tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8940364093450837549.post6217274953832021641..comments2024-03-29T01:24:45.251+00:00Comments on Fr Hunwicke's Mutual Enrichment: Apostolicae CuraeFr John Hunwickehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17766211573399409633noreply@blogger.comBlogger18125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8940364093450837549.post-78752383395919535922008-12-16T18:17:00.000+00:002008-12-16T18:17:00.000+00:00How can you say that St Cyprian represented the co...<I>How can you say that St Cyprian represented the consistent teaching of the Fathers when St Augustine on the issue in question disagreed with him?</I><BR/><BR/>Quite true. In order to argue this, one would have to exclude the witness of almost all the Latin Fathers, and not a few of the Greek Fathers. <BR/><BR/>Cyprian himself knew that his position was not "the consistent teaching of the D. Benedict Andersen OSBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14666112025416568912noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8940364093450837549.post-72173929243116922092008-12-16T15:22:00.000+00:002008-12-16T15:22:00.000+00:00John. How can you say that St Cyprian represente...John. How can you say that St Cyprian represented the consistent teaching of the Fathers when St Augustine on the issue in question disagreed with him?<BR/>Do you also think the Ecumenical Patriarch sufficiently ignorant of Orthodoxy so as to not appreciate the significance of his actions?<BR/><BR/>Canary. The term Anglo-Catholic is a very broad term indeed. It nowadays is used in England to Independenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08199774656279385253noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8940364093450837549.post-73560271042265708482008-12-16T15:04:00.000+00:002008-12-16T15:04:00.000+00:00Well, of course -- it shouldn't need saying, but e...Well, of course -- it shouldn't need saying, but evidently it does -- there never was any "intercommunion" between the Orthodox and the Anglicans. What the Orthodox "recognition" of Anglican Orders (or the recognition of "Anglican Orders" by some Orthodox churches and patriarchs, as others, e.g., the Russians, took the opposite stance) meant was that in the event that the Anglican Communion, or William Tighehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16634494183165592707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8940364093450837549.post-87157596831420778422008-12-16T14:02:00.000+00:002008-12-16T14:02:00.000+00:00John (ad Orientem) - Back to Neale: He opened the ...John (ad Orientem) - Back to Neale: He opened the door which led to several Holy Orthodox Patriarchs (in writing, mind you) to acknowledge the VALIDITY of Anglican holy orders (prior to the Dutch Touch). It was the "ordination" of womyn that ended the inter-communion of the Holy Orthodox with Anglicans. As far as those of us who have consistently eschewed womyns "ordinations" the facts remain Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8940364093450837549.post-61911741102091552262008-12-16T10:24:00.000+00:002008-12-16T10:24:00.000+00:00Sorry typo - I was NOT denying the possibility for...Sorry typo - I was NOT denying the possibility for valid orders to exist outside orthodox Catholic churches.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16624191166989824833noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8940364093450837549.post-28581867208369336882008-12-16T10:23:00.000+00:002008-12-16T10:23:00.000+00:00Presbyter - I was denying the possibility of valid...Presbyter - I was denying the possibility of valid orders existing outside the Roman (and Orthodox) churches. It just seems to me that the theological history of the Anglican Church is so very confused. On a issue as important as Holy Orders, we can't afford to have any doubt. Many Anglicans like to insist that they are 'catholic' and not 'protestant'. Yet many more Anglicans would consider Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16624191166989824833noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8940364093450837549.post-41609495807154968252008-12-16T04:36:00.000+00:002008-12-16T04:36:00.000+00:00Presbytyr,I am Orthodox and Cyprian's writings rep...Presbytyr,<BR/>I am Orthodox and Cyprian's writings represent the consistent teaching of the Fathers. <BR/><BR/>Question: Are we discussing the orders of heretics? If so then it doesn't really matter where they claim their orders are from. There are no Mysteries outside the Church. <BR/><BR/>I don't care if the Pope and Ecumenical Patriarch concelebrate the Episcopal consecration. Heretics John (Ad Orientem)https://www.blogger.com/profile/14329907942477160166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8940364093450837549.post-17576756886327379112008-12-15T16:51:00.000+00:002008-12-15T16:51:00.000+00:00Canary - if you were an Orthodox taking a Cyprian...Canary - if you were an Orthodox taking a Cyprianic View of Holy Orders then your point of view would be defensible, however your Church takes an Augustinian view and regards the transmission of such Orders as possible even in schismatic and heretical bodies. Both the Vatican II Council and the CDF seems quite concerned with the "messy and technical" question of which bodies outside communion Independenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08199774656279385253noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8940364093450837549.post-62946049804841900212008-12-15T14:44:00.000+00:002008-12-15T14:44:00.000+00:00It's think it's something of an assumption...It's think it's something of an assumption that Roman orders are valid! Leo xiii (or should I say, Raphael Cardinal Merry del Val - who wrote the bull) set a pretty high bar for validity. The modern Roman ordinal fails the litmus test - hoist on their own petard. And after all who know what the Medici Popes private intentions were - that is if we accept the thrust of the bull AC that Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8940364093450837549.post-15873264111311218282008-12-15T12:54:00.000+00:002008-12-15T12:54:00.000+00:00This all seems so messy and technical! The only w...This all seems so messy and technical! The only way one can be really sure of the validity of one's ordination is Union with Peter!Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16624191166989824833noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8940364093450837549.post-55030808411372035682008-12-15T12:44:00.000+00:002008-12-15T12:44:00.000+00:00Two comments:(1) Dr. Steenson was ordained to the ...Two comments:<BR/><BR/>(1) Dr. Steenson was ordained to the diaconate in Rome, at Santa Maria Maggiore, by Cardinal Law this past Saturday, and will be priested in Albuquerque, New Mexico, on February 21st. I have not heard that his ordinations were or will be anything other than unconditional.<BR/><BR/>(2) Some years ago I had several conversations with the Rt. Rev'd Anthony Rysz (b. 1924), William Tighehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16634494183165592707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8940364093450837549.post-88169437929380591082008-12-15T10:54:00.000+00:002008-12-15T10:54:00.000+00:00It is a pity that so much of the Anglican Response...It is a pity that so much of the Anglican Response of the Archbishops concerned with the eucharistic sacrifice depends on the prayer of oblation which is in the 1662 rite an alternative thanksgiving prayer. They clearly has 1549 in mind. It is a pity too that their work merely represented their own opinions not shared by Evangelicals who made up a large part of the C of E at that time. Also they Independenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08199774656279385253noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8940364093450837549.post-25774594491628687902008-12-15T02:50:00.000+00:002008-12-15T02:50:00.000+00:00I don't know what actual role the Old Catholics ha...I don't know what actual role the Old Catholics had in English consecrations, but in America the participating PNCC bishops only ever said "Accipe Spritum Sanctum," which are the same insufficient words cited in Apostolicae Curae. In this respect AC would still be applicable. <BR/><BR/>Similarly, another little fact that has always bothered me about Anglican orders is the necessity of 3 Fr. Fraserhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03552290873285940203noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8940364093450837549.post-78802047385784694842008-12-14T22:01:00.000+00:002008-12-14T22:01:00.000+00:00Well, of course, it is very different for American...Well, of course, it is very different for Americans and other non-British subjects, especially those of us in the Anglican Catholic Church (Continuing Church) who cannot really identify with all of the matters raised here, and for whom the Church of England is not the same thing as Anglicanism. <BR/><BR/>When Fr. Hunwicke writes, "Now, of course, we are nearly in agreement with Rome about the Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8940364093450837549.post-29131377445119110782008-12-14T20:02:00.000+00:002008-12-14T20:02:00.000+00:00A really fierce Catholic traditionalist would addr...A really fierce Catholic traditionalist would address all secular priests as Mr. It was Archbishop Manning in his diocese who upset such traditionalists by requiring seculars, to raise their status vis a vis the religious, be called Father. Naturally many objected to the innovation.Independenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08199774656279385253noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8940364093450837549.post-25768860513145493042008-12-14T19:54:00.000+00:002008-12-14T19:54:00.000+00:00unfortunately - sorryunfortunately - sorryIndependenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08199774656279385253noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8940364093450837549.post-75104131554542674602008-12-14T19:53:00.000+00:002008-12-14T19:53:00.000+00:00Is not Trent's view of intention such as to allow ...Is not Trent's view of intention such as to allow a bishop to ordain men and women at the same ceremony while conveying Holy Orders only to the men? Unfortunatly it does not seem to take the commonsense view that once a bishop has purported to ordain a woman he is rendered incapable of further ordinations on the grounds of defective intention.<BR/><BR/>As for married bishops - St Peter was one.Independenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08199774656279385253noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8940364093450837549.post-82071877471357830272008-12-14T14:26:00.000+00:002008-12-14T14:26:00.000+00:00There is, of course, one precedent for "a married ...There is, of course, one precedent for "a married bishop" in the modern Latin Church of which I am aware. It concerns the "Catholic Apostolic Church of<BR/>Brazil" which was founded in 1945 by the excommunicated Catholic bishop Carlos Duarte Costa (1888-1961). In July 1945 Duarte Costa ordained to the priesthood a married man, Salomao Barbosa Ferraz (1880-1969) and a month later consecrated himWilliam Tighehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16634494183165592707noreply@blogger.com