tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post6174148709682377798..comments2024-03-24T15:19:06.377-04:00Comments on The Continuum: Lazy journalismFr. Robert Harthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-76088723507651080252010-04-16T13:10:32.956-04:002010-04-16T13:10:32.956-04:00Robert Ian Williams wrote:
The reply ( a vindicat...Robert Ian Williams wrote:<br /><br /><i>The reply ( a vindication of Apostlicae Curae) is a reasoned theological response and is an in depth analyis of Saepius Officio.<br />it is actually longer than Saepius Officio...</i><br /><br />The work you refer to was out of date by the time it was finished. The official Roman position was to ignore it, inasmuch as within one year they had begun to see that their efforts in producing <i>Apostolicae Curae</i> had hurt their credibility among the academic professionals. The errors of fact would, over the next several decades, force the Roman Catholic Church to acknowledge one after another that they had built their case on mistakes. <br /><br />Today, the official position of the See of Rome is that every argument of fact in <i>Apostolcae Curae</i> was wrong, because each was based on false statements about history, perhaps innocently employed, but wrong nonetheless. The official position of Rome is that the 1896 Bull is still correct theologically in its conclusion, even with most of the supporting arguments overturned. <br /><br />Their one and only argument is based on their charge of a defect of Intention, which they claim was not corrected until 1662, when it was too late. That argument is so weak as to be completely ridiculous, for it would mean that the English Church before 1662 did not want to pass on Holy Orders, and spent over a century ordaining and consecrating with no thought about whether they meant to do what the Church does in the sacrament. Also, the Roman position reveals Biblical illiteracy on their part, if they actually cannot recognize the Scriptures employed in the "imperative form" Anglican Rites.<br /><br />To <a href="http://anglicancontinuum.blogspot.com/2009/10/thanks-but-no-thanks.html" rel="nofollow">quote myself</a> on the matter:<br /><br />"This has come from the same Apostolic See that failed to understand why the first English Ordinal did, in fact, specify each Order...so that even the Magisterium stubbornly clings even now to a position born of Biblical illiteracy, seeing a defect of Intention because, it seems, they do not notice actual quotations of Scripture appropriate to each Order (translated from a very old Latin rite commonly used with Rome's full approval in 'the before time")."<br /><br /> But, you see, they have to cling to it or admit that the Infallible See was wrong.<br /><br />But, if you want to embarrass the See of Rome by publishing something they would rather forget, go ahead.<br /><br /><i>Why don't you mention the missing sacrament? How can Anglicanism be a purer form of Catholicism when for 300 hundred years there was no annointing of the sick?</i><br /><br />Which is not to say it was not practiced by Anglican priests, inasmuch as we know it was. But, how can you consider the RCC to be practicing Catholic faith regarading this sacrament even now? They have corrupted the Biblical sacrament you mention by changing it into "Extreme Unction" only for the dying, not for healing. If they have brought back the Biblical sacrament anywhere, it is due to the Charismatics.<br /><br /><i>As for the Eastern orthodox.. </i><br /><br />Let me correct you now with <a href="http://anglicancontinuum.blogspot.com/2010/02/rebuilding-bridge.html" rel="nofollow">this.</a><br /><br /><i>By the way there is not one case of an Anglican cleric being received in his orders in any eastern orthodox Church.</i><br /><br />Nor of a RC priest; but, "...adhering to the decision of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, of July 28, 1922, pronounces that if priests, ordained by Anglican Bishops, accede to Orthodoxy, they should not be re-ordained, as persons baptized by Anglicans are not rebaptized." Read all of what I provide at the link.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-1818605642789816122010-04-16T12:44:08.157-04:002010-04-16T12:44:08.157-04:00The reply ( a vindication of Apostlicae Curae) is ...The reply ( a vindication of Apostlicae Curae) is a reasoned theological response and is an in depth analyis of Saepius Officio.<br />it is actually longer than Saepius Officio. Can i send you a copy..we are re-pulishing it.<br /><br />Why don't you mention the missing sacrament? How can Anglicanism be a purer form of Catholicism when for 300 hundred years there was no annointing of the sick?<br /><br />As for the Eastern orthodox.. they turned down the highest in Anglicanism , the non-jurors because they would not accept transubstantiation , prayers to the Saints and worship of the Eucharistic elements.<br /><br />By the way there is not one case of an Anglican cleric being received in his orders in any eastern orthodox Church.<br /><br />Fact ..there are no prayers for the dead in the 1552, 1662 and 1789Prayer Books.Robert Ian Williamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14128876156920192055noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-27306543055923097432010-04-15T17:53:59.904-04:002010-04-15T17:53:59.904-04:00Don't start this old tug of war with me.
