Posted on 02/18/2007 5:09:43 PM PST by kalee
Dear centurion316,
"Some testy little details to work out, like what happens to the Anglican liturgy, etc."
That's probably not a tough one. The Catholic Church already permits the establishment of Catholic parishes that use an Anglican liturgy.
I just sorta think that other things will interfere with a widespread corporate return of many Anglicans to the Catholic Church.
sitetest
Discuss the issues all you want but do not make it personal.
as well as Chesterton, Newman, Caswell, and many more great converts
Peach -
As a former Episcopalian, now RC, I will try to answer a couple of your questions.
In 1980, John Paul II established the Pastoral Provision for Anglicans/Episcopalians who are converting to Rome. It provides that entire congregations, along with their priests, may convert. Many times the priest will go on to become an RC priest, even if married. The Anglican Use parishes use the "Book of Divine Worship," which is basically the 1979 BCP which has been modified to conform to the Latin Rite. For example, the Mass is the same, with the Words of Consecration changed to the Roman Canon. In addition, I think most of the Anglican Use parishes use the 1982 Episcopal Hymnal - I know mine does.
Here is a website on the Pastoral Provision, which explains everything and provides links to Anglican Use parishes:
http://www.pastoralprovision.org/
When Mr. Claret and I converted, we had to have our previous marriages annuled. It was a very healing experience! It was not about whether we considered our previous marriages binding, but whether or not they were Sacramental. The Church makes that judgement after having been given all the facts - and it is really a judgement about facts and not feelings.
Hope this has helped. Freepmail me if you have any questions. I will be happy to answer them.
nan c
I found http://www.continuingcofe.org/ - the website of the Continuing Church of England.
It says that:
"We are a group of Anglican congregations outside the Church of England, seeking to preach the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ and to uphold the biblical teaching of the Protestant and Reformed Church of England as expressed in the:
1662 Book of Common Prayer
and
The Thirty Nine Articles of Religion"
How closely aligned are the Continuing Churches? Or are they more self-reliant as to creed and worship?
You wrote:
"What a freakingly stupid and arrogant question from one who hangs out and posts nasty snarky remarks on Anglican threads."
There is nothing stupid not arrogant about the question. What is the point of the term "continuing"? What are you continuing to? What are you continuing from? What's the point of the term? What is it supposed to convey? Does it actually apply? None of those questions are stupid or arrogant. They all make sense.
"Go ask your great high pope, Vlad.. He can tell you."
He's not Anglican. You are. If you can't answer the question then simply say so.
"Maybe your cardinal can."
I don't have a cardinal.
"Maybe your bishop can. Maybe your priest can. I guess you can't."
If I could answer it then I probably would have asked it. Also, my priest is Catholic and so is my bishop. Why would I ask them about something as minor and not Catholic as "continuing" Anglican groups which I know are small and not Catholic?
"Are your superior authorities so high & mighty & inaccessible that you have to rely on informational responses from non-Catholics?"
In regard to Protestant things I think it makes sense to ask Protestants. Since the continuing Anglican sects are all Protestant it makes sense to ask Protestants who claim to be in those sects.
"Or do you trust non-Catholics more than Catholics?"
I trust continuing Anglicans to know their own terms. I need not ask a Muslim about Jewish things, nor a Hindu about Confucist thing. It makes sense to ask a continuing Anglican about the term "continuing". Why you find this so upsetting is beyond me.
"Everye you post, I learn more and more about your Roman Catholic church. It's not a very pretty picture that's forming here. At the rate it's going one of these days I might even be persuaded the (IMHO canard that) one of your popes took the low road with Hitler."
And what does that have to do with the term "continuing"? And are you saying that some popes might have gone to Hell? No surprise there. Do you think such a childish tweaking remark is supposed to upset me? My gosh, get a grip. I asked a simple question of a continuing Anglican. What is the problem?
"I sincerely hope that is not the case. There are some Roman Catholics for which I have much respect, WFB for example, -- but I also see that that church also permits without correction quite arrogant twits in their midst."
Yes, it does. Is your sect any different on that score? Were Gene Robinson (?) and Schorri made bishops or not? And even if someone claims that they are Episcopalian and you're something else nowadays, are you actually claiming there are no twits at all in your sect? Yeah, sure.
"vladimir998 is a perfect example of why I will never become Roman Catholic (were I even looking to change), and exactly what I present to those who indicate an interest in that direction."
Please don't become a "Roman Catholic". I'm not one either. Instead, become a Catholic. Please grow up BEFOREHAND.
"If you really desire to undergo unChristian abasement and abjection, go here... and see what you're headed into. If kissing the toes of the arrogant self-righteous is what you desire, go ahead. If you want real salvation, re-think. The likes of vladimir998 is what you're going to encounter in the Roman church, and it doesn't look very Christian to me."
Oh, no, they might encounter me!? How horrible! I ask a simple question and you try to scare people away from the Church because of it? My gosh, are you crying as you write this? Be a man. If the question of what a Continuing Anglican is continuing to is such a horrnedusly destructive to you it should make you think why it is so rather than make you whine against the questioner.
"Power. It's all about power. And that church has established a major record about being powerful."
Unbelievable. I asked a simple question. If this doesn't show the moral and intellectual bankrupcy of Anglicanism, or at least Anglicans here, what could?
Let this be a warning to everyone: Don't dare ask questions of Anglicans. They might throw a fit and post rambling nonsensical notes that have nothing at all to do with your question.
Remember, all I asked was this: What exactly are you continuing to?
Ah! I think there's the misunderstanding. There's no reason why one spouse's abandonment of the family means the other spouse's vows weren't sincere. But because Matrimony is a covenant based on a mutual vow, if one party didn't sincerely intend the vow, then here was no "mutual vow."
As I understand it, if the abandoning partner believed from the outset that divorce would be an option "if the marriage didn't work out," then he didn't really intend what the Church intends by Matrimony.
It's no reflection on the innocent spouse. She intended the marriage to be binding. But since that intention wasn't mutual, the marriage was defective (in a Sacramental sense) from the git-go. There's no reason she would have to say something untruthful by claiming that she herself wasn't sincere. She was sincere. Thee was simply no mutual vow.
There are no living descendants of Henry VIII. His line ran out with Elizabeth I.
Interesting...
It's more about sacramental validity. The status of children do not change.
And your post is an example of Christianity?
Additionally, not all Catholics have the gift of apologetics or expressing kindness in internet postings. This has absolutely nothing to do with the Church.
FWIW, my BF is going filling out the 1st step of the paperwork for an annulment. Many Catholics are misinformed about the whole process. We sat through a full day introductory seminar on it. It helped to clear up many misconceptions he had, as well as to help him view his history with the ex in a new light.
We are Roman Catholic members of an Anglican Use parish and we have found it to be wonderful, both liturgically and theologically.
This is good news!
Maybe yes, maybe no. Depends on whether the first (attempted) marriage was defective for some reason from the git-go.
As I believe I mentioned upthread, and to you specifically, although it may have been another freeper, I have a close family who went through this process as well and I'm quite familiar with it.
I know that, but I would think that pretty much anyone would understand that children would not be particularly happy to see their parents annul a marriage.
That did help. Thanks for the information, Nan. It will be interesting to see what our priest has to say about this. I've copied off the article to show him.
didn't Ted Kennedy get one?
Ahhh yes, the House of Tudor. We now have the House of Windsor.
Well then, they'll have to do!! Off with the lot of them!!
Yeah, apparently he did. But I never did hear the grounds for finding the vow invalid: mental illness, drug or alcohol, immaturity, fraud, coercion, bigamy...? Anybody know?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.