, bishop, or other clerics be allowed to leave the kingdom without the king's permission;
- that no one should be allowed to appeal to Rome without the King's approval;
- that all disputes concerning ecclesiastical offices should be decided in the king's court.

So who runs the Church anyway?  The King or the Bishops?  Well, St. Thomas Becket won this battle.  King Henry VIII would win four centuries later because of cowardly bishops.

3)

As well do not forget in 1570, it was the Pope whom broke communion with us, not the other way around.

  I think you are misinformed here.  Pope Paul III excommunicated King Henry VIII in 1538, and released the English subjects from their allegiance.  Hoping that Queen Elizabeth would eventually return to the fold and repudiate her "Act of Supremacy" (1559), Pope Pius V finally did excommunicate her in 1570.  As for Rome breaking communion with the Church of England, well...it wasn't Archbishop Cranmer who sent missionaries to Rome to evangelize Italy, and there weren't many Englishmen killed in Rome from breaking way from King Henry VIII.

4)

When Elizabeth revived the Act of Supremacy, she made some changes to it (like instead of being Supreme Head, she was now Supreme Governor) in order to be able to win autonomy for the English Church, without breaking communion with Rome. For nearly 12 years this was tolerated, until Pius IV decided to excommunicate the Church of England and Queen Elizabeth.

  Again, your view of history and ecclesiology is much different from mine.  The mere fact that any church declares "autonomy" from Rome is in its very nature an act of schism, and hence no "communion" can exist.  Pius V (not IV) did not tolerate the "Act of Supremacy" .  He only deferred his ultimate action in the hopes that she may return to the Catholic fold (since she did originally take the oath to uphold the Catholic Faith at her coronation).  When the cause was deemed hopeless, he excommunicated her in hopes that such a drastic action would bring her back, and the rest is, as they say, (schismatic) history...

5)

In the 1560's Elizabeth was invited to send her bishops to Trent, but she refused since she did not want them to be stooges of the Popes as the other bishops present at that council were. After all, Trent was the council that sent bishops back to their dioceses as mere advisors, rather than bishops!!

No bishops are stooges of the Pope, no more than the Apostles were "stooges" of St. Peter.  The Bishops who attended Trent retained, as far as I know, their authority in their diocese in union with Rome.  Please cite the reference where the Council of Trent changed the Bishops' duties to being "mere advisors".  Or perhaps, you are offering an unwarranted or baseless speculation here?  Actually, if you knew *anything* about the workings of Church Councils of the past, including Trent, and the future ones, you would not make such an absurd claim.

6)

As for how others view the validity of our orders, it is interested to note that not only do the two major bodies Roman Catholicism officially recognize as having valid orders recognize us as valid, but we are currently in full communion with two Churches who's orders the RCC considers valid. In 1922 the Patriarch of Constantinople after doing a thorough study of Anglican Orders and the continuation of the succession during the Reformation, concluded not only had the succession not been broken during the Reformation, but that Edwardine Ordinal was a valid rite for conveying holy orders (he said it contained all things necessary to convey valid orders), but also that Anglican Orders were just as valid as Roman Catholic and Armenian Orthodox Orders. Similar judgments were made by the Patriarch of Jerusalem, the Archbishop of Athens, the Patriarch of Alexandria, and other Orthodox Churches. It is true some Orthodox do not officially recognize Anglican Orders, but they base their reluctance in recognizing them, not on any defects in the Ordinal or a visible breaking in the links of succession, but on lack of full dogmatic consensus, and more recently on the ordination of women. As I said before, there was a time that when people from Orthodox countries were coming to North America they were instructed to go to Anglican churches if they could not find an Orthodox parish. At that time Anglicans and Orthodox were closer to dogmatic agreement, than the latter were with Roman Catholics, and women had not been ordained yet. Today Orthodox would not consider Anglicans their Western counterparts, although they do make the distinction between Conservative Anglicans and Liberal Anglicans.

Sure.  The Orthodox have their opinion.  The Armenians have theirs. Queen Elizabeth has hers.  And Rome has hers.  Who counts?  St. Augustine thought Rome's did: "[On this matter of the Pelagians], two Councils have already been sent to the Apostolic See; and form there rescripts too have come.  The matter is at an end; would that the error too might sometime be at an end." (Sermons, 131,10)

7)

It should be noted that not all Anglican provinces and dioceses ordain women. In the United States, at least four Episcopal provinces still resisted ordaining women, and in England even more dioceses refuse to ordain women. There are independent or Continuing Anglican Churches that separated from the Anglican Communion precisely because they did not agree with the move in the late 1970's to ordain women, and none of these Churches ordain women.

But you see.  Where is the unity even in the Anglican "Communion".  There is no unity, but there is "independence".  This arrangement is totally foreign not only to the bible which rejected "independence" (Cf. 1 Corinthians  1:10), but also in the early Church:

"...and although He assigns a like power to all the Apostles, yet He founded a single chair, and He established by His own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity.  Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was; but a primary is give to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair.  So too, all are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the Apostles in single-minded accord.  If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith:  If he desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church is built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (St. Cyprian, The Unity of the Catholic Church, 251 A.D.)

8)

However this did not come about because of the moves by both the Anglican Church of Canada and the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States to ordain women.  But what is important here is that the Roman Catholic Church was very close to recognizing the validity of Anglican orders. Any educated person that looks at the history of the Anglican Church, looks at the Edwardine Ordinal (including the Ordinal), and judges it in view of how Anglicans have always exercised their ordained ministry we will see that at no time were the ministries of non-episcopally ordained clergy recognized as valid, while Roman Catholic clergy that defected to either the Church of England or the Church of Ireland were never reordained or reconsecrated,
and always treated as if they had been ordained by Anglican bishops, so long as they denounced Rome (not their previous ordinations), and take the Oath of Supremacy.

Now why would any bishop renounce their allegiance to the See of Peter and pledge their allegiance to an unconsecrated Caesar?

"...by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient Church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul, that Church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the Apostles.  For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all Churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world; and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the Apostolic tradition" (St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, [180 A.D.]).

9)

I see blatant and biased hypocrisy here!!! Rome is just mad and bitter over what King Henry did, and the fact that we are the only so-called Protestant Church to preserve the Apostolic Succession!!!  It is amazing how much more you hate those who are similar to you, than those who differ.  I believe Rome has always been jealous of Canterbury, and it is Italian pride, over northern European desire for autonomy from the South in the Middle Ages, which has carried on to this very day!! Ask yourself, how come the Orthodox and Old Catholics, whom are just as anxious as Rome to preserve the purity of their successions, recognize our Orders and Rome doesn't?

  Karl.  As I have explained above, there is no inconsistency on the baptism/order-validation question. The Catholic Church does not hold any animosity toward the Anglican communion.  We yearn for communion with the Church of England, and we suffer because we are cut off.  We cannot sweep our difference under the rug, though, lest we sweep the Truth under it as well.

By the way, since the Church recognizes the Orthodox orders as valid, then what does that say for your 'jealousy theory’.  Perhaps you think that Rome hates the Anglican Church.  That's too bad.  I don't think so.  But to say that Rome does not recognize the validity of Anglican orders because of jealousy is absolutely nonsense.  First of all, what do we have to be jealous about?  All the King's wives?  What Church does the MOTHER OF ALL CHURCHES envy?  Secondly, the Church would be better suited, at least from a jurisdictional point of view, by declaring the Orthodox orders invalid than it would ever be with the Anglican Church.  I mean, the only way your argument can make any sense whatsoever is if you consider Canterbury more prestigious than the Eastern Sees - which is really quite preposterous.

10)

The difference is that save for the East/West schism of 1054, Canterbury and Constantinople have never been in conflict historically speaking, and relations between the two Churches remain courteous to this very day. As for Old Catholics, it was an English missionary that first brought Christianity to the Netherlands and became the first Archbishop of Utrecht! Therefore all your arguments fall before you!! You just do not want to admit you can be Catholic without being subject to the Papacy, and we Anglicans have defied you on this more than any other Christian Body. Therefore get your facts straight.

  Why would Constantinople care about Canterbury?  You, yourself, admit that the Roman Church has primacy of honour, so why should Constantinople be 'in conflict' with Canterbury, unless you are trying to suggest that Canterbury was the real center of Christianity.  Good grief!!!  Constantinople would not be in conflict with Canterbury because you both have opted for Nationalistic Churches, thereby preferring petty nationalism to the Universal Church.

11)

You must remember that we are independent from the C of E, and what ever the English Church decrees is binding on their Church only, and not the rest of the Anglican Communion. As far as I know, no Anglican Church has ever denied hell's existence. As for what the Church of England decreed, it may not be even official C of E dogma, since in order for that to be, it must be officially voted upon and received at a national synod meeting, and it has to be ratified at the synod level. Therefore we Anglicans as a whole still hold to the traditional teaching of the Undivided Church on hell. Never judge what the Church of England does, with the rest of the Anglican communion. Remember, like the Orthodox, we are a federation of fully independent national Churches, bonded together by a common heritage, and veneration for the See of Canterbury. From day one, the Anglican Church was never monolithic structure, and consisted of two independent national Churches in full-communion, recognizing the English Monarch as their Supreme Governor. Then in the late 1600's with the split between Presbyterians and Episcopalians in the Church of Scotland, came the Scottish Episcopal Church, which was (and still is) independent from the English Crown and Parliament (which is how the Anglican Church in the United States was able to secure Orders following the American revolution without pledging allegiance to the English Crown, and where the Episcopal Church got its name from), and became a third autochepholus Church in the quickly emerging Anglican Communion.

To me this is totally foreign.  Don't you find it ridiculous that another Anglican "communion" in another country can hold to an opposite belief than your own?  Is that your idea of "unity".  Is that your idea of the faith TRANSCENDING crude national borders? How can you possibly accept this arrangement?  And should Caesar have the power to break up the Church of Christ (i.e. in America)?

Let us remember, dear brother, that it was an occupant of the See of Peter and an Italian monk who ESTABLISHED the See of Canterbury.  Canterbury was and always will be under the authority of the See of Rome.  The Church is not into setting up autonomous branches.  The bible does not use such terms.  It talks about a 'tree' and a 'body' not just hacked off branches and limbs here and there.

