Archbishop of Canterbury - Lourdes 29/09/2008 - Part 2

[Padre471atc]

@iotaunam1

I leave you with two points, the first is the church is falible, to suggest otherwise isa dangerous arrogant heresy that risks the soul, the reason for this is that the earthly heirarchy is human who are falible in our very nature, God guides but we often ignore from pope to the ordinary man.

the other is the pathetic excuses for ceritan refusals being the tradition of the church, again man decides we hope on Gods advice but we have a habit of ignoring Him so tradition is irrelevant

[Padre471atc]

@iotaunam1

Something for you to consider, Churches official position is not the same as the Truth but man made opinion, we are fallible. Which has gone towards the differing denomonations, whislt I beleive they ultimatly come from God if the Catholic church was perfect people would not have become disillusioned with them. The other phrase that causes concern is the tradition of the church, again man not God made, so irrelevant.

[Padre471atc]

@iotaunam1

that it's actions have been nothing more than the school ground bully boy for a very long time e.g. (but by no means limited to) the Ordinariate, a disgraceful attempt to kick someone when they're down, I learned when I was 3 that this was a disgusting and dishonourable act without ever committing the offence, it's a shame your spiritual leader did not learn this vital lesson.

[Padre471atc]

@ iotaunam1

Yes I know why the Anglican church formed or more to the point ONE of the reasons, it WOULD NOT AND COULD NOT have progressed if there was huge dissent for the actions of the papacy (and thats before we get into the dangerous and heretical nonesense of the infalability of the Pope). The Catholic Church needs to grow up with its approach towards other demoninations and realise that God created these demoninations to cater for the differences in His people AND

[Padre471atc]

@iotaunam1

You have presented what you wish to beleive, whatis different from the truth and certianly VERY different from the Truth, which comes from God. I am sorry to say that the Roman Catholic Church was not created by Christ but largely by the Roman (hint's in the name really, another oddity is that Rome is considered a Holy city, the only reason it gained this status is by being the centre of the Roman world and therefore as seat of power the Catholic church moved there) state ,

[Fundamentis]

A great, great scandal that this man was allowed to preach here...

[iotaunam1]

I cannot believe this Apostasy!!!!!!!!!!!!

The "Archbishop of Canterbury" is not even a valid Bishop! He is just a layman (a heretical one at that). For any Catholic who denies this, they need to read Apostolicae Curae by Pope Leo XIII in 1896, in which he proclaimed the matter settled once and for all that Anglican orders lacked any validity! He dosent even believe that St Bernadette seen Our Lady!!!

[jorgecarrillo2]

try to be less corrosive with them, we need to find wht is uniting us, we catholics know the truth in its fullness, they, anglicans and ortodox are searcing for unity betwen themselves, and the look for help to catholic church, perhaps that is the way that holy Spirit is bringing them back to home.

[dacatholicbandorgan]

@iotaunam1 We never belived him to be a Catholic Bishop or even a Proper Anglican Bishop. If this was not true, then why is the Pope bothering with the Ordinarites for recommunication?

[iotaunam1]

I know that he is not a "proper" Bishop, since he is not even ordained. As for being a "proper Anglican Bishop" - he is that - although that does not mean that Anglican "Bishops" are any more Bishops that the mail man - their orders are invalid.

The point is, he is allowed to parade in Catholic Churches in processions amoung "real" Bishops, and even preach a homily, which gives him, and Catholics the impresssion that his Church and Orders are valid. Ecumenism is NOT Catholic. (Mortalium Animos)

[TheEcumenator]

YES, ecumenism IS catholic.

Pope Leo XIII acted through ecumenism to try and bring a unity between the orthodox. There must be a line between what is true ecumenism and what isn't and on that I don't disagree that ecumenism today in the Church is a joke.

[iotaunam1]

@TheEcumenator -

Ecumenism as practiced by the post concilliar Church and at this present moment is not, and has never been Catholic. In fact it contradicts Catholic teaching in this regard. It ruined, or tried to ruin, the Mass. It has not resulted in conversion of the sects, but people now think one faih is as good as another. When people see the Pope giving Rowan Williams a pectoral cross, and JPII giving him an episcopal ring, they think the Church recognises him as a Bishop.

