I’ll bet I do. It’s been discussed here many times, for many years. It’s a process that has been ongoing (whatever that process might be), for about 10 years; discussions between the Traditional Anglican Communion, an international communion of traditionalist Anglican jurisdictions, (American representative jurisdiction is the Anglican Church in America) aimed (if you believe the news) at some sort of corporate reunion (not individual submission). Apparently, some progress (maybe) took place in Oct.
Big hold up. They have not only married priests, but bishops too.
You keep returning to this leitmotiv but I just don’t see it.
, and have it be accepted that world Orthodoxy stands behind them. Looking back on the decisions to adopt the Gregorian Calendar or Nikonian rites, (Not half the leap of faith!) I am left scratching my head how it can be asserted that the introduction of these various rites, can be seen as Orthodox …Part of the hold up I understand is the status of the married clergy: those married now would be accepted, but none after the conversion.
Much of what you say I would agree: the TAC should have been redirected a while ago (admittedly the IC was an English invention, an so referred when your fathers rejected it, but infallibility, as shown by the denials in the Anglo-Irish Catholic Catechism of even 1870, would not be part of their “heritage”), and if they had not been rebuffed repeatedly by Eastern hierarchs, this would have been a done deal. Part of the problem is the TAC have been presented with the Tiber as the only option, and have been drifting. If a “magisterium” was such a make or break, sine qua non, then there should be no hold up: where else are they going to go, if they are going to go anywhere?You keep returning to this leitmotiv but I just don’t see it.
Leaving one world body without a magisterium to join another could be a deal-killer to begin with on their end. Given that no one in Orthodoxy is able to act unilaterally to accept them “en masse” would be a deal killer on the other end.
- Anglicans of the high church/Anglo-Catholic mindset are generally far more western than the Orthodox would accept.
- Mechacnisms accross the board for any particular Orthodox Church to simply “take them in” are simply not in place
- The Antiochian “WRO” parishes are a terribly small group that have had little success in establishing lasting multi-generational parishes
- Bishop John Maximovitch - a saint of the Russian Church - is oft-credited as being a proponent and supporter of the western rite. He even helped establish an “Orthodox Church of France” that was a western rite particular Church in communion with the Russians, than later the Romainians. It stayed small and fractured badly
- Bishop John - obviously then to be considered friendly to the WR concept - himself authored a work very scornful of the Immaculate Conception.
- Really pealing back several centuries between the Anglican schism and the East/West split would largely be unappealing to this group which is pro-Immaculate conception, belives in purgatory, and continues to (on paper) teach the same on contraception as the Roman Church, whereas many modern Orthodox do not hold that any longer would be unappealing to many.
As I can’t imagine it being accepted that a local hierarch, or a single hiearchichal structure of a jurisdiction would be accepted to be authorized to radically change the Divine Liturgy unilaterally, I simply cannot see how it is accepted that they may introduce these innovations (of a western rite mass for Orthodox), pronounce them orthodox motu proprio
So aside from not being under the pope and having married priests, how are you thinking this would be a better match for them then Rome?
One wonders why they were so repeatedly rebuffed.
We could start a new thread on this sort of revisionism - maybe we should.
And therein lies the detail devil - the actual implimentation.
Please do so here or in Apologetics.
Don’t know where you would put it. But then again, the Celtic Catholics can be here with us Catholics of the East.
The missals you refer to were the Roman and Anglican rites. The one in France was the Gallican rite, makes sense, n-est-ce pas?
St. Tikhon didn’t act on his own authority (our bishops don’t do that). The proposal was sent to the Holy Synod in Russia who approved it, approval was given by the patriarch of Antioch, etc… As an issue its nature is like the Julian/revised (/Gregorian) calendar issue.
Again, your presentation of this Moscow review as a blessing or canonization of a “BCP Moscow rescension” is more optimisitc than many with whom I have corresponded.
I haven’t seen any retreat from this authorization, and have seen several implimentations of it.
Are you sure about that? Tell me who Cardinal Newman is. Was he a bishop before his conversion to Catholicism?
You can ignore the suggestion that they will unite with the Orthodox. If they wanted to do that, they’d not have approached Rome in the first place. If the reunion does not come to pass, this group will disband and scatter.
Neither before or after. He was never married and never a bishop.
Several? In which jurisidictions besides AOC?
Well, he was a priest and ordained Cardinal by Pope Leo XIII.
Towards the end they speak of also respecting their Anglican history. Is that one of the things delaying this change? Are these Anglicans looking for recognition as a valid order in communion with Rome? I don’t know. But, for the most part, this continues to fascinate.