"You shall not make schism."  (The Didache [50 A.D.], 4:3)

12)

As for ordination of women I am of the opinion of indecision. I do not see anything wrong with the principle of ordaining women, since their is no prohibition of it in the scriptures, and the early Church never authoritatively settled this issue (since prior to this century it has never been an issue), but I believe the Anglican Churches which have moved to ordain women have made a mistake which has hurt ecumenicalism, and have not taken a serious look into the issue. I also do not believe that the move to ordain women was moved by an initial desire to seek God's will, and was motivated by political correctness. I would have liked for the Anglican Church to wait, especially until this was dialogued more with Anglicans and Roman Catholics, and more particularly amongst ourselves, for it is still a divisive issue in our communion

Let us examine your views a little more closely for consistency purposes.  Earlier you were telling me that you rejected papal infallibility as a concoction by Rome, finding its thrust in the middle ages.  Here you are telling me that you can change a teaching that has always been upheld by all catholic Churches. (And the reason it has not been an issue in the past is because no culture has been so asexual as this one to propose such a change.)  So what will it be, then?  You can't have it both ways.

13)

As for what is happening in the Anglican Church, I am not totally happy. I like Lambeth's results, but since Lambeth is not binding until ratified by the national synod, the Anglican Church of Canada can ignore its resolutions. I am unhappy about the new Hymnal using inclusive language in regards to God, and I most of all despise the new plan to go in full-communion with the Lutherans by the year 2001, which will require us to recognize the validity of their orders, and accept their non-episcopally ordained clergy as equal to ours. Lutheran ministers if this concordat gets ratified at the national synod of 2001 would mean that a Lutheran minister can come into an Anglican Church without any need for an Anglican bishop to lay hands on him, and celebrate Mass for Anglicans. This is contrary both to the preface of the Ordinal and the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral Statement, which forbids going into communion with Churches not possessing bishops in Apostolic Succession. What I stand firm on is classical Anglicanism as it is stated in the BCP and believed and practiced prior to the 1970's.

This type of foolishness will never happen in the Catholic Church.  Your Church is not only disintegrating into a mishmash of religious indifferentism, it is quickly mirroring the infinite fragmentation in the Protestant sects...Like I said...No center of unity, no truth.

What kind of trust can you place in the Bishops in your Church who approved in something that both of us, mere laymen, can see is an insurmountable problem?

Come now, Karl, don't you long to belong to the Communion which hell will not overcome?  So what will it be?  Papal infallibility and a couple of beautiful Marian doctrines or anarchy, heresy, and fragmentation?

14)

I can be Eastern Orthodox in faith, yet charismatic and evangelical in worship and practice, without submitting to the big bully and dictator you call a Pope!! I am a Catholic, just not a Roman Catholic!!!!!

Well, that's the same attitude that Protestants have. You know the thinking:  me and the bible alone. For you its:  me and the first 800 years of Christianity alone.

Don't be ridiculous, Karl.   The Pope is no more of a bully than any bishop who must assert his authority when it's called for.  In what way is the Pope a bully anyway?  Because his office defined two Marian doctrines you don't believe in?  Get real.  Or is it because he has stood up to the liberals in and outside of the Church, and told them NO NO NO (and NO again) to their absurd demands on theological and moral questions, whereas your communion (and the Orthodox in some areas) has waffled again and again and is at the point of secular and Protestant saturation?  If that is what you call a 'bully', then we need more of them, and not the limp wristed bishops - Anglican and Catholic alike - who are afraid to tell the feminist and gay agenda where to go.

15)

I accept the Perpetual virginity of Mary, not because it is necessary for my salvation, but because it was defined by a valid Ecumenical Council, and if you read your Bible and put two and two together it makes sense.  Again I insist that if a belief is not integral to the Gospel, and the Gospel does not stand or fall on it, it should not be held as necessary for salvation. I divide dogmas into four categories;

Those absolutely necessary for salvation (The Deity of Christ, belief in the Trinity, the literal Incarnation and Virgin Birth, the literal substitutionary atonement on the cross and literal resurrection, the Ascension and second coming, as well as the Deity of the Holy Spirit and the divine inspiration of the scriptures).

Then there are those things I believe are generally necessary for salvation, but not absolutely (the two primary sacraments of baptism and holy Eucharist, the historic episcopate, the lesser sacrament of ordination, the decrees of the first four Ecumenical Councils, belief in the literal real presence of Christ in the Eucharist under bread and wine),

then there are things which are true and the faithful ought to know, but are not detrimental to salvation (asking Mary and saints to intercede for us, the decrees for the next three Ecumenical Councils following Chalcedon , Christ's two natures in one, existence of purgatory, etc.), and

then there are those things which may or may not be true, but either way should be free to be
accepted or rejected by the faithful (things like the Assumption and Immaculate Conception). The first three, the faithful ought to be bound to believe, with only the first two being necessary for eternal life, and the last  one's ought to be optional. My test is how integral are they to the
Gospel and whether they stand or fall.

But you see.  This is your classification.  You are depending on your own judgement to segregate doctrines as to what is "absolutely necessary" versus "generally necessary".  Let me take just two examples.  The Orthodox would not put the literal presence of Christ in the second category as you have.  They would think you are a heretic to do so.  And even a good bible believing Evangelical would rap your knuckles for putting Christ's two natures in the third category!!! You don't know the kind of quagmire you are getting into with such subdivisions (especially the two nature of Christ).

Premise:  God reveals a truth.
Premise:  We are required to believe every truth revealed by God.
Premise:  To reject a truth revealed by God is heresy.
Premise:  Formal (deliberate) heretics will not enter heaven.
Conclusion:  We are required to believe in every truth revealed by God in order be saved.

Tell me, Karl, in order to reject the conclusion, which premise do you reject?

16)

As for being in communion with the Apostolic See, I would love to be in communion with Peter, but as long as Peter keeps going on his power trips, and acting like a raging and sadistic bully, I am afraid we shall have to remain apart.

You do remain cut off, and you will continue to remain cut off until you stop your infantile rantings about the greatest Pope of all time.  Watch your tongue. You are wrong, and you will "not escape from their until you have paid the last penny".   And you are tallying up some tab!!!!
 

17)

Then you have countless other Popes that have bow beaten and threatened their opponents. Oh and good old MAD PIUS THE IX, who when calling Vatican I addressed Protestants and Eastern Orthodox Christians as if they were little children, and insulted and patronized them by telling them to repent, without addressing the past wrongs Rome committed against them!! Or what about during World War II when thousands of Serbian Orthodox Christians were tortured, maimed, and murdered by the Croatian Fascists state with Pope Pius XII full approval!! Not only that but the leader of fascist Croatia was even given a cardinal's hat!!!!

With his full approval?  Oh, you must be one of those guys that think the Holy Father was a Nazi sympathizer.  Funny how so many Jewish organizations of the day (not the modernist spin today) praised the Pope highly for his help during the war.  Of course, that does not include Einstein's great compliments paid to the Pope...and oh yeah...there was the JEWISH RABBII of Rome who converted to Catholicism because of what Pius did to help the Jews there.  He even took the Pope's first name "Eugenio" as a sign of respect for the Pontiff.  Karl, you watch too much CNN.  Ted Turner has got you wrapped around his little finger.

See more examples of how Rome has bullied non-Roman Catholic Christians, and after all the abuse and wrongs we have been put through, we are all of a sudden expected to forget it and blindly come back to Mama Rome???? I DON'T THINK SO!!! I think the Roman Church must repent of its wrongs against us.

The Pope has already apologized on a number of occasions for conduct of individual Roman Catholics.  Where have you been these past 20 years of his glorious Pontificate?  What do you want - a personal apology?

18)

Like I said in an earlier letter, if the Roman Church has always seen Anglican Orders as invalid, why did Paul IV invite Elizabeth to send bishops to Trent!! You even admitted it was true he had asked her to send bishops!! Elizabeth had sent copies of the Book of Common Prayer in Latin throughout Europe, so the Pope would have been well aware of the Ordinal, since the Ordinal was included in the BCP she sent throughout Europe! In fact, the Anglican rite got good appraisal in many parts of Roman Catholic Europe!!! If bishops consecrated according to the Edwardine rite were not real bishops, why would the Pope invite them to attend Trent???

You ask why Pope Paul IV invited English bishops to Trent.  The conclusion you draw on this issue is exactly the reason why I can't trust your critique on the other subjects we've been talking about.  Why is that?  Well, if you would have taken the time to do a little arithmetic, you would have quickly realized how the Pope could have invited VALID English bishops to Trent:

The Edwardine Ordinal was introduced in 1550.  Hence, English bishops consecrated before this year were validly, although illicitly, consecrated bishops.

Pope Paul IV reigned 1555-1559.

See the rather apparent explanation?  The Pope was asking those validly consecrated bishops consecrated before 1550 to attend Trent.  These valid bishops would still comprise the majority of the episcopacy in England during the pontificate of Paul IV.

19)

There is more to being an Anglican, than being in communion with Canterbury!! To me, being an Anglican means, believing in the principle of the Church essentially consisting of a bishop and his flock, nothing more or less!! To me, being an Anglican is opposing Papal Supremacy and Infallibility! Being an Anglican is looking back to the purity of the Catholic faith as it existed for the Church's first ten centuries, before the Western Church under the Popes, went berserk, and started adding all kinds of innovations to the faith, as Papal Supremacy and the Filioque!!!

Being an anglican is adhering to the Purity of the Catholic faith, as it was preserved and perpetuated by the early Anglican divines, without Roman corruption, which essentially is identical to the faith professed by Old Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Christians!! Being an Anglican, is professing the Catholic faith, minus Papalism!! Right now I consider myself a member of the Charismatic Episcopal Church, and I am simply waiting for a CEC parish to be established either in London or Toronto. I right now ONLY attend Anglican parishes that profess the same Traditionalist Anglican faith I profess!! As all Continuing Anglicans, I see myself as still with in the Anglican Communion, and in full-communion with all faithful Anglican provinces, dioceses, parishes, and individuals!! As far as I am concerned, I do not recognize Liberal Anglicans, nor do I see them as being a part of my communion! When the CEC spreads more into Canada, I will join it, and see it as a continuation of the Anglican Church of Canada, as it existed prior to the late 1970's!! In England, there are entire dioceses which are traditionalists, and resist the new liberal innovations!!! The Anglican Church of Canada is a Church under siege, and Traditionalists Anglicans are rebuilding her through the Continuing Anglican Movement!!!

You are proving my point splendidly, Karl.  When *you* don't agree with Canterbury, you opt out.  When you don't like even your own National Church, *you* opt out.  When you don't like your own synod (diocese), *you* opt out.  See?  It's *your* religion, not the one Jesus established as a universal one.  You leave out the teachings which *you* don’t like.
 

20)

I do want for us to be all one, however I want unity in essentials, and not dogmatic unity!!

This is nonsense.  Truth is DEFINED in DOGMA.  You do accept the DOGMA of the Trinity, don’t you?