[TheEcumenator]

@iotaunam1

Even as the anglican ordinariates were created, Pope Benedict XVI affirmed that anglican orders are absolutely null and utterly void. So did Pope John Paul II in his motu proprio Ad Tuendam Fidem

[iotaunam1]

@TheEcumenator -

The point is NOT whether the Pope reaffrimed Catholic teaching regarding the Validity of their orders - It is what they DO. They give the imporession that these other religions are means of salvation along side the True Church, and make no attempt to convert them as they should. JPII told rowan williams that he has a duty to "guide souls" from heaven and give him an episcopal riing and pectoral cross, symbols of episcopal jurisdiction and authority. This only encouraged him!

[iotaunam1]

@TheEcumenator -

Not only is this ecumenism not Catholic, but it is completely one sided. Catholics threw out the Liturgy into the dustbin, and went to great lengths to dissolve and hide Catholic tradition in order to please the sects. These sects have not made one move towards conversion, instead they think (and they say it) that the Church has now seen the error of its ways, and recognised the validity of their churches. This is why conversion plummeted since this movement started.

[TheEcumenator]

@iotaunam1 -

I do agree without that ecumenism today is dangerous because it brings relativism.

Yet it has been practised in a non dangerous form prior to Vatican II, think of Pope Leo XIII when he managed to create the Armenian Catholic Church, all due to ecumenism.

This is not to be confused with the ecumenism of today which is a false ecumenism.

In the council of Lyon, some eastern orthodox bishops participated in the reunion formulas.

[iotaunam1]

@TheEcumenator -

I agree that once, the term ecumenism meant to convert people and make them return to the faith, however it really is confusing to use the term to describe pre concilliar attempts of converting others - given the negative connotation and complete contradiction and change of definition in the post concillar period. The two activities are not the same at all. So to use the same word to describe them, is to link them.

[iotaunam1]

@TheEcumenator

Ecumenism, when that term was used, pre Vatican Ii meant to propagate the faith and convert others to the True Faith.

Ecumenism, after the council, makes no attempt to convert others - in fact takes positive steps to state that it wishes not their conversion. It consists merely in "dialogue" - not debate, nor apologetics, but discussion. It is Fruitless and dangerous to the Truth. Moreover, the clergy who partake in it are guilty of a lack of Charity towards those in error.

[iotaunam1]

@TheEcumenator

I think it is better to use the term conversion rather than ecumenism, in order to describe pre concilliar activities -as people can easily mistake it for the modern use of the word. What is amazing is that the Vatican has participated and implemented these modern ecumenical practices. Assisi was one example of the awfull fruits. You had Anglicans, Orthodox and Buddists comming away saying that JPII and The Church has now acknowledged them, and made NO attempt to convert them!

[TheEcumenator]

I get your point and i do agree that what happened in Assisi was really terrible

[viewering1234]

@iotaunam1 except you forget that recent Popes have conceded that the ABC does have valid (if illicit in their eyes) orders. Perhaps you should double check your own resources.

[iotaunam1]

@viewering1234

When did any Pope say that Anglicans have valid orders? It cannot be done. Apostolicae Curae settled the matter infallibly once and for all. The matter is finished.

[viewering1234]

@iotaunam1 You forgot your own church's canon laws: 767 specifically states that only an ordained cleric may preach at Mass. Furthermore, the presentation to the current and past ABCs with items like episcopal rings and pectoral crosses, items only that may be used canonically by a valid bishop, were given as gifts by Popes. Furthermore, you seem to have forgotten not only Saepius Officio, but Old Catholic and Orthodox lines in Anglican ones. You should reevaluate your position on the matter.

[iotaunam1]

@viewering1234

No, I will not re-evaluate what was decded "once and for all" infallibly by Pope Leo XIII. And no, I havent forgot Canon Law - Anglicans have no orders period.

Also, the so-called "orthodox" and "old Catholic" lines are superflous, given the defect both in form and intention. This is why their orders are invalid.

Also, the ring etc should not be given to laymen in Bishops outfits. This is why Catholics rebuke JPII for these idiotic actions - like assisi.

