Anglicans to Rome - Thread 2

[Gottle_of_Geer]

**
steve b:

If something is not identified as an article of faith, Catholics don’t have to believe it. If those bishops were Roman Catholics, papal infallibility was not defined yet as an article of faith. If they were “old catholics” then they are dissidents anyway.

**I should have been clearer. I meant to say, one can with hold assent to undefined doctrine. I was actually trying to give the East a break with regards to Trinitarian understanding… **

"The second half of the century is illustrated by an illustrious triad in Cappadocia, St. Basil, his friend St. Gregory Nazianzen, and his brother St. Gregory of Nyssa. They were the main workers in the return of the East to orthodoxy. Their doctrine of the Trinity is an advance even upon that of Didymus, and is very near indeed to the Roman doctrine which was later embodied in the Athanasian creed. But it had taken a long while for the East to assimilate the entire meaning of the orthodox view. St. Basil showed great patience with those who had advanced less far on the right road than himself, and he even tempered his language so as to conciliate them. "

**Call it what you will, when a doctrine is developing, as the understanding of the Trinity was, one is only required to believe what has been defined as articles of faith. All else is not a requirement to believe… **

Until a doctrine is defined as an article of faith, it is not mandatory that a Catholic give their assent to it. That is just common sense.

I’m thinking of the Immaculate conception as an example. Prior to the Church defining this as an article of faith, one was free to accept it or not.**

## In 1661, Alexander VII forbade theologians to discuss whether the IC had happened. This was 193 years before the definition. They were not free to “accept it or not”. They had to believe it. ##

 

[GKC]

LourdesladyN:

I am sorry that I didn’t reference the post. I was speaking directly to post #155 and its previous posts where the contents were using the **Catholic Emancipation of 1829 ** as historical proof that Bishops have before denied the Papacy. The posts include the inference that “these Bishops remained in communion” with the church, so why can’t we?

As I stated- my comment was not to the validity of the position of the **Catholic Emancipation of 1829 ** showing tradition of the ability of Bishops to deny Papal Infallibility-------I was commenting on the fact that Lumen Gentium specifically reads that Bishops are only infallible when in Communion with the Pope. If it was a valid position in 1829, it is not a valid point now.

I believe this shows poignently how inadequate a pronouncement of communion is when it comes from a group denying the Infallibility of the Papacy.

You see, if the Anglicans are going to deny Infallibility then they have no need to produce an historic exemption of any Church teaching. So, in essence their communion remains as it is. Why go through the paperwork to stay where you are?

In Peace,

Hmmm. So, I’m still confused. What bearing did the act of the British Parliment entitled the Catholic Emancipation Act of 1829 have on the issue of Papal infallibility? And that before Vatican I?

The Catholic Emancipation Act of 1829 made RCs eligible for almost all offices in Great Britain, civil, military, parlimentary and municipal, from which they had been previously banned. I’m not sure how the issue of Papal infallibility, *avant le mot * or not, is involved.

Added:

Ah. I think I see some light, in Gottle’s post. But feel free to add to my enlightenment.

GKC

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

**

GKC:

No, no. For all Great Britain. It was actions in Ireland, particularly involving Daniel O’Connell, that precipitated the passing of the bill, but it was a Parlimentary bill opening almost all public offices to RCs throughout Great Britain.

**It is a complex story. **

GKC**

**## There has been further legislation to the same effect since then, in 1926. The Catholic Relief Act was passed in 1778 - as an indirect result of the American Rebellion and the gain of Canada from France. **

There was another in 1791

**And then, AFAIK, the Act of 1829. **

**The Ecclesiastical Titles Act passed in 1851 as a consequence of “Papal Aggression” in 1850 was abolished in 1871 without any prosecutions have been brought. **

**Then there was the Act of 1926. **

There are still a few insignificant disabilities, but that is it.

---

**The 1829 Act was passed while all Ireland was under the British Crown & the same Parliament. Which is how an Act framed and passed in England, could be effective in Ireland. 26 counties of Ireland have since 1922 been parts of the Irish Republic - the remaining 6 of the 32 in the island - which constitute the political unit of Northern Ireland, are British. **

---

This is not the place for a discussion of the constitutional history of the UK or of Eire

---

The ecclesiastical arrangements of the British Isles and Ireland, do not co-incide with their political divisions. ##

 

[GKC]

This is not the place for a discussion of the constitutional history of the UK or of Eire

Oh, why not? It’s not a furball-inducing doctrinal discussion. And I love history. It’s so complicated.

