Anglican Church Bishops Endorse Efforts to Seek Intercommunion with Catholic Church

[rjs1]

GoLatin:

The Anglican use is still Anglican. It is not what the English Catholic martyrs fought and died for.

Please be careful when making statements like this.

God’s holy Catholic Church has approved the Anglican Use as totally valid and therefore totally Catholic. I have a copy on DVD of the Anglican Use and, properly celebrated, it is a beautiful liturgy. It is far more reverent and expressive of Catholic belief about the Mass than the Novus Ordo as celebrated in most modern Catholic Churches.
I can understand how you might think that allowing anything with a touch of Anglican language in it might seem like a betrayal of the English martyrs. I don’t believe this to be so. People like John Henry Newman came to the Catholic Church by way of High Church liturgical practice, which included a liturgy in Elizabethan English.
The English martyrs would, I believe, be delighted to see the possibility of hundreds, and hopefully thousands, of ex-Anglicans returning to the Catholic Church and bringing with them the beautiful language that gave the world Shakespeare.
There are some sections of the Book of Common Prayer that are incredibly Catholic in their language and theology. For example, the Baptism service in the 1662 Prayer Book, while it needs to be suplemented with the anointings of the Catholic ceremony, nevertheless makes absolutely explicit the teaching about baptismal regeneration and its connection to salvation. The 1662 Marriage Service is beautiful in its teaching about the purpose of marriage, including a clear reference to the procreation of children, and the indisolubility of marriage.

Obviously any Protestant sections of the Prayer Book would need to be dropped or changed but this has been done in the Anglican Usage.

Just as there is a place in the Church for the Tridentine Liturgy, so I see a place in the Church for a liturgy in beatiful English.

 

[GoLatin]

rjs1:

Please be careful when making statements like this.

God’s holy Catholic Church has approved the Anglican Use as totally valid and therefore totally Catholic. I have a copy on DVD of the Anglican Use and, properly celebrated, it is a beautiful liturgy. It is far more reverent and expressive of Catholic belief about the Mass than the Novus Ordo as celebrated in most modern Catholic Churches.
I can understand how you might think that allowing anything with a touch of Anglican language in it might seem like a betrayal of the English martyrs. I don’t believe this to be so. People like John Henry Newman came to the Catholic Church by way of High Church liturgical practice, which included a liturgy in Elizabethan English.
The English martyrs would, I believe, be delighted to see the possibility of hundreds, and hopefully thousands, of ex-Anglicans returning to the Catholic Church and bringing with them the beautiful language that gave the world Shakespeare.
There are some sections of the Book of Common Prayer that are incredibly Catholic in their language and theology. For example, the Baptism service in the 1662 Prayer Book, while it needs to be suplemented with the anointings of the Catholic ceremony, nevertheless makes absolutely explicit the teaching about baptismal regeneration and its connection to salvation. The 1662 Marriage Service is beautiful in its teaching about the purpose of marriage, including a clear reference to the procreation of children, and the indisolubility of marriage.

Obviously any Protestant sections of the Prayer Book would need to be dropped or changed but this has been done in the Anglican Usage.

Just as there is a place in the Church for the Tridentine Liturgy, so I see a place in the Church for a liturgy in beatiful English.

I remember reading about Anglican clergymen in England who converted to Catholicism. Before their conversion, they would, at their “Communion services”, actually say the old Roman Ritual in Latin, while the choir was singing. These men had no desire for an Anglican use, they wanted to be pure “Roman”.

I hope that if there is some agreement between the Anglicans and Rome, that the Anglicans who convert to Catholicism will not be forced into the Anglican use.

The Anglican liturgy is still a fabrication, and while it is of course valid, I stand by what I said earlier.

The English martyrs died for the Roman Latin Rite Mass.

 

[David_Zampino]

GoLatin:

The Anglican use is still Anglican. It is not what the English Catholic martyrs fought and died for.

I thank you for your very substantial post. Quoting is difficult here . . . there seems to have been a problem with your last reply. I offer a couple of points . . .

Yes, the seminary to which I refer is Nashotah House. While I was there, it was still quite “Anglo-Catholic”. Unfortunately, it has deteriorated considerably over the last several years, due to a new dean (with an agenda) and some faculty changes.

