A Question to Old Catholics or Anglicans

[oakraven65]

I have a personal contact with some people belonging to the Old Catholic community (Utrecht) , and I usually attend services in an episcopal church in Europe.

I have been invited in their church,

What are the common points ?

(intercommunion)

What are the differences ? Between Old Catholics and Anglicans, :scratch:

[PaladinValer]

Not much. Both allow women clergy, both have authentic Apostolic Succession, both are Catholic, both allow clergy to be married, both believe in the Real Presence in the Eucharist, and both are in Full Communion with each other.

[Albion]

I have a personal contact with some people belonging to the Old Catholic community (Utrecht) , and I usually attend services in an episcopal church in Europe.

I have been invited in their church,

What are the common points ?

(intercommunion)

What are the differences ? Between Old Catholics and Anglicans, :scratch:

First, be clear that the church in question is affiliated with the Utrecht Union. There are now many churches that have bishops whose orders come through that line but are not affiliated with Utrecht.-- which may or may not matter to you. This is more the case in North America than Europe, however.

Secondly, Old Catholicism is more like Roman Catholicism minus a Pope and, with most OC churches in Europe, minus an unmarried clergy. But I am speaking more of the feel and style. Anglicans have their own, which I'm sure you are comfortable with.

In short, the theological differences are few if you are an anglo-catholic kind of Anglican, but many if you are of the Low Church and/or Evangelical inclination. But also, cultural differences can be perceived, yet many people have a difficult time putting it into words. I guess you'll just have to visit and keep your eyes and ears open.

[gtsecc]

Since when has the Catholic Church allowed women clergy?

[PaladinValer]

Pre-6th century, but they don't like to be reminded of that :)

[gtsecc]

Pre-6th century, but they don't like to be reminded of that :)

Yeah, but that is deacons who were helping women after nude baptism.

Preists come from the Episcopate - they are psuedo-Bishops, not elevated deacons.

I honestly think those opposed to female clergy have theological concerns, but they are often portrayed as simply being biggots.
I don't think that is true.

Like I always say, if neither Rome nor the East are doing it, we really need a lot of evidence before we start doing something.
Currently, I don't see how Anglicans can possibly study church history and ordain women and think they are being obedient.

[karen freeinchristman]

Currently, I don't see how Anglicans can possibly study church history and ordain women and think they are being obedient.You mean, being obedient to the church fathers?
Is that who we are supposed to be obedient to?

[Colabomb]

Not much. Both allow women clergy,

You know very well that this is a loaded response Paladin.

Some Anglican Groups ordain women. Most do not.

[ContraMundum]

Pre-6th century, but they don't like to be reminded of that :)

Name the place..and we'll see which side does the "reminding", shall we?

[SirTimothy]

Colabomb is in fact right. My diocese, right here in Cyprus doesn't allow female priests. And we're in full communion with Canterbury. The whole province of Jerusalem and the Middle East does not allow female priests.

Timothy

[Wigglesworth]

Although not a member of the Utrecht Union, the PNCC (http://www.pncc.org) is an Old Catholic communion that does not have female priests.

:crossrc:

[higgs2]

You know very well that this is a loaded response Paladin.

Some Anglican Groups ordain women. Most do not.
It's really a matter of time.

[PaladinValer]

Lambeth allows deacons.

Same Sacrament of Holy Orders for deacon, priest, and bishop. If you can be one, you can be all, doctrinally at least.

[Colabomb]

It's really a matter of time.
Tragically.

[PaladinValer]

And yet the Old Catholics allow them. That says a lot to me.

[gitlance]

As of GC2000, ECUSA made it a requirement that all diocesan bishops not refuse to ordain women. I find that tragic, as whether or not ordaining women is right (and I will remain entirely without opinion about this on this thread), it is certainly NOT right to require bishops ordain or allow woman priests to serve in their dioceses if they have an objection to it on behalf of their conscience.

[ContraMundum]

Lambeth allows deacons.

Same Sacrament of Holy Orders for deacon, priest, and bishop. If you can be one, you can be all, doctrinally at least.

"The councils have erred"

[karen freeinchristman]

"The councils have erred"
Just to clarify, are you quoting someone? :confused:

[ContraMundum]

Just to clarify, are you quoting someone? :confused:

I'm paraphrasing this:

"XXI. Of the Authority of General Councils
General Councils may not be gathered together without the commandment and will of Princes. And when they be gathered together, (forasmuch as they be an assembly of men, whereof all be not governed with the Spirit and Word of God,) they may err, and sometimes have erred, even in things pertaining unto God. Wherefore things ordained by them as necessary to salvation have neither strength nor authority, unless it may be declared that they be taken out of Holy Scripture."


Of course the irony is that Anglicans like to remind the rest of the church that councils can and do err, but never like to talk of the possibility of one of their own being fallible and erring "even in things pertaining to God". In a sense, they deny infallibility to other councils but grant it to some of their own.