A s...Don't start this old tug of war with me. <br /><br />A simple reading of <a href="http://anglicanhistory.org/orders/saepius.pdf" rel="nofollow">Saepius Officio</a> is enough to prevent anyone from taking the RC editorial seriously. It was in nothing more an English paper, as a long letter, because even the late 19th century "scholars" in Rome realized that it would not pass the test of academia.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-72950218425730247652010-04-15T17:12:15.387-04:002010-04-15T17:12:15.387-04:00Full Record
Format options: Standard format Summ...Full Record <br /><br />Format options: Standard format Summary MARC tags <br />Record 6 out of 6 <br />System number 003763640 <br />Cataloguing level Minimal record <br />Author - personal VAUGHAN, Herbert Alfred, Cardinal, Archbishop of Westminster. <br />Title A Vindication of the Bull "Apostolicæ Curæ" [dated: Sept. 13, 1896]. A letter on Anglican orders by the Cardinal Archbishop and Bishops of the Province of Westminster, in reply to the letter addressed to them by the Anglican Archbishops of Canterbury and York. <br />Publisher/year pp. iv. 122. Longmans & Co.: London, 1898. <br />Physical descr. 8º. <br />Added name TEMPLE, Frederick, successively Bishop of Exeter and of London and Archbishop of Canterbury, and MACLAGAN (William Dalrymple) successively Bishop of Lichfield and Archbishop of York. <br />Added name Catholic Church. Pope (1878-1903 : Leo XIII) [Apostolicae Curae.] <br />Holdings (All) Details <br />Shelfmark 3940.f.9. RequestRobert Ian Williamshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14128876156920192055noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-90557805976063702172010-04-15T15:58:30.428-04:002010-04-15T15:58:30.428-04:00Flattery will not prevent me from debating.
Rober...Flattery will not prevent me from debating.<br /><br />Robert Ian Williams wrote:<br /><br /><i>There were no prayers for the dead in the BCP until 1928 American revision.</i><br /><br />Really? What then do you make of this from the 1549 BCP?<br /><br />"We commend unto thy mercye (O Lorde) all other thy servauntes, which are departed hence from us, with the signe of faith, and nowe do reste in the slepe of peace: Graunt unto them, we beseche thee, thy mercy, and everlasting peace, and that, at the day of the generall resurreccion, we and all they which bee of the misticall body of thy sonne, may altogether be set on his right hand, and heare that his most ioyfull voyce: Come unto me, O ye that be blessed of my father, and possesse the kingdom, whiche is prepared for you from the begynning of the worlde..."<br /><br />And from its burial office:<br /><br />"WE commende into thy handes of mercy (moste mercifull father) the soule of this our brother departed, N. And his body we commit to the earth... Graunte, we beseche thee, that at the daye of judgement his soule and all the soules of thy electe, departed out of this lyfe, may with us and we with them, fully receive thy promisses, and be made perfite altogether thorow [through] the glorious resurreccion of thy sonne Jesus Christ our Lorde...Graunte unto us thy servaunte, that the sinnes whiche he committed in this world be not imputed unto him, but that he, escaping the gates of hell and paynes of eternall derkenesse: may ever..."<br /><br /><i>Cranmer called the Mass the weed that chokes the Gospel</i><br /><br />Meaning what? Inasmuch as the 1549 BCP has a Masse so named, and inasmuch as Cranmer authorized daily celebrations and reintroduced frequent communion, do you think that maybe your information is suspect, to say the least?<br /><br /><i>and none of the high Church divines like Laud belived that the holy Communion was a propitiatory sacrifice.</i><br /><br />Which is one of the reasons why Orthodox Patriarchs recognized Anglican orders between 1922 and 1976, as they said in a letter to Abp. Cosmo Lang. Each celebration is not a propitiatory sacrifice, for that was once offered by Christ. The Epistle to the Hebrews could not be more clear about "once for all," nor the Anglican Formularies more clear about rejecting the double plural sacrifices of masses, as if each was a propitiatory sacrifice.<br /><br /><i>By the way there as a brilliant response to Saepius Officio by the Catholic Bishops of England and Wales. it shows how saepius officio..<br /><br />1) Was the private opinion of the authors<br />2)That it was deliberately phrased in ambiguity.</i><br /><br />The response (which amounted to an editorial in a paper) was not brilliant, but rather foolish. Private opinion? Read <i>Saepius Officio</i> and you will never be able to consider it mere "private opinion." It is an excellent scholarly answer to the Roman Bull of 1896, filled with historical facts and superior research. And, it is not phrased in ambiguity at all.