GKC

 

[Joseph_Romero]

This thread is to discuss Anglicans to Rome per the stated parameters in post 1. Please keep this thread on topic.

God Bless,

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Dear Michael,

Last Sunday you mentioned that you would have a bishop visiting Saint Mary’s this week. Is that still happening? Will there be time to ask him questions on the TAC-Rome Union?

 

[rjs1]

Matt16_18:

The pope would never do this. Do you really think that the pope is going to tell Anglicans that they are free to reject the doctrine of papal infallibity? This is ludicrous.

The more I think about this whole thread the more impossible the idea of such an offer to the Traditional Anglicans becomes. Not only would the offer be a direct contradiction of Catholic doctrine, but it would open a floodgate for liberal Catholics wanting to drop any parts of the faith they didn’t agree with. Further, it would be bad for the Anglicans themselves, because it would perpetuate their cafeteria style of faith, which picks and chooses what it wants to believe.
I am more and more convinced that the Pope made NO such offer. I require proof that such an offer was made by His Holiness. If no proof is forthcoming, then I would strongly suggest that discussion of reception of Anglicans into the Catholic Church returns to a more reasoned basis.

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Fr. Ambrose:

In spite of the disobediance of many in the American hiearchy and of many Catholics in the West, all Catholics are supposed to be told that they have to submit to the Pope, even though they’re allowed to debate him before he makes the decision. I was simply trying to say that the members of the TAC would be NO different, except (hopefully) for the disobedience.

Fr. Ambrose, if you’ll recall the thread, there were a few posters who seemed to believe that the TAC were a bunch of quarrelsome Anglicans with an Authority problem…
Fr Ambrose:

I used the phrase because it is one which Michael has been hitting constantly.

These phrases are from what he wrote in messages in the original thread:

At the present time, I’m going to have to agree with my Primate who has stated that Union with and submission to the See of Peter is essential

I understand that if things could be worked ourked, we’d all be in union with and submitted to His Holiness, the Pope.

people ALL submit DIRECTLY TO THE POPE, not to their Local Ordinaries.

Please remember, we would all be Catholics, and we all submit to the leadership of the Pope.

Depending on the Source, The TAC is bringing over 400,000-500,000 Catholics, along with a full compliment of Deacons, Priests and Bishops, **who will obey and submit to His Holiness on all matters touching faith and morals, ** just like the various Uniate Catholics do NOW.

The last one is curious since there is a stated intention to withhold assent on three de fide dogmas.

…That last paragraph was written BEFORE the Pope’s generous offer. I assume that Pope John Paul II was trying to remove a “stumbling block” from many of those who have a harder time accepting that dogma but still recognize Pope John Paul II as a holy man and someone they can trust and follow.

Remember, we follow orders from people we regard as trustworthy but fallible every day. We learn from people who are trustworthy but fallible all the time.

I’ll discuss what I know about Abp. John Hepworth on my next post.

May God bless your preparations for Great Lent.

Michael

 

[Traditional_Ang]

About Archbishop John Hepworth:

Fr. Ambrose asked that I say what I know about Abp. Hepworth.

Although others at St. Mary’s have been with him on at Diocisan Synod, and I’ve only met him over lunch, I’ll do my best.

The first thing I will say is that he’s a bit of a smart aleck - He tolds a story on himself about when he was training officers in the Israeli defense Forces in Battlefield Ethics during the Oslo Intifada (1991-93). During a break, he went to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and went in the Empty Tomb. He promptly got on the slab where Jesus lay and took a short nap!

As he says, he knows that Jesus rose from the dead, because he’s been inside the empty tomb!

Some of the Israelis on the Middle East Forum that I used to spend all my time on confirmed that he taught the course, and at least one took the course. A web search revealed that he is one of the world’s experts in the field.