[Colabomb]

And yet the Old Catholics allow them. That says a lot to me.
So now Christianity is a democracy. If enough Christians say it is okay, it must be?

[higgs2]

Why are some people here so angry all the time? At least it seems like there are some very angry people here. It's pretty unpleasant. Is merely discussing ideas with which you don't agree so infuriating? I find it stimulating IRL, but here it's just -- well, unpleasant.

[Fish and Bread]

Why are some people here so angry all the time? At least it seems like there are some very angry people here. It's pretty unpleasant. Is merely discussing ideas with which you don't agree so infuriating? I find it stimulating IRL, but here it's just -- well, unpleasant.

My theory is that it's because for a lot of folks, their conception of God is a rock in a confusing and frustrating world. Things swirl out confusingly -- technology changes, the culture changes, expectations change, their friends and marriages may falter, financial problems may develop, etc. -- but God is always the same, now and forever, as revealed by church councils, holy tradition, a literal interpretation of scripture, the Pope, Martin Luther, or whomever. Religion is where people find a stability factor and can force the universe to make sense, more or less. So people take perceived challenges to that very personally even though they're not usually intended personally.

I think what makes religious progressives different many times is that they aren't completely comforted by that God. There's an element of discomfort with something -- an intellectual qualm about the nature of revelation, an intellectual qualm about how religion and science have traditionally interacted, or perhaps a moral qualm about the way the church has related to women or gays or dissenters or whomever, or the way God has been said to relate to them. And so that discomfort makes it nearly impossible to be assured that God exists in the way he's often described and/or that God is good. Thus, progressives become seekers of a sort, reaching to discover more fully the true nature of God, in the hopes of reaching the point of stability and comfort. Many of the early followers of Jesus may have ironically fit into this category, Jews who had a few qualms about the way the Torah was interpreted by the religious leaders of their day or the way foreigners and sick folks were treated, etc.

Yet, even as someone who would probably be labeled a progressive nowadays, I can see where conservatives are coming form to an extent. I think to some degree, liturgy is very comforting to me, filling the same role as theology for others. I love being able to take a prayer book out of the pew, flip to page 355, and read along with a service down to the letter. When people skip things, alter them, and move them around, it is very viscerally disturbing to me -- I feel disquieted well out of porportion to whatever is going on. The reason is that I derive comfort from the unchanging flow of liturgy from week to week and year to year. No matter where I am or what the circumstances, theoretically I can glance down at a copy of the very same edition of the BCP and participate in the very same Eucharistic service, with the very same lectionary readings around the country, and with a selection of familar hymns; linking back in a continous tradition through the communion of saints, apostolic succession, etc. When things are changed around too much and people skip over large swaths of the liturgy, even though there's nothing really wrong with doing so, it just disturbs me personally. I like being able to know rather than to have to think about what's happening next -- it's very mediative and creates a sereness and a flow to the services that's not there when I'm trying to figure out what the heck they've decided to do *this* week. :)

Due to that factor, when I first got to Arizona many months ago, I spent forever hopping from parish to parish to find a place where traditions were followed and the liturgy was intact. I used a prayer book instead of the bulletin so I could actually look at what changes were made (I don't mind additions, but I do mind subtractions, generally). I finally found an older priest who not only did the liturgy straight out of the prayer book, but also silently made traditional prayers that most have long sense abandoned at the proper moments, placed his hands in the traditional places during the Eucharistic Prayer, and actually added in many traditional things that didn't make the prayer book cut. Unfortunately, I'd never get there from my new location in Phoenix via bus, but it brought me a lot of joy to find those services. I hope I can find a parish like it that's easily reachable from my present locale.

[PaladinValer]

Councils cannot err if they are STR.

And Colabomb, reject the councils if you wish, but that isn't being a good Anglican or a good Old Catholic.

[Fish and Bread]

And Colabomb, reject the councils if you wish, but that isn't being a good Anglican or a good Old Catholic.

Says who? I don't think Archbishop Williams or Bishop Griswold would agree with that statement.

[Colabomb]

Says who? I don't think Archbishop Williams or Bishop Griswold would agree with that statement.
I didn't say anything about the councils.

I am talking about present day.

Btw, a good anglican can agree that "The Councils have erred"

[Fish and Bread]

Btw, a good anglican can agree that "The Councils have erred"

I agree with you.

[PaladinValer]

Lambeth is a regional council.

[ContraMundum]

Councils cannot err if they are STR.

And Colabomb, reject the councils if you wish, but that isn't being a good Anglican or a good Old Catholic.

If agreeing with the Bishops /councils is what makes one a "good Anglican", then by defintiion the people in the councils who are changing the faith/doctrine/practice of the church are the ones who are not good Anglicans, are they? After all, they are not obedient to the councils before them.

A good point. Against the liberals.

[PaladinValer]

I repeat myself:

"Councils cannot err if they are STR."

[ContraMundum]

I repeat myself:

"Councils cannot err if they are STR."

What defines a council as STR? Whose "T" and "R" makes it inerrant?