A Question for Roman Catholics

Exactly. Just like Howard the Duck, who does wear a hat, there’s an incongruity present. Given the metaphor of anthropomorphic animals, Donald Duck, Tom and Jerry, Wile E Coyote, Rocky and Bullwinkle, Puinky and the Brain, etc., are able to make cogent comments about the human condition. Likewise, superhero comics in which people are drawn quasi-realistically but with unusual powers are a species of wish-fulfillment fantasy. But mix the two, put an anthropomorphic duck wearing a hat and smoking a cigar in a world in which the other characters are realisticaqlly drawn human beings, and you achieve humor through incongruity.

Bricker presented generally accurate facts (there are a couple I would take issue with, but it would be unnecessary nitpickery to detail them) in support of his response to the question on the Cathilic view of Anglican orders. (And as he notes, he was presenting the Catholic viewpoint, duly caveatted.) However, the selection of facts and how they were presented were chosen to make the point he set out to make, and not the opposite one of the importance of Anglican orders to the internal structure and self-perception of the Anglican churches. I believe the typical mode of describing a church in which the principal worship services are celebrations of the holy Eucharist, which places a supernal value on the sacraments and on apostolic succession and the historic episcopate, which makes private confession available to any member desiring it, which recognizes the saints and many of whose members seek their intercession, etc., would more likely be “catholic” than “protestant”. But Bricker’s presentation (understandably) focuses on the historical accidents which led his church to classify Anglicanism with the Southern Baptists and the Universalists in the catch-all phrase “Protestant” – much as the amoeba and the sea squirt are lumped together as “invertebrates.”

My Canada/Bulgaria metaphor was intended to convey the same incongruity – in point of fact, there is a sequential progression of events from Franz Ferdinand’s assassination (and I picked Hungary rather than Austria to further emphasize the incongruity) to Canada and Bulgaria declaring war on each other. So the statement is in fact factually true – but to make sense requires to be seen in the context of international policy between the British Crown realms, international power politics, ethnic conflicts in the Balkans, etc., that gave rise to the events of 1914.

And to argue against Bricker’s presentation would require even more discussion of matters not of interest to Dopers in general than even this explanation. Hence I conceded that he had presented facts, generally accurately, in support of his church’s stance, and simply caveatted that stance as far from the only way to see things.

I was baptised as a Roman Catholic at the age of five. My parents wanted to wait until I could agree to the baptism before having it performed. Of course, at that age I was still too young to do anything else than agree to what my parents suggested, especially in matters of religion. Today, not believing in God, I do not consider myself a Catholic or even a Christian.

If I ever wanted to convert to a Christian church that does not recognize “infant baptism”, would I need to be rebaptised? I wasn’t an infant when the sacrament was performed. But I certainly wasn’t an adult either.

Most of them also don’t recognize “sprinkle” baptisms, the kind most often performed by the Catholic Church, citing that the original Greek word means something about submersion. So, yes, you would probably have to be rebaptized.

If you were baptized by submersion, then, at the churches I’ve attended, you would be encouraged to get baptized again as an “outward indication of an internal faith”, but it wouldn’t be considered a theological mark against you. However, there are some churches that require you to be baptized by someone in their denomination in order to even be a member.

Polycarp, thank you for elaborating.

And now, if I may…

Those Roamin’ Catholics - they’re everywhere.

Surely the Roman Catholic perspective as to the validity or otherwise of Anglican ordination is the only relevant perspective for those Anglican priests joining the RCC?

Anyway, they have indeed been required to have a specifically RC ordination, as implied here, for example, and as mentioned in various news articles in the usual places.
A bit of Google-foo found the Apostolic Constitution Anglicanorum Coetibus, which includes the following provisions:

Reminds me of the bloke who went to an R.C. priest to ask him to baptise his dog.

“I’ve asked the Protestants, the Russian Orthodox, the Coptics and they all refused me”.

“Well I’m very sorry my son but we don’t…”

“And I love my dog and I’m going to donate five million dollars to the church that…”

“Ah he’s a good CATHOLIC dog, well bring him in then”
An aside, the man in the O.P.

It wasn’t Mel Gibson was it ?

From the link, it says Johna Broadhurst is married. That means he can be a priest but not a bishop in the RCC. Bishops are all celibate. I think this is true in the Orthodox church as well- priests may be married but bishops are selected from amongst the celibate clergy.