Anglicans to Rome - Thread 2

[Gottle_of_Geer]

**
Traditional Ang:

FR. Ambrose:

**

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

…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

## OK then - let’s look at this sideways : what do you mean by "they would not be required to give assent to that doctrine" ?

[My emphasis]

**I don’t want to “gang up” on anyone - I just want to be sure that people in the TAC are not being dispensed from believing what other RCs have to believe. **

One can be dispensed from a fast, say; children do not have believe what seminarians do; parents do not have to assent to Catholic teachings in the way that teachers of Catholic doctrine have to: but no one is allowed to deny the truth of a dogma; there is no possibility of a dispensation from that. The reason, being that a dogma is dogma: its place in the hierarchy of truths, is irrelevant. The decisive thing is, its character as a truth that is also a dogma - the stress falling heavily on its dogmatic character.

**So that, if there were a dogma that the BVM had blue hair, one would be obliged to believe that the BVM had blue hair, unless one was prepared to be excommunicated for heresy: whether or not this dogma was of any discernible theological importance. Happily, the example is imaginary. **

Personally, I think there is a lot of positivism in such a method of discerning and describing dogma - but that is how it is. ##

---

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

**
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?..**

**## Neither. **

**I did allow for their being instructed first, before they had to believe it. **

**But it would be insanity to admit them to communion, before: **

a) they are instructed
b) decide to accept the whole faith of the CC, in its entirety
**c) are received into the visible communion of the RCC. **

**If they desire full communion with the CC, they must accept the fullness of the CC’s faith first. **

What they cannot do, is:

a) be instructed
**b) believe part, or even most, of the Faith - except dogma X **
c) be admitted to full visible communion
**d) continue not believing dogma X **

Why should new RCs be allowed not to believe what every other RC is obliged to believed ? By all means, let things be made as easy as possible for them: but not, in that way. To excuse any convert from believing everything other RCs are required to believe, would be a serious injustice, as well as self-defeating and illogical. It is no more reasonable that excusing left-handed or red-haired people, or people less than six feet tall, from believing the whole dogmatic teaching of the CC. ##

**

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!

**

## They do not claim to be in union with Rome - the TAC will be implicitly doing just that. So they must accept Rome’s faith. ##

**

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**

**## Because, those who deny it, however sinful in so doing, are already inside. They are disowning obligations they formerly undertook; the TAC is, it seems, trying to avoid taking on an obligation - believing the dogma of Papal infallibility - in the first place, before it comes fully inside. **

So the two cases are not quite the same. ##

 

[steve_b]

Gottle of Geer:

## 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. ##

You bring up a good point.

Gregory XV (1622) imposed absolute silence (in scriptis et sermonibus etiam privatis) upon the adversaries of the doctrine until the Holy See should define the question. To put an end to all further cavilling, Alexander VII promulgated on 8 December 1661, the famous constitution “Sollicitudo omnium Ecclesiarum”, defining the true sense of the word conceptio, and forbidding all further discussion against the common and pious sentiment of the Church. He declared that the immunity of Mary from original sin in the first moment of the creation of her soul and its infusion into the body was the object of the feast (Densinger, 1100).

But it was in 1854, Pius IX solemnly proclaimed the dogma of the Immaculate Conception: “… We declare, pronounce and define that the doctrine which asserts that the Blessed Virgin Mary, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God, and in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, Saviour of the human race, was preserved free from every stain of original sin is a doctrine revealed by God and, for this reason, must be firmly and constantly believed by all the faithful” (DS 2803).

We need to also remember that St Thomas Aquinas, in his day, didn’t believe in the Immaculate Conception. That’s why I say, a certain belief, is not a requirement of faith until the Church says it is so.

 

[steve_b]

Gottle of Geer:

## It’s probably a blunder for “1829” ##

---

---

I found the “1826” quote that he quoted from, and yes the true date was 1829. I was wondering about the supposed 30 bishops that were mentioned. I couldn’t find anything to support it. It seemed like a point being drawn out of thin air.