You need to dialogue with me as an equal, and quit assuming I am unsure of my faith, and that I have nothing to stand upon!! For I do have something to stand upon!! I may not have an Infallible magesterium, but I do have an Infallible Bible

Wrong.  The bible is inerrant.  You need a living agent to make "infallibility".

seven Infallible ecumenical councils, Infallible Creeds, and Infallible Church Fathers

Wrong, no Church Father, save the bishop of Rome, has the charism of infallibility.

If you look at Church history, the Holy spirit has always spoke through majorities, and never through minorities, to the exclusion of a majority!!

Ha Ha Ha.  You don't know the foggiest about Church history.  Go look at the early heresies of the Church.  Lots of minorities there holding to orthodoxy.

Nice article on Communist China!!! If you are trying to compare it to Anglicanism and Eastern Orthodoxy, give it up!! There is no comparison between the regimes of the Byzantine Empire, Czarist Russia, and Anglican Tudor England, with Communist China! For one, the former regimes were interested in preserving and protesting Christianity, where as the latter is interested in upholding Atheism, undermining Christianity, and containing Christianity!! Henry VIII was a Christian monarch, as were the Czars and Byzantine Caesars! There is no comparison here!!

"For one, the former regimes were interested in preserving and protesting Christianity, where as the latter is interested in upholding Atheism, undermining Christianity, and containing Christianity!!"

Karl, Karl, Karl, what history have you been reading!!!  If you think the Emperors were interested in preserving Christianity, please let me know the weed you've been smoking:

Tell me , Karl, why did

- Emperor Constantine support Arianism;
- Emperor Theodosius support Nestorianism and then Monophysitism;
- Emperor Leo II support Iconoclasm.

And where did these heresies originate?  In the East or West?

Even the most fanatical and hardened Ultra-Montain Roman catholic I know at my university, whom bitterly opposes the ordination of women, believes the Pope is infallible without compromise, and believes that in the event of reunion, the authority of the Pope must be fully received, said to me after asking him whether to be subject to the Pope was necessary for salvation answered me; "I do not believe it is necessary for eternal life, but I do believe that our separated Brethren would be happier if they were in communion with the See of Peter.."!!

Karl, your "Ultra-Montain Roman Catholic" doesn't know what he is talking about.  To be a Roman Catholic means you must accept ALL defined dogmas of the Catholic Church.  He does not have the option of rejecting those less palatable doctrines because they don't suit his fancy.  That is what OBEDIENCE is all about.
 

Apostolicae Curae

1)

As for the validity of Anglican Orders, it is an opinion of the Roman Church, and is not an official dogma. The Apostolicae Curae which condemned Anglican Orders was not done ex-cathedra, and therefore was purely the opinion of Leo XIII. As well, at the beginning of investigating Anglican Orders Leo XIII was in favour of recognizing them as valid. It was only when the Roman Catholic bishops in Great Britain strongly urged him to give a negative sentence to Anglican Orders, and convinced him that to officially recognize their validity would hurt the Roman Catholic cause in England, did he have a change of heart in that matter. Anyway you cannot have two Catholic Churches in one realm, and moreover this would provide a perfect opportunity to sheep steal. The British RC bishops told Leo XIII how many Anglicans would come running to Rome if a negative judgement was pronounced. Therefore Leo XIII's judgement was not based on fact or history, and was totally influenced by politics.

  I'm afraid that you are a little too suspicious in your views here. Pope Leo XIII did hold that the orders were invalid in his papal pronouncement Apostolicae Curae in 1896.  However, it had little to do with politics.  With the decree, the Pope declared that Anglican orders were considered invalid for two basic REASONS:  the defect in the form of the Rite of Ordination and defect in the intention of the ordaining bishop.  At the present time, the pronouncement is still in force.  It is my understanding that "Ex Cathedra" pronouncements are not usually given for such things in any case.

  "Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a ‘definitive manner’, they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals.  To this ordinary teaching the faithful ‘are to adhere to it with religious assent’ which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it." (CCC, 892)

The fact that this particular issue revolves around the validity of priestly orders strikes at the heart of the Faith.  The Sacraments are the focus of our religion.  It is inconceivable that God would allow the Pope to err in such a central issue to the Faith.  If the Pope is not guaranteed from teaching error on such a FUNDAMENTAL and PRIMARY issue, then what issue can he hope to be preserved from error?

2)

The Apostolicae Curae is essentially a straw man against Anglican Orders in order to appease the RC hierarchy in Great Britain that was trying to rebuild itself!!

You've flogged this horse long enough, Karl.  That horse is so beaten up, it looks like dog meat right now.  Don't be ridiculous.  This is brainless speculation, and it certainly cannot be inferred from the tone of the encyclical.  In fact, the tone of the encyclical suggests the polar opposite of your opinion.

In fact, many arguments could be made which refute your conclusions from the very facts that you use!  Consider these two:

i)  After the pronouncement, the Anglican hierarchy would not be particularly pleased with the decision.  Would that make life for Catholics better or worse, given King Henry's Church's chummy relationship with all the King's men?

ii) The decision of the encyclical was NOT new, but merely a re-affirmation of the invalidity of the orders as the Pope rightly pointed out.  Hence, it was not a novel pronouncement.  How, then, could pronouncing the orders valid "encroach" on the  Catholic hierarchy?  Anglican clerics might have been valid priests, but the Anglican Church would still be in schism.  Are you going to suggest that droves of Catholics would jump to the Church of England BECAUSE of a positive pronouncement from Rome?  Please - don't insult me.  Catholics in England REMAIN Catholic because of their allegiance to Rome, not principally because the Anglican orders are invalid.

  Another comment on the authority of the encyclical is given here by Sydeny Smith:  "The question has been raised whether the pronouncement of the Bull "Apostolicae Curae" is or is not to be taken as an infallible utterance of the Holy See. But even if it were not it would not follow that it can be disregarded, and its eventual withdrawal confidently anticipated. What may be safely assumed is that it fixes the belief and practice of the Catholic Church irrevocably. This at least Leo XIII must have meant to signify when in his letter to Cardinal Richard, of 5 November, 1896, he declared that his "intention had been to pass a final judgement and settle (the question) forever" (absolute judicare et penitus dirimere), and that "Catholics were bound to receive (the judgement) with the fullest obedience as perpetuo firmam, ratam, irrevocabilem". Still, as a matter of speculative interest, it may be asked whether the definition is strictly infallible, and the answer may be stated shortly thus. It belongs to a class of ex cathedral utterances for which infallibility is claimed on the ground, not indeed, of the terms of the Vatican definition, but of the constant practice of the Holy See, the consentient teaching of the theologians, as well as of the clearest deductions from the principles of faith. To understand what is meant it is necessary to bear in mind the distinction between a dogma and a dogmatic fact, the former being a doctrine of revelation, the latter a fact so intimately connected with a revealed doctrine that it would be impossible without inconsistency to assert the former and deny the latter. It may be urged that the Vatican Council merely defined that the Pope when speaking ex cathedra has "that infallibility which the divine Redeemer wished His Church to have in defining doctrine of faith and morals", without going on to define the range of infallibility which Our Lord wished His Church to have. But it must be remembered (1) that the Vatican Council, had it not been forced to suspend its sittings by the outbreak of the Franco-Prussian war, intended to supplement this first definition by others which would have gone into details in regard to the object of infallibility; (2) that to suppose that Church authority can define a doctrine to be true, but cannot decide whether it is contained in or denied by any particular writing -- such as an ordination rite -- is to suppose that the power of defining doctrine is largely nugatory; and (3) that since the time of Jansenius there has been a practical consensus theologorum in holding that infallibility does extend to dogmatic facts, a judgement which would undoubtedly bring this Bull within the category of infallible utterances."
 

Anglican Ordinals: Edwardine Ordinal & 1662 Revised Ordinal

1)

Since the preface of the [Edwardine] Ordinal blatantly says it intends to do as the Church does, and you will find no where in the Ordinal that they intend to make any novel ministries, plus the form and matter of the laying on of Episcopal hands and the saying of public prayer are in it, the Edwardine Ordinal must be counted a valid rite for ordination!!

O.K. I did a little reading, and here is what I found out.

i) The new formula of Edward VI, introduced in 1549, contain the words "Accipe Spiritum Sanctum" (form) which accompany the laying on of hands (matter).  Although the subsequent completion of the form ("ad officium et opus episcopi") is performed, it occur[red] too late [over 100 years later].  In addition, the formula does NOT undisputedly assign the grade of Order or the powers of the grade of Order.  So it is a defective form.

ii) The new formula is also defective in intent because the intention of conveying the powers for offering the mass and forgiving sins is not present.  So it is not the intent of conveying on Episcopal authority that is in question, but rather revolves around the holy sacrifice of the mass and the power to forgive sins.

iii) Since another bishop must consecrate a new bishop in order for the consecration to be valid, the English Church might not have any valid bishops since the consecration of Archbishop Matthew Parker (1559).  The whole line of Episcopal succession in the English Church rests on him.  It is uncertain whether he was validly consecrated.

  You also need an appreciation of the historical context in which the Ordinal was introduced.  It is a matter fact that, in the sixteenth century, "the Catholic belief in the ordained and sacred priesthood was considered superstitious by the Reformers, and certainly the idea of an exclusive ministry within the Church was likewise rejected.  It was their belief that ministers of the Church did not possess powers beyond the congregation, but only "authority in the congregation" to teach and govern for organizational and structural purposes only.  This view of  priestly ministry is very distinctly expressed in the public formularies and private writings of the continental Reformers. In England it was certainly shared by Cranmer, Ridley, and others who with them presided over the ecclesiastical alterations in the reign of Edward VI."  The intent of the Ordinal, therefore, was not Catholic in any sense whatsoever, and therefore, the rite is defective on this ground alone.

2)

As for the power to forgive sins, I told you before, the prayer for invoking the Holy Spirit in the ordination of a priest has always mentioned the authority to remit or retain sins. Even the Edwardine Ordinal has the bishop telling the priest as he invokes the Holy Spirit that he has the power to remit and retain sins (i.e. the authority to hear confessions and grant absolution). As for the mention of the power to offer sacrifice in the Mass, what part of look at the earliest ordination rites your Church used don't you understand? You will not find one ordinal prior to the Middle Ages that mentions the power to make sacrifice. Therefore if Anglican orders are defective due to the fact they failed to mention sacrifice, than Roman orders are defective too since the earliest ordination rites do not even mention the power to offer sacrifices, but do not even mention the order being conveyed. Therefore in the light of history Roman arguments against our orders fall flat.
 