[viewering1234]

@iotaunam1 Except the Vatican Church does recognize Old Catholic lines and Eastern Orthodox (and Oriental Orthodox) lines, which have connected with Anglican (both the Communion and Continuing varieties), so what you are suggesting isn't even the Catholicism of the Vatican but either Sedevacantism or Conclavism, both of which are schisms, based solely on your arguments. You are either misinformed or, if one of the two, not what you claim to be.

[iotaunam1]

@viewering1234

The Church recognises that eastern "orthodox" and some "old Catholic" orders are valid - but without the intention (which is defective in the Anglican sect" no valid order is imparted. As I said before, Form, Matter AND INTENTION are necessary to confect a valid sacrament, Thus, even if a Catholic Bishop ordained an Anglican, and their intention was not to recieve the same as the Churchs, then the sacrament does not take effect for want of the proper intention.

[iotaunam1]

@viewering1234

Since Anglicans do not intend to get ordained to Forgive Sins, consecrate the bread and wine into the Body, Blood , Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ, or recieve the full powers of Catholic Priesthood - they recieve none. This is Catholic teaching, You need to read Apostolicae Curae, where Pope Leo XIII explains this in detail and declares Anglican Orders invalid once and for all. You are ignorant on this matter.

Also, you have yet to anwser my question and continue to avoid.

[viewering1234]

@iotaunam1 Anglicans did and continue to intend (again, Saepius Officio; even if you don't agree with it, it does show intent). It may be the Vatican Teaching, but, was is also, is the fact that Anglicans have Eastern Orthodox and Old Catholic lines, which are valid in the eyes of the Popes. The fact that JPII gave Rowan Williams a pectoral cross and episcopal ring means something - he wouldn't have done something that went against his own dignity as pope. The logical conclusion is - valid order

[iotaunam1]

@viewering1234

No, that is not logical at all - in fact it is a logical fallacy. Your premise; that JPII gave RW a Pectoral Cross does not lead to the conclusion that Anglicans have Valid Orders. Besides JPII said that Anglican orders are invalid. He was completely out of line here - like Assisi.

You still dont understand. One must have the INTENTION of recieving Holy Orders AS UNDERSTOOD BY THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. Anglicans DO NOT inend to recieve the powers of the Catholic Priesthood.

[viewering1234]

@iotaunam1 What is meant is that (for whatever reason) Anglican lines in and of themselves. Since Eastern Orthodox and Old Catholic lines are now inextricably interwoven, they have changed the validity in those bishops that are. That is why the Vatican has, for some time now, not reordained certain Anglican clergy that convert. JPII would -NEVER- have ignored the dignity of his own office of Pope by giving an inappropriate gift. My conclusion is logical.

[iotaunam1]

@viewering1234

You still dont get the point. It wouldnt matter if a Catholic Bishop with valid orders ordained an Anglican. It would be INVAILD due to a defect in INTENTION on the part of the recipient. Period. This has always beent the teaching of the Church.

Also, you continue to avoid reading the very encylical which said once and FOR ALL that Anglican orders are invalid: Mortalium Aniomos, as it explains the Churchs position indepth.

[viewering1234]

@iotaunam1 The whole Apostolicae Curae was based on the Edwardian Ordinal of 1550. Even -if- you want to suggest that it is defected, the ordinal have changed and so has the Vatican's. Compared, they are strikingly similar. So to argue there is no intention on the part of Anglicans is ignoring the fact that the so-called "defects" are clearly present in the ordination of Vatican clergymen too. Anglicans do have valid (if illicit in the eyes of the Vatican) Holy Orders.

[iotaunam1]

@viewering1234

All you continue to prove is that you have not read Aposolicae Curae. It deals with this argument. Even if they used a valid rite the ordination would still be null, either/both due to invalidly ordained Bishop, or defect in INTENTION (which remains).

[iotaunam1]

@viewering1234

For a start, they dont believe in Transubstantiation. How then could they have the intention of recieving the power to effect this sacrament. Also, they dont believe that Confession to a Priest is necessary and that Priests have the Power to forgive sins. Thus, they could not possibly have the intention of recieving this power at an ordination. Their protestant theology means they CANNOT have the correct intention necessary to have valid orders - assuming the Bishop is valid.