<br /><br />Glad you think me "spot on."Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-12662302573525648862010-04-15T15:08:27.333-04:002010-04-15T15:08:27.333-04:00Father Hart is spot on. In fact I rather wish we h...Father Hart is spot on. In fact I rather wish we had men of his calibre signing up for Rome than the likes of Hepworth.<br /><br />By the way the TAC in the UK is very much an episcopus vagens outfit, with around 200 members.<br />( UK christian handbook)<br /><br />The irish branch is tinier and thoroghly Protestant and has n intention of converting.<br /><br />As for the Anglican Use..do your readers realise that it has only attracted a tiny number of Anglicans and most attending it, are cradle Roman Catholics.<br /><br />I estimate That the Use attracted less than 0.1 per cent of American Anglicans.<br /><br />I have very mixed feelings about Cranmer as he was definitely Protestant...why was the sacrament of annointing missing from Anglicanism for the first three hundred years? There were no prayers for the dead in the BCP until 1928 American revision. Cranmer called the Mass the weed that chokes the Gospel and non of the high Church divines like Laud belived taht teh holy Communion was a propitiataary sacrifice.<br /><br /><br />As for the 39 articles, which the ACA is pledged to pass on to their children...Rome will confine them to the dustbin.<br /><br />By the way therew as a broilliant respone to Saepius Officio by the Catholic Bishops of England and Wales. it shows how saepius officio..<br /><br />1) Was the private opinion of the authors<br />2)That it was deliberately phrased in ambiguity.Robert Ian Williamshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14128876156920192055noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-60315309272071360292010-04-15T13:12:49.715-04:002010-04-15T13:12:49.715-04:00There was either a major misunderstanding among th...There was either a major misunderstanding among the bishops as to exactly what was being voted on, or Bishop Marsh is trying to "shield" his parishes from what actually occurred...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-53314347769627718452010-04-15T12:10:32.457-04:002010-04-15T12:10:32.457-04:00But, the news of the vote was announced on the ACA...But, the news of the vote was announced on the <a href="http://acahomeorg0.web701.discountasp.net/" rel="nofollow">ACA website</a> itself, written by Bp.Langburg.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-70108130631944793412010-04-15T05:59:45.839-04:002010-04-15T05:59:45.839-04:00Then there is the problem that the story is flatly...Then there is the problem that the story is flatly denied by at least on bishop of the ACA. In a letter on the website of the Diocese of the Northeast Bishop Marsh says such a vote as described in the article never happened...<br /><br />http://www.acanedio.org/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-1371822944132095422010-04-14T17:20:19.182-04:002010-04-14T17:20:19.182-04:00It is impossible to know the mind of Hepworth in h...It is impossible to know the mind of Hepworth in his reasoning and actions in relation to the Apostolic Constitution particularly as a former Roman Catholic priest, now married, his own canonical future is bleak if one reads the Constitution.<br /><br />Christian Campbell aka The Anglo-Catholic writes:<br />" Also, I would have never referred to "a blog called TheAngloCatholic.com"; our site is known as The Anglo-Catholic."<br /><br />It is noteworthy that he writes in that blog: " It also should be noted that the Anglican Parishes Association is the publishing arm of the so-called Anglican Catholic Church (Original Province) (ACC-OP), an organization inimical to the Apostolic Constitution Anglicanorum Coetibus and actively working to undermine traditional Anglicans coming into communion with the Holy See. Caveat emptor."<br /><br />The Anglican Catholic Church (Original Province) is what it is called - it is the Original Province of the Anglican Catholic Church. Those ecclesial bodies which arose from the Deerfield consecrations are de jure schismatic and it is regrettable that ecumenical fraternity does not stretch from the Anglo-Catholic to us.<br /><br />If we accepted that our Anglican sacraments were empty shells, that Anglican bishops including the TAC bishops excepting perhaps the ex Roman priest Fr. Hepworth held to be in Roman terms laymen only then conversion to the Roman Church with some Anglican trappings might be nice.