> Read the Rite of St. Hippolytus!!! It no where states or implies the power to offer the Body and Blood of Christ, nor does it state the particular order being conveyed!! There are other rites similar to this, which have been authorized by the ancient Church!! As for the Edwardine Rite, it does imply the power of priesthood!! When the bishop invokes the Holy spirit, the priest is told "Whosever's sins thou remits are remitted,  and whosever's sins thou retain, are retained.."! The power and authority  to remit and retain is a power of the priesthood, and is closely connected with the authority to consecrate the elements, and to offer Christ's Body  and Blood!!

First, it is a matter of fact that the approval of ordination rites is subject to the Roman Pontiff.  Pope Innocent I confirmed this in 416 A.D. in his letter to Decentius, Bishop of Eugubium.  He complains that "if the priests of the Lord desired to preserve ecclesiastical ordinances as they were handed down to us by the Blessed Apostles, no diversity, no variety would be found in the very orders and consecrations themselves", and adds, "Who does not know and consider that what was delivered to the Roman Church by St. Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, and is to this day kept (by it), ought to be observed by all, and that no practice should be substituted or added without being sanctioned by authority or precedent."

*  Second, it has always been the clear practice of the Church not to detract or take away from earlier ordinals. Morinus, a great authority, writes, "We deem it necessary for the reader to know that the modern Roman Pontifical contains all that was in the earlier Pontificals, but that the earlier Pontificals do not contain all that is in the modern Roman Pontifical. For some things have been added to the recent Pontificals, for various pious and religious reasons, which are wanting in all the ancient editions. And that more recent Pontificals are, the more these additions obtrude themselves. But this is a wonderful and impressive fact, that in all the volumes, ancient, more modern, and contemporary, there is ever one form of ordination both as regards words and as regards ceremony, and the later books omit nothing that was present in the older. Thus the modern form of ordination differs neither in word nor in ceremony from that used by the ancient Fathers."  So, Karl, it is the Anglican Church that has departed from the tradition of the Church.  I ask you to present one instance where an Ordinal detracts from an earlier one before the Edwardine Ordinal did so.

  But, you say, that still does not answer the objection:  if the earlier rites, like the Rite of St. Hippolytus, did not mention Eucharistic Sacrifice and the Church accepted it, then why is it considered invalid in the sixteenth century?  I respond:

-  It is a fact in the development of Christian doctrine that subsequent definitions of a doctrine or practice cannot be later omitted or ignored.  One cannot say, for instance, that the term "homoousios" in the definition of the Trinity is now an optional belief.  Nor is it an optional belief, today, that Christ is one Person, that He has two natures, and that He has two wills.  At one point in history, however, none of these beliefs had to be believed explicitly by orthodox Christians.  Likewise, if the Church added the words of ‘offering up the body and blood of Christ in the holy sacrifice of the mass’ to better define the power of the priest, then that understanding and power cannot be later denied.  Hence, the very fact that the authors of the Edwardine Ordinal OMITTED and DELETED this power for the priest from their Ordinal nullifies and invalidates the rite since the intent is clearly to STRIP the priest of this power.  If the authors of the Edwardine Ordinal had intended what the Church intended, they would not have denied or omitted an explicit and defined power of the priest which had been explicitly mentioned for centuries.

3)

Again I point you back to the Apostolicae Curae. Leo XIII did mention the 1662 Ordinal, but he did not condemn it as defective, and even goes as far as implying that it may be a valid rite. Considering the 1662 Ordinal is valid, and it was the ordinal used by the Old Catholic bishops co-consecrating Anglican bishops, than therefore the Anglican bishops consecrated by Old Catholic bishops using that rite must be counted valid bishops, and any bishops they consecrate in the future using that same ordination rite must also be considered valid. And as I said, look into the table of consecrations for any Anglican bishop in the world without exception (both those in communion with Canterbury and those separate  from Canterbury) you will find at least one Old Catholic or Polish National Catholic bishop.
 

The Revised Ordinal is still defective, Karl.  The Pope wrote: "The same holds good of episcopal consecration. For to the formula, "Receive the Holy Ghost", not only were the words "for the office and work of a bishop", etc. added at a later period, but even these, as we shall presently state, must be understood in a sense different to that which they bear in the Catholic rite. Nor is anything gained by quoting the prayer of the preface, "Almighty God", since it, in like manner, has been stripped of the words which denote the summum sacerdotium." (Apostolicae Curae, p.28)

4)

And again they were using the Revised Ordinal of 1662, which according to the Apostolicae Curae is a superior rite to the Edwardine Ordinal, and even implied it was valid. Therefore using a valid rite which does not have Rome's condemnation means that these bishops with Old Catholic Consecrators are valid bishops.

You are making an unwarranted assumption here.  As I stated above, the encyclical in NO WAY implied it was valid.  The Revised Ordinal of 1662 may be superior to the original, but that does not make it valid.

The Holy Father stated in the Encyclical (Apostolicae Curae, p.24-33): "In the examination of any rite for the effecting and administering of Sacraments, distinction is rightly made between the part which is ceremonial and that which is essential, usually called the "matter" and "form". All know that the Sacraments of the New Law, as sensible and efficient signs of invisible grace, ought both to signify the grace which they effect, and effect the grace which they signify. Although the signification ought to be found in the whole essential rite, that is to say, in the "matter" and "form", it still pertains chiefly to the "form"; since the "matter" is the part which is not determined by itself, but which is determined by the "form". And this appears still more clearly in the Sacrament of Orders, the matter of which, in so far as we have to consider it in this case, is the imposition of hands, which indeed by itself signifies nothing definite, and is equally used for several orders and for confirmation. But the words which until recently were commonly held by Anglicans to constitute the proper form of priestly ordination -- namely: "Receive the Holy Ghost" -- certainly do not in the least definitely express the sacred Order of Priesthood, or its grace and power, which is chiefly the power "of consecrating and of offering the true Body and Blood of the Lord" (Council of Trent, Sess. XXIII, de Sacr. Ord., Can. 1) in that sacrifice which is "no nude commemoration of the sacrifice of the Cross" (ibid., Sess. XXIII, de Sacr. Miss., Can. 3) . . . . The same holds good of episcopal consecration. For to the formula, "Receive the Holy Ghost", not only were the words "for the office and work of a bishop" etc., added at a later period, but even these, as we shall presently state, must be understood in a sense different from that which they bear in the Catholic rite…The history of that time is sufficiently eloquent as to the animus of the authors of the Ordinal against the Catholic Church; as to the abettors whom they associated with themselves from heterodox sects; and as to the end in view . . . . Under a pretext of returning to the primitive form, they corrupted the liturgical order in many ways to suit the errors of the Reformers. For this reason, in the whole Ordinal not only is there no clear mention of the sacrifice, but every trace of these things which had been in such prayers of the Catholic rite as they had not entirely rejected, was deliberately removed and struck out.  In this way the native character -- or spirit, as it is called -- of the Ordinal clearly manifests itself. Hence, if, vitiated in its origin, it was wholly insufficient to confer orders, it was impossible that in the course of time it should become sufficient, since it remained always what it was (i.e. of vitiated origin) . . . . For once a new rite has been initiated, in which, as we have seen, the Sacrament of Orders is adulterated or denied, and from which all idea of consecration and sacrifice has been rejected, the formula, "Receive the Holy Spirit" (the Spirit, namely, which is infused into the soul with the grace of the Sacrament) no longer holds good, and so the words "for the office and work of a priest or bishop", and the like, no longer hold good, but remain as words without the reality which Christ instituted…When anyone has rightly and seriously made use of the due "form" and "matter" requisite for effecting or conferring the sacrament, he is considered by that very fact to do what the Church does. On this principle rests the doctrine that a sacrament is truly conferred by the ministry of one who is a heretic or unbaptized, provided the Catholic rite be employed. On the other hand, if the rite be changed, with the manifest intention of introducing another rite not approved by the Church, and of rejecting what the Church does, and what, by the institution of Christ, belongs to the nature of a sacrament, then it is clear that not only is the necessary intention wanting to the sacrament, but that the intention is adverse to, and destructive of, the sacrament."

5)

then they started claiming that Parker's main Consecrator, William Barlow, was no real bishop, since his consecration was found missing from the Registrar in Canterbury.  Notwithstanding the fact that it was common to loose registrations for consecration in the Middle Ages, and several bishops whom have had their registers missing have acted and been treated as bishops, Parker's other Consecrators had their registrations in tact, and they all equally partook in the consecration as it was carefully recorded, besides attempts to say they were mere observers and not participants!! If Barrow was consecrating alone, Parker's consecration would have been uncanonical, for a minimum of three Consecrators has always been the rule in the Anglican Church, both before and after the Reformation, to this very day!! Even if Barlow acted
alone, we know from the way his contemporaries treated him, both Roman and Protestant alike, and the fact Henry had a law which would make it impossible for anyone unconsecrated to occupy a see, ordain, or take seats in parliament (all of which Barrow did), there is no doubt he was indeed a consecrated bishop, whom just happened to have his table missing from the registrar, just like his contemporary Bishop Gardiner, whom served as a bishop under both Henry VIII and Mary Tudor!!!

O.K. Karl.  Here you have it - the summary of the five central arguments for and against the Anglican Orders.  If you wish to contest any Catholic point, let me know.  I think it sufficiently disarms your arguments.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ON EITHER SIDE

BY SYDNEY F. SMITH

To some extent the proofs and disproofs cast to and fro by the disputants have necessarily been indicated above, but it will be well to summarize them here as a preliminary to an account of the Bull "Apostolicae Curae" (which see also s.v.).

1. Of the Nag's Head story nothing more need be said, as no person of intelligence now believes in it.

2. Nor is there any doubt but that Parker really did undergo a ceremony of consecration on 17 December, 1559, at Lambeth, in which the Edwardine rite was employed, and the Consecrators were Barlow, Scory, Coverdale, and Hodgkins. Machyn's and Parker's diaries prove conclusively that a consecration did then and there take place. A paper in the State Paper Office (in which the order of procedure to be followed at the consecration is drawn up by a clerk, and Cecil's and Parker's annotations are in the margin) proves that they intended to have a consecration by bishops according to the Edwardine rite, whilst there was nothing to prevent them from carrying their intention into effect. And the Commission of 6 December, 1559, issued to Kitchen, Barlow, Scory, Coverdale, and Hodgkins, shows that these, or some of them, were the prelates who were to perform the ceremony.