[viewering1234]

@iotaunam1 The Eastern Orthodox and Old Catholics all do not accept Transubstantiation as the Vatican does, so that argument is pointless. Secondly, the Eastern Orthodox do not believe priests have the power to forgive sins either. so again, another useless point (they believe God forgives and the priest states that, which is what Anglicans do believe what happens too). Third, Anglicans do believe auricular confession to be sacramental, so you're dead wrong there.

[iotaunam1]

@viewering1234

Also, the argument is not "pointless" as you say - you just clearly dont understand it.

The decfect of intention (assuming a valid Bishop) is on the part of the RECIPIENT) - if they held Anglican theology (which all Anglicans obviously hold) then they DO NOT de facto have the intention necessary to recieve the powers of the Priesthood.

[viewering1234]

@iotaunam1 You mentioned Transubstantiation as a reason for their invalidity, so bringing up the Eastern Orthodox, et. al., as proof shows that your argument is pointless since the Vatican CLEARLY accepts their Orders despite a differing Eucharistic theology (one that, mind you, Anglicans SHARE). If Eastern Orthodox clergy have valid Orders due to their "Objective Reality" interpretation of the Real Presence, then it isn't an inhibition for Anglicans because the theology is the same.

[iotaunam1]

@viewering1234

@viewering1234

No, the candidate needs to have the proper intention. This intention must be to receive the full powers of the Priesthood – to forgive Sins, to consecrate bread & wine into the ACTUAL Body & Blood of Christ etc. The eastern “orthodox” do hold the same Eucharistic theology as they did before they spit from the Catholic Church.

[viewering1234]

@iotaunam1 You are wrong again. Ask any Eastern Orthodox cleric and you will be told otherwise (I should know - I have). They believe in an "Objective Reality" in which the specifics of when and the scholasticism of Transubstantiationism is left a pious mystery. Furthermore, they don't believe their priests and bishops forgive the sins but that they speak of the Absolution which God, not they, perform. Anglicans agree with them.

[iotaunam1]

@viewering1234

Once again, the so-called "orthodox" hold the same doctrine as the Church: that the bread & Wine become the Actual Body, blood, soul and Divinity of Christ. They go no further into HOW that occurs - but they believe it.

Anglicans do not. Ask any Anglican minister when he holds up the bread at their service: "are you holding the Actual body etc of Christ?" He/she will say: NO, Christ is only Spiritually present - see the 39 Articles of the Anglican Church.

[viewering1234]

@iotaunam1 Anglicans actually do. The Article only denies Transubstantiationism outright; it allows any Real Presence (physical and spiritual) theological belief. Again, they don't wear the chasuble, the vestment of the Eucharistic Sacrifice, just to look good in; they recognize the use. You need to actually do a lot more research OUTSIDE the Vatican before you start stating things that simply aren't true about other religious bodies.

[iotaunam1]

@viewering1234

It is clear that you are just arguing for the sake of it now. you just wont accept the clear fact that you don’t know what you’re talking about.

FOR VALIDITY - the CATHOLIC UNDERSTANDING of the Priesthood and its Powers MUST BE HELD - PERIOD. Those "orthodox" who do - have valid orders - those that don’t: Don’t. All protestants (Anglicans included) DO NOT HOLD CATHOLIC UNDERSTANDING. What more do you need. This is the consistent view of the Church.

[viewering1234]

@iotaunam1 No, the clear fact is that you don't understand (willingly or not) the fact that Saepius Officio spells out the Anglican belief in the sacrificial aspect of the Mass and that Anglicans do actually hold to a physical Real Presence. They do hold to an Objective Reality of Christ being fully Present in both species. Your refusal to consider Saepius Officio as evidence to what THEY BELIEVE is where your argument is flawed.

[iotaunam1]

@viewering1234

Anglicans DO NOT. They hold consubstantiation/real spiritual presence – which is not the Catholic/orthodox understanding. Thus, Anglican orders are invalid.

[viewering1234]

@iotaunam1 You are absolutely wrong. They believe in a Real (physical and spiritual) Presence. And in Saepius Officio, they make it clear that they believe Mass is a sacrifice. They include the Angus Dei in their liturgies, sing hymns like Now, My Tongue, the Mystery Telling and Let All Mortal Flesh keep Silence. The VERY ESSENCE of Anglican theology is lex orandi lex credendi. What they pray, they believe. They would not practice all the above if they rejected a PHYSICAL Presence.