<br /><br />If one accepts that we are already part of the Catholic and Apostolic Church, with valid masses, consecrated bishops ordaining, absolving and blessing with absolute validity then the response of the Anglican Catholic Church (Original Province) and indeed the Second Province - the Church of India, Pakistan, Burma and Ceylon is logical and right.<br /><br />We in the ACC OP are not against Christian unity. The Anglo-Catholic ignores the enormous Eastern Church which is likewise a valid part of the Catholic and Apostolic Church and with whom unity is also desirable.<br /><br />To those sincere souls who wish to renounce their orders, their sacramental life and their history to become Roman Catholics, may the Lord bless your journey. To those who in conscience choose to remain Anglican, convinced that they are already Catholics, it is my prayer that you find shelter within the ACC-OP or it's sister churches the APCK and UECNA.<br /><br />The news on the ground in Australia does not confirm a complete conversion to Rome from the TAC members that I know. Indeed maybe not all three Australian bishops will swim the Tiber. Time will tell.Deacon Down Underhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14903366446394957630noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-42863283712760085142010-04-14T16:47:51.407-04:002010-04-14T16:47:51.407-04:00C. Campbell (the "Anglo-Catholic") wrote...C. Campbell (the "Anglo-Catholic") wrote:<br /><br /><i>Firstly, I would not have referred to the "Roman Catholic Church" in this context.</i><br /><br />I thought that to be rather odd for you. Normally, you call it something like "Holy Mother Church," or some other such exclusive title that simply contradicts your claim to be an Anglo-Catholic, or any kind of Anglican at all.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-51474413274890526832010-04-14T16:45:14.956-04:002010-04-14T16:45:14.956-04:00I was misquoted, though certainly not intentionall...I was misquoted, though certainly not intentionally. The quote you highlight is nothing more than a paraphrase of what I said.<br /><br />Firstly, I would not have referred to the "Roman Catholic Church" in this context.<br /><br />Also, I would have never referred to "a blog called TheAngloCatholic.com"; our site is known as The Anglo-Catholic.The Anglo-Catholichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14388830286754912484noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-34835749738186341442010-04-14T10:42:17.000-04:002010-04-14T10:42:17.000-04:00Given Rome's past behavior and Hepworth's ...Given Rome's past behavior and Hepworth's history, one is inclined to wonder what it is that he has been offered to pull this off. The same might be said for Falk. Are they simply tired of "playing church" and acting as King John attempted to do when he attempted to sell the Church of England to the pope? We shall perhaps never know unless the Germans or perhaps the Brits proceed to arrest and try the pope and certain of the cardinals, archbishops and bishops to expose the full extent of the present scandal. And, in spite of the hints currently being made in their press, they are probably as little likely to act as that Spanish judge who threatened to have President Bush arrested for war crimes.<br /><br />In the meantime let us get on with being the best Anglicans possible, even aiming to be the very best Anglicans and thus Catholics of all times.Canon Tallishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05182884929479435751noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-11918260972981148002010-04-14T09:03:22.341-04:002010-04-14T09:03:22.341-04:00Thanks for dealing with that article.
When the R...Thanks for dealing with that article. <br /><br />When the Roman Catholic Church learns what it has invited into its home, there will be a change of direction in those discussions. Perhaps the RCC authorities will learn of the "Orlando Wedding Chapel," a commercial enterprise which advertises on Facebook and Google. Can anyone imagine a real RC Church engaged in such mercenary activities? (Don't bring up bingo.) The sale of indulgences and relics was bad enough but the trafficing in weddings is unspeakable.<br /><br />And of course the numbers dished out by Hepworth, Falk and Campese are, to say the least, doubtful.<br />LKWAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-77855763202521105922010-04-14T07:05:43.326-04:002010-04-14T07:05:43.326-04:00I have to ask, for the sake of curiosity - Why the...I have to ask, for the sake of curiosity - Why the sucker punch on Fr. L, when he isn't mentioned anywhere else in the post?RSC+https://www.blogger.com/profile/00639369749327986414noreply@blogger.com