And, his wife, from all accounts, is even sharper…

He came during Lent, so the subject of his sermon was that of spiritual warfare, part of which includes the Lentin Fast, “That huge hunk of salmon in the place where the meat portion usually goes, is NOT a Lentin fast!” (How did he know that I LOVE salmon?) He also discussed the TAC’s efforts at evangelization Including the Tores Straights and Africa where a Bishop buys a plot of land, plops down a tent, builds a congregation and ordains priests and deacons, and when they can build themselves a proper church, moves on. And, where a youth worker was tortured to death and left out in the middle of town with a note saying to “lay-off” from the Islamists.

Speaking of Islamists - They killed a TAC Bishop either last year or the year before. We don’t know when, because he dropped off the planet in late 2002.

One of Abp. Hepworth’s first acts as Primate of the TAC was to go into the country this man had been and to try to find him. That’s when he found out that the man had been killed, which is what he had suspected.

If anyone had known who was making the inquiries, Abp. Hepworth quite probably would have been killed. That’s why I said on another thread that these people know that he will risk his life for them.

He’s NOT a “hired shepherd”.

That’s what I know.

Blessings in Christ.

Michael

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Lourdes:

The Catholic Emancipation Act ot 1829 is purely tangential to the Thread - I understand the British saw fit to pass it because 30 Irish Bishops and Archbiships stated that, although the Pope was Supreme, he was NOT infallible. Since this was BEFORE Vativcan I, that was acceptable…

LourdesladyN:

Good Morning Gentlemen,

I feel as if I am intruding but I have found this thread very interesting. If I may, I would like to clarify some points for my own understanding.

Just looking to the reference above I am wondering how this is understood in light of Lumen Gentium. *Lumen Gentium * clearly states that the Bishops are only infallible when in communion with the Bishop of Rome. Therefore, anything similar to the Catholic Emancipation Act ot 1829 has been specifically ruled out as a possibility for future standards.

In making that statement, I am not confirming that the denial of the Papacy ever held any validity in terms of communion ------ I am simply stating that it clearly would hold none at this time.

This obeservation makes the conundrum of the supposssed “communion of the TAC without communion of Bishop of Rome,” clear to me. You see if the TAC were to fall under the alleged terms of not accepting the Papacy, then there is really no communion whatsoever. If that is the case, then what is the benefit to the Body of Anglicans? The Anglican church is already suffering from the upheaval of illegitimate doctrine. A plan such as is formed without specificity of Legitimate Papal authority contiunues the threat of future ambiguity.

Mother church is many things, ambiguous is not one of them. Ut unim sint.

In the Peace of Christ,

…Apparently, or so my source informed me about a month ago, the Pope offered to allow The TAC into Communion with him. We would accept the Papacy and Papal Supemacy, just not Papal Infallibility.

Please remember that there are three doctrines relating to the Papacy, and that only one has to do with the charism of Infallibility, and that even that has limited application.

Regarding the Church and ambiguity. I’d recommend that we just don’t go there, thanks to the actions of the US Council of Bishops…

Blessings and Peace in Christ.

Michael

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Fr. Ambrose:

Yes. He’s still coming, and he’s someone who should know, His name is Bishop-Elect Chislett.
Fr Ambrose:

Dear Michael,

Last Sunday you mentioned that you would have a bishop visiting Saint Mary’s this week. Is that still happening? Will there be time to ask him questions on the TAC-Rome Union?

We’re having a reception after Mass. That’s how I found out what I wrote in my post on Abp. Hepworth. Hopefully, they’ll let me ask the questions that do need to be asked, and, if I’m lucky, he’ll answer them.

Michael

 

[Matt16_18]

Traditional Ang:

We would accept the Papacy and Papal Supemacy, just not Papal Infallibility.

Papal infallibility is not a negotiable point.

Either the Anglicans will accept this dogma, or they will be forever separated from the Catholic Church.

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Matt:

A conservative Catholic priest nearly got me as a Catholic some 26 years ago when my mother died. I was at a Catholic University and received the phone call on a Sunday, but wasn’t able to take off until Monday.

This priest took a few of the other religious and a couple of students at the school and had a Requiem for my mother. He knew my background, because I had told them a few times before.

According to the Cannons, I should not have been allowed to do the following, which I did: Read the OT lesson from the Book of The Wisdom of Sirach and receive Communion. He did this act of compassion, because he knew the state I was in. I’ll always be grateful for the grace he allowed me to receive.