[iotaunam1]

@viewering1234

The Catholic Church ONLY considers as valid those "eastern orthodox" Priests and Bishops who hold Catholic understanding of the nature and Powers of the Priesthood. Read the 39 articles: Anglicans hold transubstantiation to be "repugant to the plain words of Scripture" and deny it flat out - calling it "superstitious" ! Anglicans do not believe that the bread and wine ACTUALLY and PHYSICALLY becomes the Body, Blood Soul and Divinity of Christ - Period. You are deluded.

[viewering1234]

@iotaunam1 The Eastern Orthodox deny Transubstantiationism yet the Vatican without any reservation accepts their Orders as valid. Therefore, it can only be logical to conclude that a denial of Transubstantiationism doesn't mean no valid Orders. Ask any pious and informed Eastern Orthodox believer and you'll see that I am correct. Anglicans do believe in the physical as well as spiritual presence; I've asked their bishops and I've read their books and I know their history. And drop the ad homs.

[iotaunam1]

@viewering1234

No, you're wong again. The "orthodox" dont DENY transubstantiation, they just dont go as far as to explain HOW the bread & wine becomes the ACTUAL BODY & BLOOD. They dont get into the accidents/substance/form - they simply say its a mystery.

That is different from the Anglican view which denies this Truth FLAT OUT.

To simpify: Catholics & Orthodox (those valid) hold that the bread & wine are PHYSICALLY the Body & Blood of Christ - the Anglicans DO NOT - Period!

[viewering1234]

@iotaunam1 The Eastern Orthodox do deny transubstantiationism. They deny it for the reason I gave above: it implies an actual point in time when Jesus becomes suddenly present; the whole accidents thing IS PART OF TRANSUBSTANTIATIONISM. They reject that. They accept the fact that the bread and wine/water become fully Christ, but leave all other things as pious mysteries. Your church doesn't. Anglicans agree with the Eastern Orthodox in this respect. Why don't you ask an Eastern Orthodox priest?

[iotaunam1]

@viewering1234

You are ignoring the facts yet again. The Church DOES NOT and NEVER has accepted the validity of Anglican orders. After Apostolicae Curae, Anglicans tried to involve the heretical and Scismatic group "old catholics" to re-introduce validity into their orders. However, since the intention is still Anglican and not Catholic intention to recieve the priesthood, the orders are still invalid.

[iotaunam1]

@viewering1234

IF, by some rare exceptional chance the Anglican ordinand held the Catholic faith regarding the priesthood fully, and rejected the Anglican one (extremely unlikely) and was ordained using an approved rite and valid FORM, the MATTER proper to the sacrement and had the correct INTENTION (catholic) and the Bishop was a Validly ordained Catholic (or Schismatic) then the orders MAY be valid, but highly doubtful. THIS example is extremely rare and could never happen.

[iotaunam1]

@viewering1234

Also, even when Anglicans (so-called Anglo-Catholic/High Church ones) were ordained by "old Catholic" Bishops or "orthodox" Bishops, and they had a theology almost Catholic, then the Church STILL ordains them before they can become a Priest/Bishop in the Church.

The Church will never recognise invalid orders. Why you want them to is beyond me, since the Church founded by Henry VIII is not the True Church of Christ anyway! Christ founded the Catholic Church and it alone.

[iotaunam1]

@viewering1234

Yes, heretics use the terms: real presence, sacrafice etc.but they DO NOT believe the doctrine in fact. They twist the doctrines, using the same terms. Luther held and wrote at length on the "real presence" but he rejected transubstantiation calling it a blasphemy. His "real presence" was consubstantial, like the Anglicans, and their "sacrfice" is offering themselves to God and partaking of their "Lords Supper. This repudiates the faith of Christ.

[viewering1234]

@iotaunam1 Transubstantiationism is a type of Real Presence belief, not the only one. Lutherans do believe they receive THE Body and THE Blood; ask them. I know a particular LCMS who could dance circles around you about your accusation here. His Real Presence was not consubstantiationism, because that implies what transub does: a specific point in time in which the Presence becomes real (at the Words of Institution, etc). In reality, they, like Anglicans and the Eastern Orthodox, hold otherwise.