3. In regard to Barlow's Episcopal character, the Anglican case is that (1) although there is no record of his consecration in the "Archiepiscopal Register", this only proves that the "Register" was very negligently kept; that (2) there is no record in this "Register" of the consecrations of several other bishops, Gardiner included, yet no one doubts that these were really consecrated; and that (3) it is not conceivable that Barlow could have gone on acting as bishop for over twenty years without attention having been called by some person or other to his want of consecration. The Catholic writers, on the other hand, point out that it is not merely the absence of just a single entry in Cranmer's "Register" which stands against him, but (1) the absence of an entire set of documents which should have borne reference to his consecration if it occurred; (2) the discovery of one document which is exceptionally worded, and so worded as apparently to provide for the avoidance of consecration; (3) the views of the non-necessity of consecration which Barlow held and expressed; (4) the difficulty of assigning a date when the ceremony could have taken place; (5) and the likelihood that, as the King and Cranmer are known to have shared his views, he might have been able to keep his secret to himself and pass as a consecrated bishop. Still the Catholic writers do not maintain on these grounds that it is certain he was not consecrated, but only that it is not certain that he was, and hence, that orders derived from him, as are those of the Anglican clergy, must be considered doubtful, unless supplemented by a conditional ceremony.

4. For the sufficiency of the Anglican Rite, as it stood in the first century of its use, the defenders argue that, although it may have been undesirable to substitute this new rite for the ancient and venerable rite which preceded it, the change was within the competence of the Edwardine and Elizabethan authorities, since every national Church has authority to select its own rites and ceremonies, as long as it eliminates no element which, in the judgment of the Universal Church, is essential to validity. To this it is replied that no evidence is forthcoming to show that any such authority has ever been recognized in national Churches; that, on the contrary, though local churches have at times added further prayers and ceremonies to the rites handed down to them from time immemorial, they have, as Morinus has told us, never ventured to subtract anything that was in previous use, fearing lest in so doing they might touch something which was essential. To this the defenders reply that at least the Anglican rite has retained all that is to be found in the Roman Ordinal in its earliest known form, as well as in the Eastern ordinals, which the Holy See has ever recognized as valid; and that it must be held therefore to have retained all that can reasonably be claimed as necessary. But in the first place, though the course of theological opinion inclines to judge that the tradition of instruments and other added ceremonies in the modern Western rite might be laid aside without danger to validity, the Holy See, as has been said, feeling that in a matter of such supreme importance it is best to follow an absolutely safe rule, is loth to trust to speculative opinions, and has always required a conditional re-ordination whenever any one of the added ceremonies has been omitted. Moreover, it is not correct to say that the Anglican rite retains all those elements which the Eastern and early Western rites have in common. For what these have in common (cf. App. IV of the Vindication) is imposition of hands accompanied by a prayer in which the order to be imparted is defined either by its accepted name, or by words expressive of its grace and power, which is chiefly the power to consecrate and offer  up in sacrifice the Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ under the appearances of bread and wine. The original Anglican rite, on the contrary, contained no words whatever in the "form" accompanying the imposition of hands to define the order to be imparted. In the rite for the episcopate the consecrating bishop says, "Take the Holy Ghost"; but he does not, say for what - whether for the office of a bishop, or priest, or deacon - so much so that Dr. Lingard could suggest that it was a form as suitable for the admission of a parish clerk as for the consecration of a bishop. And so, too, with the priesthood, though in a somewhat less degree. For here the words of the "form" are, "Receive the Holy Ghost; whose sins thou dost forgive they are forgiven, and whose sins thou dost retain, they are retained. And be thou a faithful dispenser of the Word of God and of His Holy Sacraments"; whereas the power to forgive sins does not discriminate between the priest and the bishop, and besides is only a secondary and incidental, not the primary and essential, function of the priestly office. Still the defenders of the Anglican Ordinal have their further rejoinder. It is not necessary, they contend, that the nature of the order imparted should be defined by the words of the "form" taken by itself alone; it is sufficient if the meaning of this "form" is determined to a definite sense by the context, or other prayers and ceremonies which precede or follow; and they point out that in the titles of the rites -- "The form of ordering Priests" and "The form of consecrating an Archbishop or Bishop" - in the presentation of the candidates, and in several of the prayers, the needful mention of the order to be imparted is declared. Moreover, they refer to a decision of the Holy Office, 9 April, 1704, in regard to some Abyssinian ordinations, as witnessing that the Holy See itself has recognized the words, "Take the Holy Ghost", to be sufficient, when said with the imposition of hands, if the remainder of the rite is sufficiently determinate. But, in the first place, as regards this Abyssinian case, its nature has been misapprehended, as may be seen from the documents published by Father Brandi, in his "Roma e Canterbury". In the second place, none of the rites, ancient or modern, which the Holy See has ever recognized lends any support to this theory of an indeterminate form determined by a remote context. In the third place, it is contrary to the analogy of all the other sacraments and is unreasonable in itself. It is as if, writes Cardinal Segna (Revue Anglo-Romaine, 29 February, 1896), in a wedding ceremony, "the bride and bridegroom should stand at the altar and in many an eloquent phrase declare their mutual love, but when the moment has arrived for pronouncing the decisive word "I will"; should "shut their lips in stubborn silence." And in the fourth place, the remote context, instead of determining the words, "Receive the Holy Ghost", to signify the bestowal of a true priesthood, determines them to an exactly opposite sense. It is true that the traditional names of the three orders occur in places, but, as explained at the head of this article, these names at the Reformation were often used in a sense from which all notion of the priesthood and its mystical powers had been drained off. That this was the sense in which they were intended by those who framed and authorized the Edwardine rites is proved by the statements of classical Anglican writers like Hooker, who defend the retention of the old names on the plea that "as for the people, when they hear the name [priest] it draweth no more their minds to any cogitation of sacrifice than the name of a senator or of an alderman causeth them to think upon old age, or to imagine that every one so termed must needs be ancient because years were respected in the nomination of both" (Eccles. Polity, V, lxxviii, 2). There is, moreover, the broad fact that, when the old and the new rite are compared, it appears that the difference lies just in this: that the framers of the new have cut out all that in the old gave expression to the idea of a mystic sacerdotium in the Catholic sense of the term. There is also the connected fact that the introduction of the Edwardine Ordinal was the outcome of the same general movement which led to the pulling down of the altars and the substitution of communion tables, in order that, as Ridley expressed it, "the form of a table shall more move the simple people from the superstitious opinions of the Popish mass unto the right use of the Lord's supper".

5. According to Catholic doctrine, it is necessary for validity that the minister of a sacrament should not only employ a proper form, but should also have a proper intention. Thus Pole, in his instructions to the Bishop of Norwich (which Leo XIII cites in his Bull of condemnation), tells him to treat as not validly consecrated those pretending bishops in whose previous consecration ceremonies "the form and intention of the Church had not been observed", thereby  implying that this double defect was present in the Edwardine consecrations. On this point the defenders of Anglican orders urge that (1) to admit that the mental intentions of the minister can affect the validity of the Sacrament is to involve in uncertainty all ordinations whatever -- for how are we to know what internal lapses or deflections from the due intention may not have been secretly made by those on whose acts the orders of whole generations of Christian ministers have been dependent? -- and (2) even granting this doctrine of intention, no defect of due intention should be imputed to the Anglican prelates of any generation, since, according to theologians like Bellarmine, even an heretical minister's intention is sufficient as long as it is a general intention to do what Christ does or His true Church does, whatever this may be. But, it is replied, it is impossible not to recognize that the minister's intention is an essential element. Why, for instance, is there a valid consecration at Mass when the priest pronounces the words, "This is my Body", but no valid consecration when he pronounces the same words in the presence of bread whilst reading from St. Matthew's Gospel in a community refectory? Still the Church trusts to the Providence of God to watch over all such defective intentions as are not externally manifested, and assumes that the minister's intention is correct in every serious administration of her own rites, even when he is -- like Cranmer, for instance -- a person of heterodox opinions. Where, however, a defective intention is manifested externally, she must deal with it, and that is what has happened in respect to the Anglican ordinations. The rite, as has been explained, was altered in Edward VI's time to give expression to a heterodox belief concerning the nature of Holy Orders, and was likewise adopted in this sense by the Elizabethan authorities. When, then, they proceeded to administer it, the only reasonable interpretation of their action was that they conformed their intention to their rite, and hence that, from a Catholic point of view, their acts were invalid on a twofold ground: the defect of the form and the defect of the intention.

6)

  When arguments against whether Parker was properly consecrated or whether his Consecrators were really consecrated bishops died out, then and only then, did the arguments shift to the rite itself. The first instance of this occurred in the 18th century! Note that all these attacks on Anglican Orders happened only after the deaths of the makers of the Ordinal, and the bishops in question, whom Anglican Orders primarily derive from??

Well, that's not entirely true.  The encyclical notes that there were many such complaints against the ordinal.  As well, there is other evidence that the ordinal was rejected from the very beginning:

- from the letters of Julius III and Paul IV, and the sense in which they were taken by Cardinal Pole, for these letters direct that all recipients of Edwardine Orders shall, if accepted for the Church's ministry, be ordained afresh;

- from a comparison between the Edwardine and Marian registers which reveals several double entries of names of persons who received first Edwardine and afterwards Catholic ordination;

- from the course taken in punishing recalcitrant Edwardine ecclesiastics, in the ceremony of whose degradation no account was taken of their Edwardine orders.

The Holy See judged these orders to be invalid, for it sent directions to Pole to treat them as non-existent. It briefly notes one case occurring in the 17th century:

17. We adduce two cases of this kind out of many which have from time to time been submitted to the Supreme Council of the Holy Office. The first was (in 1684) of a certain French Calvinist, and the other (in 1704) of John Clement Gordon, both of whom had received their orders  according to the Edwardine ritual.

18. In the first case, after a searching investigation, the Consultors, not a few in number, gave in writing their answers or as they call it, their vota and the rest unanimously agreed with their conclusion, "for the invalidity of the Ordination..."
 

7)

Pope John XXIII, Pope Paul VI, to a lesser degree, John Paul II, and many Roman Catholics, have on the fact Anglican orders are valid, and at least those Anglican churches and dioceses which have not ordained females.

No, Karl.  None of the actions or words of the Popes even HINT at recognizing the validity of Anglican Orders.  You are confusing charity on the part of the Popes with concurrence with doctrine.  But if you think you have a case, the onus is on you to provide the conclusive proof of recognition of the Anglican Orders.