It helped me to get through one of the blackest periods of my life.

He’s the guy who convinced me about most of the Catholic doctrines.

You see - Mercy is more powerful than compulsion. I think that’s what Pope John Paul II has decided to use on my fellow Anglicans…

Matt16_18:

The Anglicans are more than welcome to become Catholics. That requires that the Anglicans renounce all heresy.

Ahh yes, the Orthodox doctrine of the Primacy of the Laity. Of course, the Orthodox deny that they have such a doctrine.

…From what I’ve read, there was plenty of blame to go around, and the LAITY from BOTH EAST AND WEST killed the deal!

Blessings and Peace in Christ, Michael

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Matt16_18:

Papal infallibility is not a negotiable point.

Either the Anglicans will accept this dogma, or they will be forever separated from the Catholic Church.

Matt:

Do you understand what it is you’re saying? Do you understand how it feels on the other side?

I accept the doctrines. So, I’m talking for some 300,000 Anglicans who, if the Pope’s offer is what it sounds like, will be able to be in Communion with the Church while they learn.

And, you would preclude that, because they were born OUTSIDE of the Church and they were improperly instructed as to the truth of those doctrines!

Matt, Christ didn’t demand belief from Thomas before he showed himself! He showed himself first! Why do insist that Anglicans express belief before they’re shown?!? And, Why would you deny them the Grace of God until they do so?!? Do you think that you just might have it backwards?!?

I’m sorry Matt, but I can’t understand how you would shut-off fellow Christians from the Grace of God until they profess a Doctrine they can’t profess because they’ve NEVER BEEN PROPERLY INSTRUCTED! I just don’t understand how that’s compatible with the Love of God and the Gospel as preached in Christ Jesus Our Lord!

Blessings anf Peace, Michael

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

**
Traditional Ang:

Lourdes:

The Catholic Emancipation Act ot 1829 is purely tangential to the Thread - I understand the British saw fit to pass it because 30 Irish Bishops and Archbiships stated that, although the Pope was Supreme, he was NOT infallible. Since this was BEFORE Vativcan I, that was acceptable…

…Apparently, or so my source informed me about a month ago, the Pope offered to allow The TAC into Communion with him. We would accept the Papacy and Papal Supemacy, just not Papal Infallibility.

Please remember that there are three doctrines relating to the Papacy, and that only one has to do with the charism of Infallibility, and that even that has limited application.

Regarding the Church and ambiguity. I’d recommend that we just don’t go there, thanks to the actions of the US Council of Bishops…

Blessings and Peace in Christ.

Michael**

## The conclusion of Pastor Aeternus:

"Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian religion, for the glory of God our Saviour, for the exaltation of the Catholic faith and the salvation of the Christian people, with the approval of the sacred council, we teach and define that it is a divinely revealed dogma that the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, i.e., when exercising his office as pastor and teacher of all Christians he defines, by his supreme apostolic authority, a doctrine of faith or morals which must be held by the universal Church, enjoys, through the divine assistance, that infallibility promised to him in blessed Peter and with which the divine Redeemer wanted His Church to be endowed in defining doctrine of faith and morals; and therefore that the definitions of the same Roman Pontiff are irreformable of themselves and not from the consent of the Church.

**If anyone should presume to contradict this definition of ours - may God prevent this happening - let him be anathema. **

**So, the dogma of papal infallibility has to be explained to prospective converts, of course - then, in the event of their deciding to be received, they are obliged to accept it. **

---

The anathema serves to show that to deny the preceding definition, is heresy ##

 

[MaggieOH]

Matt16_18:

Papal infallibility is not a negotiable point.

Either the Anglicans will accept this dogma, or they will be forever separated from the Catholic Church.

I have been reading through this thread and I ask that you refrain from making these assertions. I would hate to see this thread locked because people are taking it off topic on Michael.

The issue of Papal infallibility is a roadblock because it is not understood and as such the TAC should be given the opportunity to discuss the issue so that there is a better understanding.

So please, do not hijack the thread on Michael. This is an exciting time for him and all of the other Traditional Anglicans involved. Why can’t we welcome them with open arms?

MaggieOH

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Matt16-18: Papal infallibility is not a negotiable point.

