www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Website of Anglican Use Society

http://www.anglicanuse.org/

Website of former Anglicans turned Catholic who celebrate services according to the "Anglican Use". They are already quite well organized. We have one such priest in Scranton, Fr. Eric Bergman. He took half his Episcopal parish into Catholicism with him. He was ordained to the Catholic priesthood in 2007, by Auxiliary Bishop Dougherty of Scranton. He was appointed as chaplain of Holy Cross H.S., from which my daughter graduated in June, 2009. He now runs an "Anglican Use" parish, and is chaplain at a local hospital. My wife, my son, my daughter, and I are quite friendly with him. He says he entered the Catholic Church because of her "hard teachings", such as Humanae Vitae. He and his wife have just brought their sixth child into the world. I've attended one of their "Anglican Use" Masses. IMHO, it runs circles around Novus Ordo, and I even like it better than the RDL, because the music used is excellent, and the text of the Mass is not "politically correct". There is no "inclusive" language. To the contrary, the text of the Liturgy uses Elizabethan English, a la the 1928 Book of Common Prayer, and close to what is used by OCA. The website is very interesting. These people are all very optimistic about the new arrangement for Anglican Use Ordinariates. So am I.

Dn. Robert

I sincerely hope another Henry VIII doesn't arise and we have history repeat itself. Sorry for throwing the monkey wrench into this dream.

Under this Pope they have good reason to be optimistic and Rite I (thou and thee) Anglican Use does run circles around the standard Novus Ordo (AU as it's now configured is a subgroup of the NO).

Most of the ordinariate will be in England, where Anglo-Catholics do the NO but with high-church panache rather like Rome's 'reform of the reform'.

Liking the old Prayer Book is an American thing. The English aren't interested in the AU.

Some well-meaning RCs are worried that this is a concession to and importation of Protestantism; they don't understand Anglo-Catholicism. The theology and ethos here are not Protestant. I don't see any of the newcomers going into schism for dynastic reasons like, God have mercy on him, Henry VIII.

I think it's wonderful, and welcome these folks with open arms. I wish them every success.

Henry VIII did not want to leave the church...he, as did Martin Luther, proclaimed himself Pope...that did the trick. My point is, why has the Pope not looked into the possibility of doing the same for Lutherans as for the Anglicans? They too do not have valid Holy Orders, but believe essentially the same and I am sure many would welcome the chance to become "Lutheran Use"
Catholics, instead of breaking into yet newer churches because of certain stands over homosexuality...sounds familar. Isn't this a large part of the reason for the Anglicans to look to us...homosexual and female clergy??? Just thinking.

No, he didn't. He went into schism for an understandable but selfish reason - dynastic not sexual; his affairs were nothing new and lots of kings had them. He didn't literally declare himself Pope but functionally he did.

Lutherans do not believe essentially the same as Anglo-Catholics and certainly not the same as English Anglo-Papalists, essentially good would-be reform-of-the-reform RCs, whom this papal initiative is aimed at. Lutherans are more Protestant with a weaker idea of the church and they don't believe you need bishops.

So the reasons these Anglo-Catholics are looking Romeward are more and deeper than objecting to women clergy (which they object to because Rome says no) and homosexuality.

That is a bit of an oversimplication. Some Lutherans, for example, the Church of Sweden, are within the historic episcopate and view Bishops as essential for the unity and authenticity of the Church.

In the US, opinion is very divided. The 1999 "Called to Common Mission" (CCM) "full communion" agreement between The Episcopal Church and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) has been a source of friction to the point of schism. The "Word Alone Network" (predominantly upper midwest, Scandanavian ancestry) formed to oppose CCM, and to demand that there be exceptions to the new policies requiring new ELCA Pastors to be Ordained by Bishops in the historic episcopate.

Ironically, this call for "exceptions" was then taken up by the homosexualists, leading to the present crisis in the ELCA regarding openly gay partnered clergy.

But there are other strands of ELCA which have no problem with Bishops, and, indeed, wish that ELCA Bishops had more authority--and of course, wishing that they were true guardians of the faith once delivered to the saints.

Lutherans of that strand would welcome a "Lutheran Use Rite"

For Anglican (Anglo-Catholic) case I think it is a bit unique for they are keeping an explicit hope for a reunion with the See of Peter. That is their goal, that is their wish, that is their mission.
But I don't think the Lutheran ever have that conception in mind.

Have any of those Lutherans requested a Lutheran Use Rite? I haven't heard of any.

Martin Luther did not truly want to stay in the Catholic Church. He wanted the Catholic Church to endorse his theology, which it could never do. I suspect he would have loved to stay in the Church if he could re-make it to suit himself. There's still a lot of that attitude going around today.

In the beginning Luther wanted to stay but made theological mistakes early on.

I knew the Church of Sweden (liturgical but very liberal, like the Episcopalians; few Swedes go to church) claims the historic episcopate but it's my understanding that as Lutherans they don't see it as essential so they're in communion with other Lutheran churches, which don't claim it.

