tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327221.post8633677806632234320..comments2024-03-27T08:46:54.369-04:00Comments on BabyBlueOnline: Former Episcopal priests make a home — with wife and children — in the Catholic churchAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17490745238430648958noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327221.post-9900767277340058402009-04-28T11:55:00.000-04:002009-04-28T11:55:00.000-04:00I most don't understand how someone who is ordaine...I most don't understand how someone who is ordained in the Episcopal Church, who professes belief in Jesus as the ONLY way to Heaven, can then become a member, as a priest, of a denomination which doesn't.Marthanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327221.post-29191586454893173412009-04-28T06:53:00.000-04:002009-04-28T06:53:00.000-04:001662 BCP,
If you read this (and I hope you do!)
I...1662 BCP,<br /><br />If you read this (and I hope you do!)<br />I'd love to talk with you about why you left the Orthodox Church. It is important to me to understand your reasons...<br /><br />I often hear of Episcopalians/Anglicans becoming Orthodox, but never the other way.<br /><br />You an contact me by e-mail from my link.Anam Carahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03960986859370967282noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327221.post-63982532181052992832009-04-26T13:08:00.000-04:002009-04-26T13:08:00.000-04:00Annie,
Thank you for your citations which I presu...Annie,<br /> Thank you for your citations which I presume are from the most current edition of the Roman Canons. My reference to funny incense is in regard to those who presume to think that they will be received by Rome in their orders. Clearly Rev'd Anderson's orders were not accepted by the Vatican.RMBrutonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15017576806723146013noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327221.post-26165757442532281542009-04-26T12:27:00.000-04:002009-04-26T12:27:00.000-04:00No funny incense, just actual facts.
From the Cat...No funny incense, just actual facts.<br /><br />From the Catechism, regarding the sacrament of baptism:<br /><br />IV. WHO CAN RECEIVE BAPTISM? <br />1246 "Every person not yet baptized and only such a person is able to be baptized."<br /><br />1271 Baptism constitutes the foundation of communion among all Christians, including those who are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church: "For men who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in some, though imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church. Justified by faith in Baptism, [they] are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church." "Baptism therefore constitutes the sacramental bond of unity existing among all who through it are reborn."<br /><br />1272 Incorporated into Christ by Baptism, the person baptized is configured to Christ. Baptism seals the Christian with the indelible spiritual mark (character) of his belonging to Christ. No sin can erase this mark, even if sin prevents Baptism from bearing the fruits of salvation. Given once for all, Baptism cannot be repeated.<br /><br />1280 Baptism imprints on the soul an indelible spiritual sign, the character, which consecrates the baptized person for Christian worship. Because of the character Baptism cannot be repeated (cf. DS 1609 and DS 1624)<br /><br />If you really want to know what the RC church teaches about baptism, etc., visit http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/ccc_toc.htmAnniehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02515623147412388373noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327221.post-52586414529830711942009-04-26T08:56:00.000-04:002009-04-26T08:56:00.000-04:00Anam Cara,
Unless you are referring to the OCA, t...Anam Cara, <br />Unless you are referring to the OCA, the Antiochian Archdiocese of N.A. or perhaps the Greek Archdiocese of N.A. there most certainly have been reception by baptism and chrismation in accordance with the Pedalion. This is one of the inconsistencies in some of the North American jurisdictions. There are certain cases where oeconomia may be exercised in the reception of converts, but generally Orthodox Canon Law is flouted by these jurisdictions. I lived for two years on Mount Athos and am speaking from the position of strict adherence to the Canons in the Orthodox Church. If one had been received in any other way they would not be communed in most of the Orthodox World. Was the Roman Catholic bishop who ordained Rev'd Anderson given some Papal some temporary dispensation to ordain a married man to the priesthood. If I were still a Roman Catholic I'd be rather troubled by this novel exercise of priviledge. <br /><br />tdunbar,<br />If, as you say there was no reception by baptism, then why was it necessary to ordain Rev'd Anderson a deacon and a priest. Please cite for me the particular Roman Canons in regard to this. Does Rome now accept Anglican/Episcopalian baptism but not ordination? Particularly since the advent of women's ordination and episcopal consecration.RMBrutonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15017576806723146013noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327221.post-89539983514026240872009-04-26T07:06:00.000-04:002009-04-26T07:06:00.000-04:00There would be no rebaptism required if they'd gon...There would be no rebaptism required if they'd gone to the Orthodox Church. <br /><br />Quite honestly, these reports just make me sad. Sad that they didn't take the step to go all the way back to Orthodoxy.<br /><br />1662 BCP, I'd be interested to kow why you left the Orthodox Church and become Anglican?Anam Carahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03960986859370967282noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327221.post-56322318584085565632009-04-26T05:47:00.000-04:002009-04-26T05:47:00.000-04:00You're mistaken, no rebaptism.You're mistaken, no rebaptism.tdunbarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06692665750427668367noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327221.post-90919969600403211482009-04-26T01:43:00.000-04:002009-04-26T01:43:00.000-04:00BB,
Perhaps it's just me, having been raised R.C.,...BB,<br />Perhaps it's just me, having been raised R.C.,but I just don't get the titillation which so many "Anglicans" derive from former Anglican clergy being received and then ordained in the Roman Church. It isn't as though the Vatican accepted his ordination as valid, he was catechized then presumably re-baptized, confirmed (of course Rome would not have recognized his former baptism and confirmation) and then he was ordained a deacon and priest. The Pastoral Provision is simply a "bait and switch" strategy to lure congregations and their pastors into joining the Roman Church. Will such congregations be provided with married clergy in perpetuity? I very much doubt it. They will be expected to eventually conform to Roman Catholic practice. The Pastoral Provision is seen as a transition phase on the Road to becoming real Roman Catholics. So why do so many "Anglicans" seem to celebrate these situations? Is it perhaps that somehow they feel as though their Church is second class or minor league and that here is the story of another boy from the minor league who has moved-on to the major league? When I left the Orthodox Church and became an Anglican neither I nor my family were required to be baptized or confirmed and I was not re-ordained. My orders were accepted as being valid; the same cannot be said of Rev'd Anderson. What does this say about what he thought he had been before he joined the Roman Church? For those who like to fantasize that Rome will somehow "receive" them in their "orders", clearly you've been inhaling funny incense because it ain't gonna happen. If you want to cross the Tiber you will have to renounce your orders and baptisms as being invalid. I still don't get the titillation, but by the Grace of God I'm a Protestant.RMBrutonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15017576806723146013noreply@blogger.com