The two examples that you do cite fall considerably short. The fact that Pope Paul VI had actually accepted a "chalice" from the Archbishop of Canterbury proves as much as Pope JPII accepting a walking cane from Clinton during his 1993 visit to the U.S.  You also point out that Paul VI allowed the Archbishop to bless the crowds.  This also proves very little, and once again shows your rash judgement in the conclusions you draw.  "...every baptized person is called to be a 'blessing' and to bless.  Hence lay people may preside at certain blessings..."  (Catechism of the Catholic Church, p.1669)

8)

But back to topic here!! I know John has asked me before to produce the 1981 ARCIC Report on Baptism, Eucharist, and Christian Ministry, so here it goes! Before we start, remember that the Roman Catholic delegation had full Papal authority!! They were there to represent the official position of the Roman Catholic magesterium, and would not make any statements that clearly contradicted or undermined any infallible dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church, which were binding,  unquestionable, and not subject to recall!! Also to be noted Pope Paul VI on Apr  29, 1977, gave his full approval of the reports findings and statements!! If they were going against an infallible dogma of the Roman Church, it would be very irresponsible for a Pope to endorse heresy, wouldn't it?? I am going to prove to you that your statements on the "perpetual" invalidity of Anglican Orders are false and unfounded, and that the Apostolicae Curae is not infallible and eternally binding on the Roman Catholic faithful, and it is indeed subject to recall, if new data can be found proving it wanting!! Certainly the unanimous recognition of Anglican Orders by Churches, Rome deems as having valid orders, can be one of these new dates?? But on to the quote from the report!! This is taken out of section 6 of the Elucidation (1979), which can be found in the section on Ministry and Ordination!

"In answer to the questions concerning the significance of the Agreed Statements for the mutual recognition of ministry, the Commission has affirmed that a consensus has been reached that places the questions  in a new context (cf. Para. 17). It believes that our agreement on essentials of Eucharistic faith with regard to the sacramental  presence of Christ and the sacrificial dimension of the Eucharist, and on the nature and purpose of priesthood, ordination, and apostolic succession, is the new context in which the questions should be now discussed. This calls for a REAPPRAISAL (emphasis mine) of the verdict on Anglican Orders in  Apostolicae Curae (1896).

Mutual recognition presupposes acceptance of the Apostolicity  of each other's ministry. The Commission believes that its agreements  have demonstrated a consensus in faith on Eucharist and ministry which has brought closer the possibility of such acceptance. It hopes  that its own conviction will be shared by members of both our communions; but mutual recognition can be only achieved by the decision of our authorities. It has been our mandate to offer to them the BASIS (my emphasis again) upon which they may make this decision.

  I don’t know of the comments by Paul VI, but given your previous blunders, I am hardly going to accept your word for it.  The ARCIC’s Eucharistic document was met with considerable criticism from both sides.  And your references above hardly prove that the commission recognized the validity of Anglican orders, and even if it did, it would be only academics giving their opinion - hardly a pronouncement from the Magisterium.

  Let me help you out with ARCIC.  Even if the ARCIC came out in support of recognizing the validity of Anglican orders, it is meaningless because:

- the Pope never sanctioned the conclusions of it (and this was even before women's ordination became an issue).  You do concede that a commission does not speak for official Roman Catholic teaching unless it is ratified by the Pope, don't you?  A group of theologians inclined to the Anglican position hardly speaks definitively for the Church’s Magisterium.

- a commission's findings prove very little.  A "commission" also approved of artificial contraception at Vatican II in express denial of Pius XI condemning it in Casti Connubii in  1930, just four short months after the Anglican Church judasized.  Did you see the Catholic Church following the opinion of a commission in this case?  I don’t recall Jesus establishing a ‘holy commission’ to preserve the Church from error.

10)

The Edwardine Ordinal does in its invocation of the Holy spirit, differentiates the various orders being conveyed, and implies the distinct powers being conveyed to each candidate, according to his respective order!!

It does?  That’s news to me, Karl.  Show me where you think that happens in the Ordinal, Karl.

In the rite for the Edwardine Ordering of Priests it says the following: "Take the Holy ghost. whose sins thou dost forgive, they are forgiven; Whose sins thou dost retain, they are retained. and be thou a faithful dispenser of the word of God, and of His holy sacraments; In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen"

*  Where does it differentiate the various orders being conveyed, Karl?

as for the new rite we now use, which was introduced in 1662 to replace the Edwardine Rite, it does mention in the invocation prayer, that the candidate by virtue of receiving the Holy Spirit from the bishops hands, is to be made a bishop, priest or deacon!! It clearly says in the invocation prayer "Receive the Holy Ghost, for the WORK AND OFFICE OF A PRIEST (BISHOP)..."

Karl, ask yourself this:  why did the 1662 Revised Ordinal add these words if the Edwardine Ordinal was sufficient?

You may argue that the rite was added to late, since Anglican Orders were already defective according to the Edwardine Rite used earlier, but that being that, you must admit that if a validly consecrated bishop using this rite were to consecrate a bishop or ordain a priest, that the valid bishop would be able to make the candidtates into true bishops and priest, even though their orders may be illicit!! That being that, we are in agreement that Old Catholic Orders are valid!! Therefore, if hypothetically speaking Anglican Orders were defective due to the supposed inablity of the Edwardine Order to consecrate bishops and ordain priests and deacons, an Old Catholic bishop using the Revised 1662 Rite could correct these alleged defects! COULDN'T HE!!!!!

The Revised Ordinal of 1662 - get an opinion on this one too.

Now that we are in agreement, let me brake it down to you one last time!! After 1931 when the Anglican Communion went into full-communion with the Old Catholic Churches in Communion with Utreicht, there have been numerous participations of Old Catholic bishops, in anglican consecrations and ordiantions!! The Old Catholic bishops were not mere observers, but were actuallyt PARTICIPANTS!!! They joined the Anglican bishops using the 1662 ORDINAL RITE (which as has been established, is a valid rite), in co-consecrating and co-ordaining Anglican bishops and priests!!!These Old Catholic bishops actually layed hands on the candidates, along with the Anglican bishops, all using the REVISED 1662 ORDINAL!!!!! Since in a consecration ALL participating bishops are CONSECRATERS, and it is the succession of ALL participating consecraters that is passed on to the bishop-elect, and not the consescrater alone, it must be said that any alleged defects in the orders of the Anglican bishops would have been made up for by the one validly consecrated Old Catholic bishop. Therefore it must be held, that the new Anglican bishop by Roman standards is a valid bishop (although illicit), and any one he ordains or consecrates will also have valid ordsers, by virtue of his Old Catholic succession, introduced through the Revised 1662 Ordinal!! That being that, let me bring it home for you!! Check the tables of consecrations of any Anglican bishop in the world, or any TAC (Traditional Anglican Communion), Anglican Catholic, Charismatic Episcopal, or any Continuing Anglican Group (save the Free Protestant Episcopal Church and the Reformed Episcopal Church), and you will find an Old Catholic bishop in their tables of consecrations!! There is not a single Anglican bishop in the world (save for Reformed Episcopalians and Free Protestant Episcopalians) that do not have the Old Catholic Succession, introduced THROUGH THE REVISED 1662 ORDINAL (not the Edwardine Ordinal)!! That being that, you must admit John, that Anglican Orders are valid, by virtue of their Old Catholic succession, and Anglican bishops are TRUE BISHOPS, Anglican priests TRUE PRIESTS, and Anglican deacons, TRUE DEACONS!!! I am not saying I doubt the validity of the Edwardine Rite (since I still firmly believe it is a valid rite), but I am just building a strong case for Anglican Orders, showing you that you have no logical option BUT to accept the validity of Anglican Orders as they stand today in 1999, and to show you that as a Roman Catholic, you are FREE to come to your own conclusions on the validity of Anglican Orders!! Your constant harking back to the Edwardine Ordinal, and your outright disregard for the "Old Catholic Question" only shows me your deliberate ignorance of Anglican Orders, your unwillingness to broaden your horizons, and your true motives, which are anything but to discern THE TRUTH!!! I know heer you are getting at, and why you refuse to say "uncle" to the question of Anglican Orders, and that is because you want to lump us in with the the countelss number of Protestant sects, and deny us of our right to consider ourselves a Catholic and Apostolic Church!! Without valid orders, we are nothing morethan another Protestants sect!! However, with the Old Catholic Question staring you straight in the face, if you wre really an honest man, you would have to admit Anglican Orders asthey stand presently are perfectly valid, although illicit!! But you let your "Anti-Protestant" biases as they unjustly extend towards Anglicans, to influence your arrogant refusal to admit our orders are valid!! Putting the Edwardine Ordinal aside, and focussing on the Old Catholic Question, and the introduction of Old Catholic episcopal lines into the present Anglican hierarchy, lets address where the orders of both the Anglican Communion and the various Seperatist Anglican Churches (save the Reformed Episcopal Church in the United States, anbd its offshoot in England, the Free Protestant Episcopal Church) stand TODAY in 1999!!!! Please do not dodge this question John!! Be hopnest with youreself, and answer this question!!!

I’ve answered the 1662 Revised Ordinal Question above.

3) Septuagint: You write - I want to question you about those books from the Septuagint or Alexandrian Canon, that the Roman Catholic Church felt did not belong there!!! These books include 1st and 2nd Esdras. Prayer of Manasseh, Psalm 151, 3d Esdras, plus 3 and 4 Maccabees. These books were originally in the Septuagint or Greek Old Testament, and Eastern Orthodox Christians, still faithful to Our Lord and the "faith once delivered to the saints", still hold them in their Bibles!

Karl, let me ask you something. Has the Anglican or Orthodox Church officially recognized these books as inspired and on par with what Catholics consider 'inspired'? No? Then why do you bring it up at all?

The Orthodox Churches, yes!!! The Anglican Church no, although we are free to make up our own opinion on this matter!! Me personally, I believe they are canonical and inspired!!!

Well, then. If the Orthodox Church has officially recognized them as God's word, then why don't you follow what they say? Are they or aren’t they inspired? If they are, then why do you not you believe it? If they are not, then why are you giving me grief - your own Church doesn’t even require you to believe in them. If it were so *PLAIN*, *SIMPLE*, and *APPARENT* and if it was so *EASY* to determine the canon, why has the Church of England not pronounced on the subject? Ah…see how I am dismantling your facile approach to this question?

The determination of an inspired work belongs to the Church. Just because it is "included" in the Septuagint does not necessarily mean its inspired.

Does st. Paul tell St. Tinothy, "All scripture, save for the books of 2 and 3 Maccabees, the Book of Manasseh, Psalm 151, the books of Esdras, etc, are inspired by God...." NO!!! He said "ALL" scripture is inspired by God!!! The scriptures St. Paul was talking about was the Old Testament, and the Old Testament at that time was the Septuagint!! The septuagint contained those books, the Roman Church rejected!!! There was no need for St. Paul to explain to St. Timothy which books he meant by "scripture", since it is common sense that the entire Bible is scripture, as are all the books contained with in it!!!

I shall comment on this later on. > Remember in 2 Tymothy 3:16, St. Paul said "ALL scripture is inspired by God...", and the "ALL SCRIPTURES" he was referring to was the Septuagint, and the Septuagint included those books the Roman Church has rejected!!!!

He was? Where did St. Paul list all of the inspired books?