Women are admitted as students (as they are in many Roman Catholic seminaries). However, women “priests” are NOT permitted to celebrate at Nashotah House – and never have been.

Nashotah House has produced some fine priests for the Roman Catholic Church! The number of Nashotah graduates who have converted (like myself) or are in the process of converting is substantial – both celibate and married.

With regard to the “Anglican Use” among converts and “Anglo-Catholic” liturgies among Anglo-Catholic Anglicans: There is a difference! The “Anglican Use” consists of essentially the Book of Common Prayer in both traditional and contemporary language, with the appropriate Roman Catholic correctives, esp. in the Eucharistic Prayers. The liturgies used by Anglo-Catholic Anglicans represent essentially the Roman liturgy translated into traditional English – including the Gregorian Canon. It is VERY important to note that the translation of the Roman liturgy into English PRE-DATED the English Reformation and the prayerbooks of Edward VI.

Finally, with regard to your suggestion that the English martyrs died for the Latin Mass . . . I would respond that the English martyrs died for the Catholic Faith, of which the Mass is a constituent part. But the Mass, translated into the English language, did pre-date the Reformation.

Very sincerely,

 

[David_Zampino]

GoLatin:

I remember reading about Anglican clergymen in England who converted to Catholicism. Before their conversion, they would, at their “Communion services”, actually say the old Roman Ritual in Latin, while the choir was singing. These men had no desire for an Anglican use, they wanted to be pure “Roman”.

In some cases, this is correct. In other (many, many other) cases, what was used was a pre-Reformation English translation of the Latin Mass.

GoLatin:

I hope that if there is some agreement between the Anglicans and Rome, that the Anglicans who convert to Catholicism will not be forced into the Anglican use.

They are not being forced into the Anglican use. As a matter of fact, most Anglican converts don’t use it. Primarily, the Anglican use is used when entire churches convert.

GoLatin:

The Anglican liturgy is still a fabrication, and while it is of course valid, I stand by what I said earlier.

The English martyrs died for the Roman Latin Rite Mass.

I appreciate your position and your passion – but would suggest that the English martyrs died for the Catholic Faith – of which the Mass is a most vital part – but to base your statement specifically on the Roman Latin Rite presents historical, factual difficulties.

Very sincerely,

 

[flameburns623]

proud2bcatholic:

Has anybody seen anything about his?

TRADITIONAL ANGLICAN CHURCH BISHOPS ENDORSE EFFORTS TO SEEK INTERCOMMUNION WITH ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH
September 23 2005

THE Archbishop of the Traditional Anglican Communion and primate of the largest conservative Anglican Church in the world has received an endorsement from the U.S. and Central American Church bodies meeting in Portland, Maine this week to begin developing a plan for intercommunion and unity with Rome . The Most Reverend John Hepworth, the Primate of the Traditional Anglican Communion, attended the meeting of the General Synod of the Anglican Church in America during the week of September 20-24. The Church bodies gave him an endorsement of his efforts to re-establish formal unity with the Holy See in Rome .

I go to a TAC church presently. I’d heard some talk about it, but a lot of arguing going on as well. Some TAC churches are also a part of AMiA (unless I am getting confused information, which happens a lot. The alphabet-soup is confusing, and rumors fly fast and furiously among Anglicans these days). AmiA has some women priests, though it’s my understanding that they have put a stop to any further such ordinations. Some groups refuse to have anything to do with other groups, b/c one side allows those women already ordained to serve, while the other side says the women are not validly ordained and should not be allowed to serve. Don’t expect dramatic steps very quickly while such obstacles and differences remain even amng traditionalist Anglicans.

Equally there are those who crave closer communion with Rome and those who want to focus upon salvaging ECUSA and Canturbury and building up from there, while preserving the best of both our catholicity and our jurisdictional independence from Rome. I personally favor the latter position. Fortunately, if the opposing view wins, the Lutheran Church/Missouri Synod has a strong presence in my area.

Incidentally, for various and sundry reasons, the arguments about the validity of Anglican orders may be moot. A goodly number of our clergy have, since the issue first came up, sought and received orders from jurisdicitions whose orders Rome has recognized. I’m not pretending that I understand all the point of the debate but thought I should point out this aspect of the issue.