**
gottle of geer:

---

**## There were no Old Catholics in 1826. These bishops were all in union with Rome. If they had not been, they could not have been in a position to give assurances to the Crown that the Pope was not infallible; for there were fears that the Pope would use the infallibility claimed for him in some parts of the CC for his political advantage, and against the safety of Great Britain and Ireland; as, by releasing Catholics from their civil allegiance. This was still an issue in 1875 when Newman was debating with Gladstone on this very point. Pius V had used his authority to depose Elizabeth I, and Rome had meddled in English affairs since then, by raising an army to fight in Ireland in the 1640s, for example. So these fears of the possible political effects of Papal action were not unfounded. **

---

---

I couldn’t find the story validating the “30 bishops” comment

---

**
gottle of geer:

---

And, bishops who are not part of a Communion, are not competent to give assurances for those who are in it. Why would the Government ask non-Catholic bishops for assurances about the behaviour of Catholics ? Yet that is what it had done - that is why Dr. Doyle and his fellow-bishops responded. ##

---

---

**As GKC commented, the “emancipation act” was not about infallibility of the Pope it was for voting rights and Catholics having the right holding office… The date was not 1826 but 1829. With these facts being wrong in the statement made, why then are the comments by “30 bishops” correct in that quote? **

**
gottle of geer:

---

## AKA: sources that do not tell the facts with a Roman spin ? ##**
No, sources that don’t have a decidedly ANTI Roman spin.

 

[steve_b]

GKC:

Greetings, my friend.

Oops. You are correct, of course. My faux pas.

I would expect that the TAC would prefer something along the 28 lines, if “expect” is the word I want here.

Did I ever mention who had done the frontispiece to the Book of Divine Worship? I have some of his original work, myself.

GKC

Signed copies I’m sure.

 

[steve_b]

GKC:

Yep, that’d be my guess, if the Orthodox were to do so because they are denying the apostolic succession of the RC episcopacy.

Are you?

GKC

His silence is telling

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Oat Soda:

But the EO are offerred COMMUNION and any other Sacraments they believe are necessary for their spiritual maintenance!..
oat soda:

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, intercommunion would probably be allowed as it is with the oriental orthodox church, the polish national church, assyrian church of the east, and obviously sspx.

…In the 1st thread on this issue, it came up that Cardinal Ratizinger and his people had done a line by line review of most of the Orders of the Bishops and Priests in the TAC. My understanding is that, because of the REINSTITUTION of valid Orders from outside the Anglican Communion during the last century, that many of the Bishops and Priest in the TAC have valid Orders and that those Sacraments are valid.

As I said then, that was one of the real tragedies of the Anglican Communion’s insistance on ordaining women Priests - They Invalidated (and “Invalided” to use the older term) Orders that had largely been rendered valid.

That was why they said that, in the case of reunion, Ordinations, etc would be Sub-Conditione.

It might be possible that what they’re discussing is INTER-COMMUNION first, so that The INSTRUCTION that GOTTLE OF GEER is discribing can take place in a far less isolated place. Kind of relying on a sort of Cross-polination effect if you will. I’m making a guess here based on the responses to my reportage of the proposal.

Blessings and peace.

Michael

 

[Matt16_18]

Traditional Ang:

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 … 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!

First, I am quite sure the Pope has offered nothing like what you have said. Second, the Church already recognizes that the Anglicans have valid baptism, and because of that, Anglicans are already in communion with the Catholic Church. It is just that this is an imperfect communion, since Anglicans teach heresy, and they lack valid orders.**Catechism of the Catholic Church

1271** Baptism constitutes the foundation of communion among all Christians, including those who are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church: "For men who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in some, though imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church.There is no doubt in my mind that the Pope would love to see the Angicans come into perfect communion with the Catholic Church. But the only way that this is possible is for the Anglicans to renounce all heresy, and to accept every infallible teaching of the Catholic Church.

Why do insist that Anglicans express belief before they’re shown?!?

The Anglicans need to do what every other Protestant that converts needs to do. Receive instruction and accept all the teachings of the Catholic Church so that they can make an informed Profession of Faith.

And, Why would you deny them the Grace of God until they do so?!?

