tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post922618096120041933..comments2024-03-28T12:59:52.914-04:00Comments on southern orders: WHAT ABOUT THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND AND THE WORKINGS OF THE HOLY SPIRIT DURING THE YEARS OF SCHISM?Fr. Allan J. McDonaldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16986575955114152639noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-67561629721286277322015-02-14T08:25:44.766-05:002015-02-14T08:25:44.766-05:00Why are we spending so much time discussing a deno...Why are we spending so much time discussing a denomination that was founded upon adultery, is fraught with neo-Platonic philosophy, and is the progenitor of Episcopalianism, which believes that any sex act between two consenting mammals (not to exclude inanimate objects) is acceptable, and whose main claim to fame in this country is that they can outdrink Lutherans, Scottish presbyterians, and Irish Catholics?Genehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06672484450736725268noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-26144435877740239652015-02-13T08:01:15.731-05:002015-02-13T08:01:15.731-05:00John Nolan,
In the USA, a distinction is to be fo...John Nolan,<br /><br />In the USA, a distinction is to be found among the elite. Most US presidents, for example, have been members of either the Episcopal or Presbyterian communities, which have their origins in England and Scotland, respectively. This is despite the fact that only a tiny percentage of Americans are affiliated with either community. <br /><br />The official "house of prayer" of the USA, so designated by Congress, is the Episcopal cathedral in Washington, DC. Rood Screenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09816036539243214384noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-61351533783360222852015-02-12T11:10:28.062-05:002015-02-12T11:10:28.062-05:00Further to my earlier comment, and a further comme...Further to my earlier comment, and a further comment I made on Fr Hunwicke's blog, it needs to be remembered that for St Thomas More the King in Parliament (which governed the realm) had no jurisdiction over the law of God by which the Catholic Church and the Petrine Ministry derived their authority. So Henry VIII might claim to be Supreme Head of the English Church, and even get the bishops to swear an oath acknowledging his supremacy (most did this at the beginning of 1535 and only St John Fisher refused) but this claim was bogus. Neither king nor parliament had the competence to put the English Church into schism. For St Thomas the English Church remained part of Christendom under the pope.<br /><br />Anglicans like to think that Henry established the Church of England since it allows them to argue that it is not in fact heretical, since the liturgy, Ordinal and sacramental system continued more or less intact until 1547. But Henry did not establish a separate Church (despite being personally both a schismatic and a heretic). What we know as the Church of England was a result of the Elizabethan settlement, and it was by law established as a Protestant entity. <br /><br />It is still so established, and retains the cathedrals and parish churches which were built by Catholics and paid for by Catholics. In places like Australia and America all denominations are more or less equal. The perspective for English Catholics is very different. That is not to say that we don't find much to admire in traditional Anglicanism.John Nolanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09027156691859606002noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-21427738708866743022015-02-12T00:32:15.498-05:002015-02-12T00:32:15.498-05:00JusadBellum:
If a priest is in schism or a heret...JusadBellum:<br /><br />If a priest is in schism or a heretic:<br />He may not exercise the Sacrament of Holy Orders.<br />Mass celebrated by a suspended and excommunicated priest is valid, but illicit. For him to knowingly celebrate Mass is a grave sin.<br />He cannot not give valid sacramental absolution. <br />He cannot validly officiate at a wedding.<br />He cannot celebrate the Sacrament of Confirmation.<br />He can confer Baptism and the Anointing of the Sick validly but not licitly.<br />Any Catholic who goes to a schismatic priest for the reception of the sacraments, except in the case of danger of death, commit a mortal sin.<br />Georgenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-26515394192956677742015-02-11T14:48:05.674-05:002015-02-11T14:48:05.674-05:00This brings up a good question on the state of sou...This brings up a good question on the state of souls who seek the Catholic sacraments from a genuinely ordained priest who is in a state of schism or heresy but who agrees to hear one's confession. If he is validly and licitly ordained, are his absolutions valid if he no longer believes or stays in union with the Pope?<br /><br />I think....yes. After all, the faith of the person who baptizes isn't as essential as the form used. Still, given the convoluted nature of history, and the experience of our fellow Catholics in China or elsewhere that the Church is in schism, we ought to know the basic rules of the road on this score.JusadBellumnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-29644290859812267002015-02-10T20:25:21.977-05:002015-02-10T20:25:21.977-05:00"But more:did S Thomas More refuse the Sacram...<br />"But more:did S Thomas More refuse the Sacraments before he died, on the grounds that he ought not to hold communicatio in sacris with heretical schismatics? (Roper tells us that it was his custom to go to Confession, to Mass, and to be houselled before major events; before, for example, his arrest.) If he did receive the Sacraments before execution from a priest who had followed Henry Tudor into schism, doesn't that fact make S Thomas himself, according to a rigorist viewpoint, a schismatic? And that is a conclusion which the Roman Magisterium implicitly denied when he was canonised." <br /><br />I trust that Thomas More made the correct decision. I'm with the Magisterium on this. <br /><br />Sir Thomas More would not agree to submit to the King's law which required his subjects to submit to his authority in spiritual things. <br /><br />Henry the VIII even went to Thomas More's wife, and persuaded her to go to her husband and to try and influence him to change his mind. He would not relent.<br /><br />St. Thomas More’s last words before execution reflect his Christian view of authority. They are reported to have been: “I am the King’s good servant, but God’s first.”Georgenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-83011612644173990612015-02-10T11:37:02.498-05:002015-02-10T11:37:02.498-05:00In 1534 it was the bishops who followed the king i...In 1534 it was the bishops who followed the king into schism, with the sole exception of St John Fisher, who chose martyrdom. They probably believed that the schism would be short-lived; when it proved to be permanent and indeed was to usher in heresy, one ruefully remarked: 'Would that I had stood with my brother Fisher!'<br /><br />The idea that Henry VIII was an orthodox Catholic needs some qualification. Both he and his French counterpart Francis I flirted with heretical ideas, and there were significant changes to ritual and custom during his reign. Henry put up with Cranmer, whom he well knew to be the greatest heretic in Kent; and even more significantly he entrusted the education of his son and heir to two extreme Protestants.<br /><br />A bishop can be a schismatic, but it does not therefore follow that a priest under his authority is ipso facto a schismatic. A good parallel is with the French Revolution. All clergy were required to swear to the Civil Constitution of the Clergy. Those who did automatically put themselves into schism and so neither Louis XVI nor Marie Antoinette would accept the sacraments from any priest but a non-juring one - even when they were 'in articulo mortis'. John Nolanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09027156691859606002noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-80394715606094684832015-02-10T09:41:34.972-05:002015-02-10T09:41:34.972-05:00The problem with a church born from expediency is ...The problem with a church born from expediency is that it will always respond expediently to external events and influences. So the Church of England has veered from being Protestant in some periods to Catholic in others, though often in ways that make it hard to apply labels vigorously. In the small Essex town where I grew up, the C of E church was in most ways evangelical Protestant in orientation. But the monthly Holy Communion services were conducted ad orientem, and the parishioners knelt at the altar rail to receive communion.<br /><br />The C of E still describes itself as 'Catholic and Reformed', although these days doesn't seem very comfortable with the capitals.Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13873507031809422203noreply@blogger.com