[iotaunam1]

@viewering1234

Also, your argument about the different "Types" of "real presence" is fallacious, since the Church has ONLY EVER RECOGNISED ONE DOCTRINE: That the bread & wine physically become the ACTUAL BODY BLOOD SOUL & DIVINITY of Christ. This is what Real presence means.

Now when heretics use the same language, they apply a contrary understanding/meaning to that of Christ's Church - meaning they de facto reject it, even though they claim to hold a doctrine going under the same name.

[viewering1234]

@iotaunam1 Since the Eastern Orthodox don't accept Transubtantiationism as the Vatican defines it, and since they do have Holy Orders because they accept the Real Presence, then logically, it isn't the only Real Presence theology. Pure logic. Transubstantiationism goes further than you are defining it; it also states when and exactly how. Anglicans, Eastern Orthodox, etc, do not care about when and how, but do believe that the bread and wine/water become the Body and Blood.

[iotaunam1]

@viewering1234

You are really grasping at straws here, trying to make Anglican orders appear valid somehow. You avoided an indepth debate by PM like the plague, and ignore all the Church's official infallible "once and for all" declarations on the matter. You fool no one, except possibly yourself.

Also, I would like to know this "LCMS" who could "dance circles around" the Church's position. I will debate you or them by PM indepth on the issue at any time. Read Apostolicae Curae.

[viewering1234]

@iotaunam1 1. you never offered a PM debate as far as I can see, so that accusation is baseless. 2. I don't remember using ad homs like you have (and again here). 3. Both 1+2 are grasping for certainly something. 4. I didn't say my acquaintance could dance around the Vatican's position but around your accusation (grasping for straws here, aren't we?). I've read both, and funny thing is, AC would say something rather bad about the current Roman Ordinal, unless you wish to interpret it differently

[iotaunam1]

@viewering1234

I have made the Church's position Clear.

If you want to debate indepth by PM, or your friend I will be happy to.

[viewering1234]

@iotaunam1 You have made your personal opinions clear, but they are not necessarily that of the Vatican. I have read AC -and- SO (you?), I have read the CCC, I've seen ring giving and kissing by Popes, I know of the Nag's Head Fable, I know of the ordinals of both churches, and I know of receptions into the Vatican without reordination. You also give no indication to debate but only -repeat- without looking at ALL evidence. No apology for the ad homs and attacks either. Would this change at all?

[iotaunam1]

@viewering1234

Just incase you are confused: My opinion is that of the Churchs official and "for all time" infallible pronouncement on the matter.

This official position hasn't change - and being infallible it cant. Also the opinion of "the Vatican" as you see it is not always that of the Catholic Church, as you may be aware- eg Mortalium Animos.

What orders were accepted without re-ordination? I would be interested to find out.

[iotaunam1]

@viewering1234

Also, I have made no ad hom attacks without considering ALL evidence as you suggest. I have read both Mortalium Animos and Saepius Officio many years ago, and I have even read them in the orginal Latin and I stand firm in my agreement with the Church on this matter. I can't understand why you ask for an apology - perhaps you are ecumenically minded and I have offended you by presenting the only official infallible teaching of the Church on the issue.

[iotaunam1]

@viewering1234

I have only presented the Truth and the Church's official position. If you refuse to debate I Dont mind, but I would like to know this person you speak of who can "dance circles around" this position. I am open to being proved wrong, if that were possible, and I dont think it is because the Church has spoken on the issue.

[iotaunam1]

@viewering1234

Also, you have failed to answer my question. I await at least an attempted answer.

[YBPhotoeditor06]

Mom & Jesus are extremely delighted. They love all British in an unusual way. This is the clear evidence of British response. As Mom has special residence in British souls, Mom will give Her Empire to British, Her kids, to rule Forever. My heart beats much better now: It needs to be closest to British souls Forever & it is. It's a vital sign of my dream has come true: Thanks to our Beloved Archbishop, Who has performed greatest Miracle in our lifetime: True 'Alter Jesus'. Please come back again.