Who has authority in present day Catholicism to argue Canon law?

[Skammer]

Since we’re talking about Henry VIII, I’ll note that the Church of England (known in the US as The Episcopal Church) kept the same clerical hierarchy as its parent church in Rome. They have permanent and transitional deacons, priests, and the episcopate (bishops) as well as non-ordained (non-clerical) orders of monks and nuns. The major difference from Bricker’s description is the lack of Cardinal designation in the Anglican Communion, as far as I know. Well, that, and that many of our clergy are married, and/or gay, and/or have vaginas.

[jayjay]

@Skammer

Since we’re talking about Henry VIII, I’ll note that the Church of England (known in the US as The Episcopal Church) kept the same clerical hierarchy as its parent church in Rome. They have permanent and transitional deacons, priests, and the episcopate (bishops) as well as non-ordained (non-clerical) orders of monks and nuns. The major difference from Bricker’s description is the lack of Cardinal designation in the Anglican Communion, as far as I know. Well, that, and that many of our clergy are married, and/or gay, and/or have vaginas.

And don’t answer to the Pope, which would seem the most important difference.

[UDS]

@Skammer

. . . Well, that, and that many of our clergy are married, and/or gay, and/or have vaginas.

Only two of these are points of difference from Catholicism.

[jayjay]

@UDS

Only two of these are points of difference from Catholicism.

One, really. There are married priests, usually converts from the Anglican Union who were already married. They’re allowed to continue to act as priests in the RCC even though they’re married.

[UDS]

@jayjay

One, really. There are married priests, usually converts from the Anglican Union who were already married. They’re allowed to continue to act as priests in the RCC even though they’re married.

Yes, but Catholics can’t say that “many of our clergy are married” so this is, as skammer said, a point of distinction from Anglicanism.

[Horatio_Hellpop]

@Bricker

There are three orders of consecrated sacred ministers in the Roman Catholic Church: the episcopate, the priesthood and the diaconate. Deacons (obviously) belong to the latter. They assist priests in various activities; they may distribute communion, baptize witness marriages, preside at funeral services outside Mass, and read the Gospel during Mass, as well as preach the homily.

Deacons may be permanent or transitional. A transitional deacon is a candidate for priesthood. He is first ordained as a deacon and serves in that role as part of his preparation for becoming a priest. A permanent deacon has no intention of becoming a priest. Interesting, a man can be married and become a permanent deacon, although he may not marry after becoming a deacon without a dispensation. Permanent deacons have day jobs, so to speak – they don’t draw a living salary from the church.

In our (Catholic) church back in the 60s and 70s, deacons were the guys controlling the path of the collection plate. Dummies.com defines Catholic deacon thusly:

Deacons can baptize, witness marriages, perform funeral and burial services outside of Mass, distribute Holy Communion, preach the homily (which is the sermon given after the Gospel at Mass), and are obligated to pray the Divine Office (Breviary) each day. (The Divine Office, Breviary, or Liturgy of the Hours are all the same thing. These are the 150 Psalms and Scriptural readings from the Old and New Testament that every deacon, priest, and bishop must pray every day and a few times during each day.) This way, in addition to the biblical readings at daily Mass, the cleric is also exposed to more Sacred Scripture each day of his life.

[Captain_Amazing]

@jayjay

One, really. There are married priests, usually converts from the Anglican Union who were already married. They’re allowed to continue to act as priests in the RCC even though they’re married.

And, more commonly, Eastern rite priests, who are married. Priestly celibact is only a Roman rite rule.

[Skammer]

@UDS

Only two of these are points of difference from Catholicism.

Point taken. I’m tempted to say “openly gay” but I would hesitate to claim many openly gay priests and bishops. But being out of the closet is not an impediment to ordination or consecration in most jurisdictions of the Anglican or Episcopal Churches.

[UDS]

@Skammer

Point taken. I’m tempted to say “openly gay” but I would hesitate to claim many openly gay priests and bishops. But being out of the closet is not an impediment to ordination or consecration in most jurisdictions of the Anglican or Episcopal Churches.

Anglicanism presents a mixed picture on this, as on so much else. Being gay isn’t an impediment to ordination in the Church of England, the largest of the Anglican churches (26 million communicants), but being actively gay is certainly an issue, particularly when it comes to advancement within the church. The next largest Anglican churche are all in Africa - Nigeria (18 million), Uganda (8 million), Kenya (5 million), Sudan (4.5 million). They tend to have very negative attitudes towards homosexuality. When you come to Australia (3.9 million) the church is again sharply divided - Sydney Anglicans not at all keen, more Anglo-Catholic branches less fussed. The Anglican Church of Southern Africa (3.5 million) is likewise divided. I think it’s not until you get down to relatively small Anglican churches like ECUSA (3 million) that you can say that a liberal attitude prevails and open homosexuality is generally not an impediment.