God will not deny sincere Anglican converts the grace they need during the time that they receive catechetical instruction. The Catholic Church understands that healing graces must be received by adults before they can make their Profession of Faith.

**Catechism of the Catholic Church.

2001** The preparation of man for the reception of grace is already a work of grace. This latter is needed to arouse and sustain our collaboration in justification through faith, and in sanctification through charity. God brings to completion in us what he has begun, “since he who completes his work by cooperating with our will began by working so that we might will it:”

Indeed we also work, but we are only collaborating with God who works, for his mercy has gone before us. It has gone before us so that we may be healed, and follows us so that once healed, we may be given life; it goes before us so that we may be called, and follows us so that we may be glorified; it goes before us so that we may live devoutly, and follows us so that we may always live with God: for without him we can do nothing.2022 The divine initiative in the work of grace precedes, prepares, and elicits the free response of man. Grace responds to the deepest yearnings of human freedom, calls freedom to cooperate with it, and perfects freedom.​

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!

The Catholic Church does not, and never has, practiced open communion.

The fact that the Catholic Church is never going to practice open communion does not mean that she wants to block Protestant converts from receiving grace. On the contrary, the whole Church says prayers of intercession on behalf of adult converts so that they may receive the graces that they need for their conversion. The Catholic Church would be remiss in her duties if she did not insist that Protestants receive catechetical instruction so that they can make an informed decision before they make their public Profession of Faith. But she also knows that converts can never make a sincere Profession of Faith without first receiving healing grace. Faith is a gift from God, and Catholics desire all Protestants to have the gift of saving faith.

The Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults is more than a just period of receiving catechetical instruction. There is also a liturgical element of the RCIA program, including the liturgy for the Acceptance into the Order of the Catechumenate, and the liturgy for the Election or Enrollment of Names. These public liturgies are presented to God by the Church for the intention of the candidates and catechumens that desire to enter the Church.

 

[Matt16_18]

MaggieOH:

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.

By all means, let us discuss the Church’s doctrines concerning infallibilty. It is quite true that the Catholic Church’s doctrines on infallibility are a roadblock for Protestants! If dissenters had not rejected the Church’s doctrines concerning infallibility in the first place, there would be no separated Protestant brethren.

The Catholic Church engages in ecumenical dialog with Protestant churches such as the TAC because she desires all Protestants to understand the doctrines of Christianity. Ecumenism isn’t about offering "deals” to Protestants that allow them to receive the Eucharist while they deny de fide definita dogmas of the Church.

This is an exciting time for him and all of the other Traditional Anglicans involved. Why can’t we welcome them with open arms?

I think Michael is going to be disappointed when he finds out the TAC has not been offered a deal where the TAC will be accepted as being in full communion with the Catholic Church before the TAC explicitly accepts all the infallible teachings of the Catholic Church.
Traditional Ang:

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.

Which means what? Individual Anglicans either accept papal infallibility or they do not. An Anglican may reject the truth about papal infallibility out ignorance, but that ignorance can easily be cleared up with proper catechesis and the Anglican’s willingness to cooperate with grace.

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Steve:

They’ve already had to do a lot of this just in leaving the Anglican Church…

SteveG:

Frankly, the whole idea being suggested is scandalous if true and is a nothing short of a slap in the face to any convert who had to pour themselves out like water, humble themselves and submit to the Church and Her teachings in order to come home. It makes a mockery of the struggles many of us had over these same issues to simply give a whole community a pass for the sake of ecumanism.

…Would you deny someone the Grace of God because of a “Slap of the Face”?

Our Lord suffered far worse so that we could have that Grace!

Remember, I accept the teaching, so I’m arguing someone else’s case. Would you refuse the grace of God to fellow believers because “it makes a mockery of the struggles” that you and others faced on many issues that had nothing to do with Papal Infallibility?

I understand the hurt, but is this what you want to say to these wounded brothers that Pope John Paul II wishes to bring into the hospital of the Church?

Since they agree on the rest, can’t we teach them that one dogma once they’ve been brought into Communion?

Blessings and peace.