Like I said above, he did not need to, just like if you hand a Protestant a King James Version Bible, you do not need to explain to him, which of the 66 books in his KJV is "inspired"!! To the protestant, it is common knowledge that the entire KJV is inspired!! Therefore it was common knowldge to St. Timothy, that all the books in the Septuagint were what > st. Paul was referring to!!!

Hold on, Karl. I will comment on the issue of the OT canon in the next section.

Here we have a little delimna Franky!!! Whom is to be believed here!! St. Paul, an Apostle, whom was "sent out" by Jesus Himself, or some Pope whom by his own authority alone, claims to be "Infallible"?? St. Paul calls these books "inspired", while the Popes say they aren't!! Whom are we to believe?

You are to believe the man who has the keys and the power to bind and loose. St. Paul's preaching was inspired and infallible, but he did not define the canon of Scripture. Peter and his successors were given the keys so when the time came, they did so. You disregard their authority at your own peril.

I only see the pope as a bishop, and he has no more power or authority, than any other bishop! He only has authority when gathered with other bishops, and the make decisions in unison, with in the context of an Ecumenical Council, in which the Holy Spirit was invoked before hand for its guidance!! The canon of the Old Testament was defined and established, long before Penetcost, therefore St. Paul was merely telling St. Timothy about an already established canon!!! It was only the New Testament that needed to be defined, not the Old Testament!!!

I don't care for your vicious polemics, Karl. You are an angry little man who shows little appreciation for the serious divisions between episcopal churches. You are being inflammatory, beligerant, and infantile.

Number one, I am not little!! I stand 6'5!!! Number two, I am angry at your unwillingness to consider the facts I present you, and the fact that what ever I present you, you outright disregard it, and refuse to examine the evidence!

I have answered you SPECIFICALLY where I could on ALL points of substance. I have refuted your arguments time and time again.

I am angry, because we seem to be getting no where in this dialogue, and you can't rid yourself of your prejudices and biases, to actually see the "CORRECTNESS" of the facts I present you!!! I am angry because I wanted friendly dialogue and to help you better understand Anglicanism, yet you have attacked and belittled my faith, and have slung mud at the sacraments and orders of my Church!!

No, Karl. I might have belittled the error of your faith, but not the 90% of truth of it. I have not belittled the sacraments of the Anglican Church. I think it's a tradgedy that Anglicans believe they are receiving valid sacraments, but are not. I have hardly "slung mud" at them - I simply do not recognize their validity. You, on the other hand, have said some pretty horrible things about Christ's vicar.

I am very defensive about my religion, and one way to set me off is to attack my faith!!! I do not take kindly to anyone whom belittles my faith, or tries to tell me I am wrong without presenting me with clear and hard evidence to show me where I am wrong!!!

I have tried to show you where you are wrong, Karl. You just don't accept the evidence or the reasoning that I offer you. You should not think I am attacking your faith, and you should not be defensive if you have the complete truth.

I do want for us to be all one, howver I want uinity in essentuals, and not dogamtic unity!!

This is nonsense. Truth is DEFINED in DOGMA. You do accept the DOGMA of the Trinity, don’t you?

For me, the seven ecumenical councils, the Bible, the writtings of the Church Fathers, and the Creeds, are all what is essentual, along with a sacramental ministry dispensed by bishops in direct Apostolic succession, with the assistant of priests and deacons!! Papal Infallibility is not necessary, that is what Ecumenical Councils are for!! We do not need to know whether Mary was conceived without original sin or not, or whether or whether not she was assumed into heaven. These Marian dogmas are unnecessary, and have absolutely nothing to do with how I get saved through Jesus Christ, and how my faith is nourished through the sacraments and scripture!!!

You have no idea if these Marian doctrines are 'necessary'. The Holy Spirit knows, and He has revealed that truth explicitly.

Papal infallibility IS necessary because Satan has organized the world and its secular rulers to try and divide the Church. He has succeeded in trying to establish an ORGANIZED world order which will try (but fail) to bring down the Church. Papal infallibility is ABSOLUTELY necessary for the preservation of the faith - the alternative is watching the sad state of Protestantism today - including the Anglican "communion".

By the way, what would you say to the Fundie who would say that your belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary was "unnecessary"?

As for my inflametory polemics, it is because I have a bad temper!!

Well, conquer it, before it conquers you.

Nothing sets me off, like deliberate ignorance, upon the part of an opponent!!! I have no time for thse whom refuse to harken to reason, and drop their errors when clear and undeniable proof destroying their arguments are presented towards them!!! I have given you evidence after evidence, facts after facts, showing you that Anglican Orders are valid, let you and Frank disreardg them, and absolutely refuse to say "Uncle", and admit you were wrong in this regard!!

Karl. You refuse to accept the explanations that we offer you, and when we refuse to accept your rationale you whine like a baby, crying for Holy Mother Church to acquiese to your rantings.

Is your pride and malicious illwill towards Anglicans, so strong, that you absolutely refuse to recognize the validity of Anglican Orders! like come on !! I showed you that Old catholic episcopal lines were introduced into the ANglican hiriearchy through the 1662 Revised Ordinal Rite, yet you keep harking back to the Edwardine Ordinnal! FINE (hypothetically speaking) the edwardine Rite was invalid and bishops using it could not convey valid orders!! BUT THIS HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH ANGLICAN ORDERS AS THEY STAND TODAY, AS ALL ANGLICAN BISHOPS IN COMMUNION WITH CANTERBURY, AND ALL INDEPENDENT AND CONTINUING ANGLICAN GROUPS FORMED IN THE 1970'S, WITHOUT EXCEPTION, HAVE OLD CATHOLIC SUCCESSION THROUGH THE 1662 REVISED ORDINAL, WHICH MEANS ANGLICAN ORDERS BY RC STANDASRDS ARE VALID!!!!!

Look, Karl. I have told you that IF the 1662 Revised Ordinal is a valid rite and IF the bishop consecrating is a valid bishop, then, yes, that particular bishop is a 'valid' one. The problem, however, remains with, not only these 2 big Ifs as I’ve explained earlier, but also identifying each bishop and tracing their consecrations back. Is that what you want the Catholic Church to do?

I am angry also, over your refusal to do the research I have asked you and Frank to do!! I have given you the names of sources, and now it is up to you two, to get off your lazy butts, and do the research!! Go to any University libraries or seminary libraries (Anglican and some Roman), and you will find what you are looking for!! Write your bishop, and ask him about the 1981 ARCIC Report, or talk to an RC involved with Ecumenical relations with Anglicans!! The truth is out there!! Either take what I tell you at its face vaklue, or if you do not trust me, do the research I have told you to do, and look up the sources I have provided you with!!!

Karl, do you have a full time job? No? How about a wife and child to support? No? Well, then, grow up. I have answered all of your questions, even the ARCIC above. I don't need to read a document to know that it is not a binding teaching of the Catholic Church unless it has the Pope's approval. So unless you can provide me such an approval, the point is MOOT.

Speaking about moot points, this whole discussion is moot until your church comes to its senses and kicks the priestesses OUT!

"If the Pope says (for a joke) eating your own fecsed or drinking your own urine, will give you a greater eternal reward, you would believe and do it!" As harsh and inflametory as this may sound, I was only reflecting upon the willingful anti-intellectualism characteristsic of ultra-conservative and anti-ecumenicalist Ultra-Montain Roman Catholics, and how they act as brainless zombies to every utterance of the Pope, failing to examine the soundeness of what was uttered!!

That is no excuse for your words. I shouldn’t even be talking to you since you’ve made those remarks about the Holy Father.

These kinds of RCs (thank god, a dying breed), are very cult-like in their approach to faith and religion, and always look for someone to think for them!! This is the same mentality which led how many hundreds of people to drink synaid laced Koolaid in the 1970's under Jim Jones!! This is the same mentality that led people to follow David Koresh!! The same mentality that ledthose involved in that crazy UFO cult to kill themseslves in mass, three years ago!! This unwillingness to think for oneself, or to do sound research to see whether one is being duped, or whether what they believe is genuine truth!!! The ultra-conservative Ultra-Montain RC thinks exactly this way!! He does not question the Pope, but simply goes along with it!! When evidence is presented showing him wrong, he will abslutely refuse to give into the truth, and woul rather spend eternity in hell, rather than admit that a Pope made a booboo!!! I certainly hope you or Frank would never feed upon human excrement, but being how you make the Pope into a god, I would not put it past yu two!! The fortunate thing is, that the majority of RCs do not think like you!! Most RCs at my university are very enlightened and opened to Anglicanism, as a sister faith!! An RC chaiplan on campus I know, has told me he accepts Anglican Orders as valid!!! All the RC theology students I have talked to abouit Anglican Orders, have either accepted them as valid, or when still sceptical, have said they are willing to look into the question more!! None of them are as willfully and blatantly ignorant as you and Frank, and have conclusively, without even giving me a chance to present my case, rejected their validity, with a "case closed" attitude!!!

The RCs you meet either: don't have the foggiest clue about what the issues are in this question or even about the very basics of their faith; or are liberal Catholics. Either way, since you are so happy to have their concurrence why are you so "hell-bent" on changing my mind or the Pope's mind?

As well, not all Fundamentalists (in fainess to them), are brainless ignoramuses either!! Some of them are very enlightened, and opned to the possibility they could be wrong!! Some Fundamentalists and most Evangelicals I know accept me as a fellow brother in Christ, and respect (althou do not agree with) my faith as an Anglicam and would not dream of pulling me away from the Anglican Church. The Roman Catholics I know at my university (including the theology students) are mostly of that mind-set!!! Both you and Frank are some of the most ignorant and arrogant peoples I have ever come across, and you two remind me a lot of Racists and Neo-Nazis!!

Heil Pope!!!

Like I told you in an earlier little post..."you will not escape from there until you paid the last farthing..."

I do not disrespect the office of the Papacy, I just do not accept the later additions to his portfolio (ie. Papal Supremacy and Infallibility)which were clearly absent from the faith and practice of the early Church, and were never prior to the Middle Ages, professed by the Undivided Church!! I respect and venerate the Pope, as a successor of St. Peter, as Patriarchy of the West, and as "primus et pares" or first amongst equals!! The Papacy as it existed before the Middle Ages, I fully accept and venerate. When the Roman Church reduces the Pope's portfolio to those of his pre-Medieval predecessors, then I will acnowledge the Pope as my Metropolitan.

Gee, you wouldn't know it by the vitriol you've thrown at the Bishop of Rome.