Either the Anglicans will accept this dogma, or they will be forever separated from the Catholic Church.

MaggieOH:

I have been reading through this thread and I ask that you refrain from making these assertions. I would hate to see this thread locked because people are taking it off topic on Michael.

Matt’s message seems to fall within the parameters of this thread as set by Michael in Message #1 ?

Traditional Ang: We can discuss how this will make many other Catholics feel, esp. those who’ve had to accept the doctrines to be accepted into the Catholic Church.

 

[Traditional_Ang]

FR. Ambrose:

I was trying to figure out why on earth the Pope would make such and offer and then realized…
Fr Ambrose:

Fair enough. No more doctrinal discussions.

So, can you share with us what made you write that the TAC agreement with Rome which allows its members not to believe, if they so choose, RC dogma (basically all those post-1869) is a trial run for the way in which Rome will tackle its union with the Orthodox?

In effect the TAC believers will be back in the same position and with the same freedom of denial as the Irish bishops of 1826, while contemporary RCs are bound de fide by the dogma defined in 1870.

This is NOT a question of dogma which I am raising but a question of dogmatic methodology.

…Seeing what happened to the thread afterwards, that thinking aloud was a mistake, One I’m going to try not to repeat.

Sorry the guys ganged up on you like they did at the end.

POI, I don’t believe the members of the TAC will be allowed to DENY the Infallibilty of the Pope. It’s just they would not be required to give assent to that doctrine.

Blessings and peace.

Michael

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Michael:

The Question is, do you bar the doors of the Church and of Communion until this body of people (many of whom have never been PROPERLY INSTRUCTED the basis of the doctrine) gives public asssent to this doctrine? or, Do you BRING THEM into Communion and then BEGIN PROPER INSTRUCTION?..

****

## The conclusion of Pastor Aeternus:

"Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian religion, for the glory of God our Saviour, for the exaltation of the Catholic faith and the salvation of the Christian people, with the approval of the sacred council, we teach and define that it is a divinely revealed dogma that the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, i.e., when exercising his office as pastor and teacher of all Christians he defines, by his supreme apostolic authority, a doctrine of faith or morals which must be held by the universal Church, enjoys, through the divine assistance, that infallibility promised to him in blessed Peter and with which the divine Redeemer wanted His Church to be endowed in defining doctrine of faith and morals; and therefore that the definitions of the same Roman Pontiff are irreformable of themselves and not from the consent of the Church.

If anyone should presume to contradict this definition of ours - may God prevent this happening - let him be anathema.

So, the dogma of papal infallibility has to be explained to prospective converts, of course - then, in the event of their deciding to be received, they are obliged to accept it.

---

The anathema serves to show that to deny the preceding definition, is heresy ##

Michael, the Catholic Church, since 1964, has offered the Sacraments to the EASTERN ORTHODOX! They don’t even recognize PAPAL SUPREMACY, let alone Papal Infallibility! Plus there are a LOT of other doctrinal disputes between the EO (Purgatory, The Nature of Original Sin, Redemption and the Sacraments and then the Filioque Clause) and the CC that the CC does NOT have with the TAC!

Michael, if the Catholic Church can offer Communion to the EO who have a whole host of doctrinal disputes with the CC, can’t the CC offer Communion with the TAC where the main disputes are the ones we’ve discussed?

And, why bar the door over a Doctrine that many Catholics admittedly act as if they deny?

Blessings and peace.

Michael

 

[oat_soda]

the Catholic Church, since 1964, has offered the Sacraments to the EASTERN ORTHODOX! They don’t even recognize PAPAL SUPREMACY, let alone Papal Infallibility! Plus there are a LOT of other doctrinal disputes between the EO (Purgatory, The Nature of Original Sin, Redemption and the Sacraments and then the Filioque Clause) and the CC that the CC does NOT have with the TAC!

you are comparing apples and oranges. first off, the orthodox churches are not being offered full communion as of yet. the church recognizes that the “eastern lung” of the church has maintained apostolic teaching and succesion so that intercommunion is possible as we share the same eucharist and sacraments. the validity of TAC’s sacraments are questionable. but if they were not and the church declared them valid, intercommuion would probably be allowed as it is with the oriental orthodox church, the polish national church, assyrian church of the east, and obviously sspx.