 

[David_Zampino]

flameburns623:

I go to a TAC church presently. I’d heard some talk about it, but a lot of arguing going on as well. Some TAC churches are also a part of AMiA (unless I am getting confused information, which happens a lot. The alphabet-soup is confusing, and rumors fly fast and furiously among Anglicans these days). AmiA has some women priests, though it’s my understanding that they have put a stop to any further such ordinations. Some groups refuse to have anything to do with other groups, b/c one side allows those women already ordained to serve, while the other side says the women are not validly ordained and should not be allowed to serve. Don’t expect dramatic steps very quickly while such obstacles and differences remain even amng traditionalist Anglicans.

Indeed they do . . . although the TAC is unique in that it has managed to bring together other “Continuing Anglican” bodies with the understanding that there would be definite moves toward Rome. The recent ACA (the TAC body in the USA) Synod unanamously approved the TAC discussion with Rome – even though it would mean the re-structuring of their own episcopacy. Both Hepworth in Australia and Falk in the United States have stated their willingness to step down from their positions of authority in the name of unity.

Incidentally, I wouldn’t consider the AMiA a “traditionalist” Anglican body. Quite to the contrary. They broke with ECUSA strictly over moral issues; they tend to be “low-church evangelical” Anglicans. I can’t imagine that body wanting anything to do with the TAC’s movement toward Rome.

flameburns623:

Equally there are those who crave closer communion with Rome and those who want to focus upon salvaging ECUSA and Canturbury and building up from there, while preserving the best of both our catholicity and our jurisdictional independence from Rome. I personally favor the latter position. Fortunately, if the opposing view wins, the Lutheran Church/Missouri Synod has a strong presence in my area.

I can’t speak for the conditions in your particular congregation – but the TAC as a communion (existing in 44 different countries) has unanomously decided on the Romeward move. ECUSA is unsalvageable, and Canterbury, probably so. Some of the “Continuing Anglican” bodies do wish to remain jurisdictionally independent from Rome . . . but I’m not aware of any of them who truly believe that the Anglican Communion is salvagable.

Very sincerely,

 

[GKC]

David,

“Some of the “Continuing Anglican” bodies do wish to remain jurisdictionally independent from Rome . . . but I’m not aware of any of them who truly believe that the Anglican Communion is salvagable”

I don’t, for one. But there is still the “Third Province” idea. FiF-UK is meeting this month, I believe.OTOH, this approach puts one one communion with those who do things they shouldn’t. I know one ordained Continuing Anglican deacon (in the family, in fact) who has no idea where he is to go with his vocation.

GKC.

 

[Matt16_18]

The worldwide Traditional Anglican Communion will now begin the preparation of a formal unity plan to present to the Vatican next year outlining how intercommunion may be accomplished.

**Catechism of the Catholic Church

1399** The Eastern churches that are not in full communion with the Catholic Church celebrate the Eucharist with great love. “These Churches, although separated from us, yet possess true sacraments, above all - by apostolic succession - the priesthood and the Eucharist, whereby they are still joined to us in closest intimacy.” A certain communion in sacris, and so in the Eucharist, “given suitable circumstances and the approval of Church authority, is not merely possible but is encouraged.”

1400 Ecclesial communities derived from the Reformation and separated from the Catholic Church, “have not preserved the proper reality of the Eucharistic mystery in its fullness, especially because of the absence of the sacrament of Holy Orders.” It is for this reason that, for the Catholic Church, Eucharistic intercommunion with these communities is not possible …

 

[Contarini]

Matt16_18:

I agree completely with what is said in CCC 1271. Protestants are Christians that are in imperfect communion with Christ’s Church.

In which case you cannot say without qualification that we are “not members.” You can say that we are not “full members” but not that we are not members at all.

This is nothing new either. Arian heretics and Donatist heretics were validly baptised Christians that lost their membership in Christ’s Church because of the sin of heresy.

But if we are in “imperfect communion” then clearly this is not true of us. So it is indeed “something new.”