Michael

 

[Matt16_18]

Traditional Ang:

Since they agree on the rest, can’t we teach them that one dogma once they’ve been brought into Communion?

The Anglicans are already in communion with the Catholic Church, albeit an imperfect communion. If the Anglicans desire to be in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, they will have to explicitly accept all the infallible teachings of the Catholic Church.

When Anglicans are in perfect communion with the true Church, they will be able to receive the Sacrament of Communion of the true Church.

 

[Lost_Found]

Looks like ever since Henry VIII wrecked the Catholic Church in England, efforts have been ongoing at some level to mend the mess. Our church bides her time, moving over decades and centuries, not mere years.

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Matt:

I double-checked with my source before the first post on the first thread and again before beginning this thread…I can assure you that he’s in a position where he should know.

That means that, if I’m wrong, we’ve been the victims of some misinformation from someone well above us…

Matt16_18:

First, I am quite sure the Pope has offered nothing like what you have said. Second, the Church already recognizes that the Anglicans have valid baptism, and because of that, Anglicans are already in communion with the Catholic Church. It is just that this is an imperfect communion, since Anglicans teach heresy, and they lack valid orders.

Regarding your statement about the validity of the Orders in the TAC, I suggest that you go and say to the EO that their Orders are invalid because they “Teach Heresy”. I’m positive they will give you the same reply back. Just don’t do it on this Thread!

The members of the TAC are those who LEFT the Anglican Communion over various Heresies, including, but not limited to, the Ordination of women Priests. The least you could do is give them credit for that.

Speaking of “teaching heresy”, these articles are just about the Archdiocese I live in and the Cardinal who heads it:

Les Femmes - The Women of Truth
lesfemmes-thetruth.org/links.htm

Concerned Roman Catholics of America
crcoa.com/

Catholic Activists to Cdl. Mahony: "My Donations Return When You Leave"
earnedmedia.org/crcoa0217.htm
angelqueen.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1176&sid=9eb2caa3061afe7f80c205a79a331d4e
tinyurl.com/5tc7e

I can see NO pastoral reason to allow the situation they’ve described to continue and at the same time NOT to allow Communion with the TAC who definitely do NOT preach anything reported above!

Blessings.

In Christ, Michael

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Traditional Ang:

Regarding your statement about the validity of the Orders in the TAC, I suggest that you go and say to the EO that their Orders are invalid because they “Teach Heresy”. I’m positive they will give you the same reply back.

It doesn’t worry the Orthodox what others think of their Orders. Not a problem either way.

 

[MaggieOH]

Matt16_18:

By all means, let us discuss the Church’s doctrines concerning infallibilty. It is quite true that the Catholic Church’s doctrines on infallibility are a roadblock for Protestants! If dissenters had not rejected the Church’s doctrines concerning infallibility in the first place, there would be no separated Protestant brethren.

The Catholic Church engages in ecumenical dialog with Protestant churches such as the TAC because she desires all Protestants to understand the doctrines of Christianity. Ecumenism isn’t about offering "deals” to Protestants that allow them to receive the Eucharist while they deny de fide definita dogmas of the Church.

I think Michael is going to be disappointed when he finds out the TAC has not been offered a deal where the TAC will be accepted as being in full communion with the Catholic Church before the TAC explicitly accepts all the infallible teachings of the Catholic Church.

Which means what? Individual Anglicans either accept papal infallibility or they do not. An Anglican may reject the truth about papal infallibility out ignorance, but that ignorance can easily be cleared up with proper catechesis and the Anglican’s willingness to cooperate with grace.

Michael did not start this thread to be personally attacked in this manner. He sincerely desires to be united with the Catholic Church.

You do not seem to understand that there are thousands of people who want to leave the Anglican Communion and come to Rome under their own rite. It is difficult for these people because they have not been brought up to believe the same things as cradle Catholics. That means that they are suspicious about doctrines that they do not understand.

Regardless, what you have to remember is that these people know that they cannot support a hierarchy that has allowed a man who had been married to desert and abandon his wife in favour of a man of his own sex, to ordained as a Bishop. That action is a direct contravention of the Scripture. Thse people know that there is a breach, and they recognize that in the Catholic Church there is stability and orthodoxy.