As for the Blessed Virgin Lady, I do not hold her in low esteem. I have Rosary beads at home, hanging over my crucifix!! I see Mary as a venerable woman, and as being the most venerable of all the saints in heaven. She is the "Mother of God", as well as the "Queen-Mother of Heaven"!! She is both our sister and mother!! Sister, because she is in Christ, like the rest of all who come to faith in Christ!! she is our mother, because she was the first Christian believer (and therefore our "founding mother"), and Christ gave Mary to us as "our mother", according to the Gospel of st. John!! When I said she was a "sinner", in no way was it meant to take away from the dignity that rightfully belongs to her! St. Noah, was called "blameless in his generation" by God, yet he was a sinner. All twelve of the Apostles, as venerable as they were, were all sinners, as were all the prophets, patriarchs, and holy persons of old. To be "full of grace", does not mean to be sin-free, it just means to be privelleged to be called to a holy purpose! What purpose could be more holier than to bear the Christ-Child in her womb? By calling her a sinner, I am not denying her holiness, I am simply stating the obvious, that being a member of the Ademic race, she was no exception to the rule!! If Mary was not immaculately conceived (as I do not believe in the Immaculate Conception-remember to me it is not an established truth yet, although I do not absolutely reject its possibility), the only other possible conclusion that could be drawed is that she was infected with the "Ademic Disease" of sin. As for your argument about newborn babies, this argument falls flat!! St. Paul was talking about "original sin", not "actual sin"!! The sinning he was talking about, was "Missing the mark of perfection", and by our very imperfect nature, we have all missed the mark.Since newborn babies were conceived in original sin, they have indeed sinned, in terms of missing the mark of perfection!! Therefore St. Paul's decleration "that all have sinned and have fell short of the glory of God", indeed includes newborn babies, and your argument once again falls flat!! Therefore again, why should Mary be an exception to St. Paul's rule??

Sorry, Karl. St. Paul was speaking of actual sin. Personal sin is an action not a state, like original sin. And St. Paul in Romans 3 uses it as a verb "all have sinNED". Read my analysis on Romans 3 in "Romans & Justification".

[Re: Derogatory statement about Pope] That's not a joke, Karl, and I'm not laughing. In fact, since it is becoming woefully apparent that you lack both the civility and the respect to engage in any kind of serious dialogue, this is my last post to you. Grow up, and show a little decency.

I was not joking either John!!! I am very dismayed at you and Frank's total ignorance and arrogance, and your willingness to "blindly" follow the Papacy!! I am dismayed at your lack of charity towards Anglicans!! The only reason I use this harsh language, is that your very willful ignorance insults my intelligence, and it reveals your over all hatred towards me and my religion!! I have nothing against Roman Catholics!! I just despise ignoramuses like you and Frank whom try to sling mud at my faith, and belittle it, and who try to rob me of my Christian identity!!! Those RCs whom respect my faith, are opened to learning about Anglicanism, and who do not try to proselitize me, I have nothing against. As for Fundamentalists and Evangelicals, the same rule applies!! If they respect my Christian faith as it is expressed in High Anglicanism, and they do not belittle my faith, and try to tell me I am not a Christian, and need to leave the "Little Whore of Babylon", I also in turn respect them and receive them as fellow brothers and sisters in Christ (although by virtue of their absence of bishops, cannot recognize their minisyters as true ministers, or their sacraments as true sacraments)!!! You and Frank are very Medieval in your thinking, very primitive, and very ignorant!!! You are probably one of those whom would prefer the pre-Vatican II regime, in which Mass was babbled in some dead language, and people were bored to death, from the forieg babbling, of a dead language!!!

Have you ever been to a Tridentine Latin Mass? It's quite beautiful, and it's anything but dead. Be careful, Karl. You don't know what you are talking about.

I have shown plenty of charity toward you. Certainly, much more than you have shown to me. In fact, I hear Frank is submitting my cause to the Vatican for beatification for how I have kept my cool with you.

You amaze me, that you fiercely uphold clerical celibacy, despite the fact it is a mere "discipline"!! Your Eastern Rite has married priests, so why can't Western Rite RCs also have married priests? Like why are you so against having married clergy!! Don't you see the benefits of having married priests? If any clergy wish to be celibate as a presidence, so be it!! However, I think that clergy should be free to marry or not to marry, just like lay people!

Well, that's your opinion. It doesn't count for much...neither does mine.

Why do you think Anglican and Orthodox clergy are more stable than Roman clergy??

Methinks not.

I think you should open your eyes tocommon sense, and see that "mandetory" clerical celibacy ought to be abolished, and all clergy should tbe free to either Marry or remain unmarried!!As for celibate Orthodox bishops, your clinging to a dead practice, still does not stand, since being "monastics" Orthodox bishops would already have the necessary discipline to handle a life of celibacy!! Taking a young verile man directly out of the lay life, and making him become remain celibate, without any monastic training, is both unreasonable and unwise!!!

Are you chaste, Karl? You are? Would you be required to be so if you never had the good fortune to marry? Yes? Well, then do you think our Lord placing this onerous discipline on you is "unreasonable and unwise"?

John, you just refuse to see common sense, for you make the Popes into "gods"!!! Like I said above, you ultra-conservative Unlra-Montain fanatical extremists, are very cultic in your thinking, and if a Pope were to mount the chair of St. Peter tomorrow and call on Roman Catholics to commit mass suicide, I could just see you and Frank being the first to tie a Rope around your necks!!!

Surely, you could point to one instannce in 2,000 years where a Pope has asked RCs to do so. No? Well, then why do you persist in dreaming up impossibilities?

John, I want dialogue, but your uncharitable attitude needs to change!! You need to stop closing yourself to the prospect of Anglican Orders being valid!! You need to quit lumping us with the countless hundreds of thousands of Protestant sects out there! Anglicans are a unique and seperate branch of Christianity, distinct from both Roman Catholicism and Protestantism, and like Old Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Christians, we ought to be classified as such!!

Karl, I do think you are classified as such. You are much closer to the truth than the Fundies, and I don't put you in with these sects.

You need to dialogue with me as an equal, and quit assuming I am unsure of my faith, and that I have nothing to stand upon!! For I do have something to stand upon!! I may not have an Infallible magesterium, but I do have an Infallible Bible

Wrong. The bible is inerrant. You need a living agent to make "infallibility".

seven Infallible ecumenical councils, Infallible Creeds, and Infallible Church Fathers

Wrong, no Church Father, save the bishop of Rome, has that charism.

to lean upon for my direction. At my parishes in London and Toronto, I have very theologivcally sound, Traditionalist priests to teach me and nurture my faith!! I have been led into truth underthe system I am under, and those whom call themselves Anglicans that are in error, are only in error because they do not seek truth to begin with! You need to quit belittling my faith and being so insulting towards my religion, and stop saying that my sacraments are false, and my priests are mere lay men, and calling me a Protestant!! Call me what I am, and that is an ANGLICAN, not a PROTESTANT!!!

Well, what is a Protestant anyway? Those who "protest" against Rome. And that is what you do. Sure, I accept that you are more "catholic" than the Reformers, but you still protest against the Holy See.

You need to be open to my position, and to examine the facts I present before you, instead of being so quick to dismiss them, without even looking at them!! Once you can show me you are more opened to learning about my position, I will be more opened to what you have to show!! As long as you insult me and put my faith down, I will be more motivated to not take into consideration, than if you presented it NICELY without putting Anglicanism down!! And again I stress to you, to be an Anglican, does not intail being in communion with Canterbury! All it intails his sticking to the Catholic faith as it was preserved and past down through the traditions of the Churches of england and Ireland, and to profess that same Catholic faith!! A faith that is similar to what Old Catholics and Orthodox Christians, profess!!

If you want to dialogue, I will dialogue with you!! But you MUST be opened to what I have to say, and quit thinking to yourself I do not hold absolute truth!! I firmly believe my Tradtionalist Anglican faith is fully true, fully Catholic, and fully the faith once delivered to the saints, in its one hundred percent purity and entirety!! I firmly believe in Anglicanism, as you believe in the errenous Papalist system!! So do not try to insult my intelligence!! I am opened to what you have to say, but I still believe my religion is fully orthodox!! I will respect your beliefs if you respect mine, and so far, both you and Frank have totally disrespected my beliefs, and provked me to anger!!!

Take it easy, Karl. You're the one slingin' not me. I respect you, but I think you are in error. And, if I have to tell you that, well, I have to tell you that.

I am very sensitive about my faith, and when someone belittles it and puts it down, I get very defensive, and when I get defensive, I get very angry and loose my temper!! One way to get on my bad side, is to put down my religion!! I have gotten into many heated arguments with Fundamentalists, which have riled me up to the point of forcing me to belittle their faiths, just as they have belittled mine earlier!! The only difference with me, is that my bouts of anger reveal truth, for when I get angry, I pound the truth as a hammer, in the form of harsh language!! I will be more charitable with you and frank if you drop the belittling remarks!! I do not mind you making false and ignorant statements about Anglicanism out of genuine ignorance, but when I correct you and present you with the truth, do not try and defend and justify your ignorance!! Just say you are sorry and did not know this before!! I am a bigger and better man than you and Franky!! You want to know why?? When I made those ignorant remarks about Cardinal Stepinac, I repented when you clearly showed me I was wrong, and had been misinformed!! When I give you facts to prove Anglican Orders are valid, instead of apolegizing for your ignorance and sayiong "oh, I did not know", you dodge the Old Catholic question, refuse to look up the 1981 ARCIC Report (which is not that difficult to find, if you cared to get intouch with your bishop, an RC ecumenicalist official, or go to any university or theology library), and keep doing verbal back flips, simply to justify your errenous assumptions about Anglican Orders and sacraments!!! I a truly seek truth!! You, you and Frank, just want to crush, humiliate, and dehumanize your opponents, and will use every dirty trick in the book to achieve your goal!! You and Frank refuse to acknowledge where you are wrong and mistakened, and refuse to admit you could be wrong!! All if this, so you can convince me Anglicanism is just another brand of Protestantism!!! I might have erred in my assumption of Cardinal Stepinac's involvement with the Ustachi Regime, but at least I saw my error, and repented!! You and Frank absolutely refuse to see your errors!!!

Karl, we have tried to answer your questions specifically. You can't force us to change our minds anymore than we can force you to change yours.

Like how is seeing Anglican Orders as valid going to hurt Roman Catholicism??

It doesn't. The truth prohibits it, though.

You just hate Anglicans, and want to lump us with Protestants!! That is all there is to your outright refusal to acknowledge the validity of Anglican Orders!! Even if the Edwardine Rite was invalid, the Revised 1662 Rite isn't!!! Old Catholic episcopal lines were and dodging the Old Catholic question, and harking back to the Edwardine Ordinal!! After this post, lets drop the Edwardine Ordinal, and deal with the Old Catholic Question and the 1662 Revised Ordinal.

No, Karl. Read my earlier stuff a