Since all Protestants are at least material heretics, they cannot be in perfect communion with Christ’s Church.

Which is not the same thing as not being members at all.

… Irish Bishop Kevin McNamara of Kerry, put it all very simply

Self-contradiction is simple, I suppose.

in a superb article on “The Theology of Christian Unity” wherein he stressed that the degrees of invisible and visible union with the Church that may be possessed by our separated brethren does not change the tragic fact that . . . . this reality still did not constitute them members of the Church nor place them within the Unity of the Church

I trust I have not distorted the Bishop’s meaning by my ellipses. I’m trying to make the self-contradiction obvious. If we have a degree of visible union (invisible union is not in question here) with the Church then we are *to that extent *“within the Unity of the Church.” Otherwise it’s an empty statement to say that we have a degree of unity. If we are simply outside the Unity then we have no degree of union at all. You can’t have your cake and eat it too.

Whoever is outside that Church is not, at least in the strict and full meaning of the term, a member of Christ’s Body,

And that lets the cat out of the bag. There is a huge difference between not being a member and not being a member “in the strict and full meaning of the term.” To slide in “strict and full” as if it’s a minor addition is an irresponsible use of language.

nor is any non-Roman communion a part or member of the Church of Christ."

And that raises a huge but separate issue. Can we be (imperfectly) members of the Church if the communities in which we receive the Word and Sacraments are not? I recognize that at least the more conservative Catholics would say that our imperfect membership in the Church is a purely individual matter. Whether or not this is in keeping with Vatican II (something I’ll let you guys fight over among yourselves), it’s certainly false to our experience and belief.
​

Edwin

 

[Matt16_18]

Contarini:

In which case you cannot say without qualification that we are “not members.”

Edwin

Edwin, you can protest all you want, but I am not giving you my opinion, I am only showing you what the Catholic Church teaches. She teaches that members of Protestant ecclesial communities are NOT members of the Catholic Church, nor are they members of the Body of Christ.

It is possible to be a member of the Catholic Church, and not be in a state of sanctifying grace. A Catholic that has committed a mortal sin other than the sin of heresy, apostasy or schism would still be a member of the Catholic Church. But he would only be united to the Church by faith and hope, but not charity.

A Catholic that is excommunicated, or commits the mortal sin of heresy, apostasy or schism, loses his membership in Christ’s Church. Protestants cannot be members of the Catholic Church since all Protestants are, at the very least, material heretics in schism with the Catholic Church.

Rejecting Catholic teaching for Anglican teaching brings automatic excommunication to any Catholic that commits this sin! If the Anglicans ever want to become members of the true church, they must renounce all heresy and their schism with Christ’s church.

 

[Contarini]

Matt,

Evidently you don’t want to address my allegations of self-contradiction. That’s fine. I’m simply pointing out that for non-Catholics the Catholic position as you have outlined it (I remain unconvinced that it’s the only possible position for orthodox Catholics) amounts to empty word games. An “imperfect communion” that leaves us entirely outside the Church is meaningless.

Edwin

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Contarini:

Matt,

Evidently you don’t want to address my allegations of self-contradiction. That’s fine. I’m simply pointing out that for non-Catholics the Catholic position as you have outlined it (I remain unconvinced that it’s the only possible position for orthodox Catholics) amounts to empty word games. An “imperfect communion” that leaves us entirely outside the Church is meaningless.

Edwin

It doesn’t, entirely - nor could it, unless one’s ecclesiology were to stop in 1943; non-Catholic Christians are not, and cannot be, lumped together with non-Christians. V2’s ecclesiology, instead of being that of a pyramid, seems to be that of a series of concentric circles - circles which are not rigidly impermeable.​

 

[Matt16_18]

Gottle of Geer:

It doesn’t, entirely - nor could it, unless one’s ecclesiology were to stop in 1943; non-Catholic Christians are not, and cannot be, lumped together with non-Christians.

Donatist heretics were never lumped together with pagans by the Catholic Church. But Anglicans cannot even be compared to Donatist heretics, since the Donatist heretics, unlike the Anglicans, received all three Sacraments of Initiation that were valid.

Anglicans are like Southern Baptists - validly baptized Christians that need to become members of the Catholic Church.