For the record, I can't find it right now, but some Lutherans have indeed petitioned Rome with the same sort of thing, i.e. a Lutheran use, etc. Google it, something should turn up.

Alexis

Tell me where did you get the notion that Lutherans or Anglicans have valid orders?
They do not possess valid orders!
Stephanos I
A former Lutheran. Solo Dei Gloria.

Fr.,

If you re-read ALLEN's post, you will see that he says that they do not have valid orders.

Ryan

Yes, some Lutherans have asked for a Lutheran Use. There was work on it in the 1980's; it still has not been approved, however.

ANd while there certainly is a sense of "remaking the church" in the Lutheran communion, one must remember: the Lutherans are even less unified in doctrine than the Anglicans.

Further, the pastoral provision applies; Lutheran clergy can be ordained as Catholics should they convert, but it's neither as quick nor as easily approved as the Anglicans were, let alone as they now are.

Actually, I have not found any evidence that proves the invalidity of Anglican orders save the Pope Leo's papul bull. Just because he said so, doesn't quite make it so. From my understanding he was not speaking ex cathedra when he made the pronouncement. So the Papal Bull may be Pope Leo's opinion and not the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. I have not found a break in the apostolic sucession of validly ordained Anglican Bishops.

Looking through Eastern Orthodox documents I have found some that due attest to the validity of Anglican Orders. Of them I have found documents from three Orthodox Patriarchs, a bishop, and the Romanian Synod recognizing Anglican orders in letters dated from 1922-1936.

Many have failed to see the evidence that is within most of the priesthood lineages of Anglican Apostolic Sucession, namely priesthood lineages from both the Roman and Eastern lineages intersect the Anglican. So, if the ordination of Anglican bishops by the Old Catholic Church of Utrecht was not enough; then how does one explain away the "so called" valid lineages that exist within the line?

Just some observations

Weren't there some Lutherans in Detroit who left the ELCA in the last couple of years and went over to WR Orthodoxy under the Antiochian Archdiocese?

Regardless of the state of Anglican orders in the 19th century, today their line of apostolic succession is hopelessly corrupted because of the ordination of women to the episcopate. These women have, in turn, ordained men to the presbyterate who in their turn have become bishops. Since their ordinations to the presbyterate were highly irregular, any priests ordained by them would not have valid orders in turn. As these men rise to the episcopate, the situation becomes even more confused. The ordination of women has a corrosive and corrupting effect on Anglican orders.

And we haven't even gotten to the point of addressing the ordination of active homosexuals to the episcopate, yet.

All that aside, there is more to the validity of orders than merely an unbroken chain of hand-laying. If that were the case, then all those Orthodox vagante bishops would be canonical, and they aren't. Ordination is an ecclesial act, which implies not just meeting some legal preconditions, but also acting according to the mind of the Church--which, most assuredly, the Anglican communion has not done since its inception in the 16th century.

Careful! The Church long ago condemned Donatism as a heresy - the morals or lack thereof in either the ordaining prelate or the ordinand cannot invalidate the ordination.

Fr. Serge

It's not a matter of morals per se, but that the Anglicans proceeded to ordain a man who, by his own admission, routinely violated canons that would disqualify him from any Church ministry, and who, again by his own admission, insisted he would continue that particular mode of behavior after his ordination. That would indicate that the ECUSA (or TEC if you prefer) was not acting in accordance with the mind of the undivided Church when it ordained him. His ordination, therefore, would be null even if, by some miracle, an unbroken line of succession had been maintained--which it was not, insofar as Catherine Jefforts Schiori was one of the bishops ordaining him.

IIRC, Pope Leo stated that the rite of Anglican ordination itself had been defective for some centuries. Consequently, it couldn't be used to validly ordain anyone.

One of the priestly instructors involved in my formation to the diaconate once stated in class: "Thank God that we are not Donatists!"

Dn. Robert

In my area, there are two Roman Catholic parishes and an Anglican parish. Liturgically, the Anglican parish can run circles around the Roman parishes and thier Novus Ordo mass. The Anglican parish celebrates the Tridentine mass in Elizabethian English while the Roman parish celebrates the Novus Ordo in modern English.

Likewise, I hear orthodox doctrine preached from the Anglican pulpit, but liberal politics from the Roman. What I have stumbled upon is "Lex orandi, lex credendi" in action. The law of prayer establishes belief. The Anglican parish is both orthodox and orthopaxic, while the Roman is neither.

The Vincentian Canon is "that which has been believed everywhere, always and by all. That is truly and properly 'Catholic'." So which parish is Catholic? The Anglican or Roman? Which parish preaches and holds fast to the faith once delivered to the saints?

I'm from Detroit, and I think those folks belonged to St. John's Episcopal Church and Zion Lutheran Church. Zion is actually Misourri Synod.