As far as Papal infallibility is concerned, I will bet that more than 50% of Catholics do not understand what Papal infallibility implies. I have seen a lot of posts on this and other forums that indicates to me that a lot of people are very confused by the concept because of their misapplication of the term “papal infallibility”. I am the first to admit that I cannot be 100 % sure of what I understand by “papal infallibility”. As far as acceptance is concerned, if these people agree that they should practice such things as:

natural family planning for contraception;
refusal to abort a child in the womb;
accept that the Magisterium can make pronouncements upon the nature of more modern medical advances such as stem cell research;

then I would say that the objections that you raise are null and void.

Instead of being a critic of what is about to happen we should be praying for those involved so that they can join us in full communion with the Catholic Church in Rome.

Maggie

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Dear Michael,

Is Bishop Chislett with you this weekend? All of us following this thread are bursting to know what he says on the TAC-Rome Union…

 

[MaggieOH]

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.

What are the heresies of the TAC?

First let us not confuse them with the likes of Bishop Spong who doubts that Jesus is the Messiah and that the Resurrection occured.

The Anglican split from Rome was as much a schism at the time as the Orthodox split was a few hundred years earlier. The original issue concerned one man, Henry VIII. There was no challenge with regard to:

1. The Real Presence;
2. The Perpetual Viriginity;
3. The Trinity
4. The Incarnation

They understood the role of the Messiah in the same way that we understand the Messiah. However, that changed over time and yes those issues need to be readdressed.

Therefore, instead of making claims about heresies that might or might not exist, it would be more helpful for Michael, if you went through those issues where you claim that there is heresy, but keeping to the instructions given.

It requires only simple responses to deal with misunderstandings and if you attack and do not instruct and as a result someone decides not to come Home to Rome, then do not blame that person for his or her reluctance.

MaggieOH

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

MaggieOH:

What are the heresies of the TAC?

I think that such a question falls outside the limits of this thread? Don’t want to see a second thread locked.

Here are the limits. There are only 3 permissable topics.

We can discuss if the TAC should accept the offer. I will.

We can discuss if some Dioceses, Deaneries and Congregations in the TAC will have problems accepting even this generous offer. I will.

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.

Those will have to be the limits for now.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

**
Traditional Ang:

Steve:

They’ve already had to do a lot of this just in leaving the Anglican Church…

…Would you deny someone the Grace of God because of a “Slap of the Face”?**

---

**## There’s an issue of equity here, and of intellectual consistency, & doctrinal intelligibility: how can it make sense for different aspiring converts to be required to believe different sets of beliefs ? For that is what is implied. It’s like expecting two football teams to play by different rules. **

---

**What is not to be taught to all converts next, if an exception is made now: the dogma of Transubstantiation ? of the Assumption ? the divinity of Christ ? the existence of God ? **

---

**Make one exception for one group, and there is no reason for not making exceptions for others. ## **

---

**

Our Lord suffered far worse so that we could have that Grace!

Remember, I accept the teaching, so I’m arguing someone else’s case. Would you refuse the grace of God to fellow believers because “it makes a mockery of the struggles” that you and others faced on many issues that had nothing to do with Papal Infallibility?

I understand the hurt, but is this what you want to say to these wounded brothers that Pope John Paul II wishes to bring into the hospital of the Church?

Since they agree on the rest, can’t we teach them that one dogma once they’ve been brought into Communion?**

**## Answer to that last question: No, no, and again: absolutely not. **

**Sorry. **

If all the rest can be accepted - why is this single one a problem ?

It’s not as though there were no historical, philosophical, moral, logical, Biblical or other problems with, or diificulties in, or objections to, other dogmas & doctrines: so why is this sticking out like a sore thumb ? ##

**

Blessings and peace.

Michael**

 

[JoaoMachado]

What a great thread, I would like to thank Traditional Ang for starting it! Please keeps us all who just read and do not participate, informed. The suspence is excruciating to say the least!
Magazine de presse & actualité | EXS

God Bless

Joao