Anglicans to Rome - Thread 2

[Matt16_18]

Traditional Ang:

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.

You need to see what was written by either the Pope or his legates.

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 didn’t say that the Anglican orders are invalid because Anglican priests and bishops teach heresy. A Catholic priest or bishop that teaches heresy does not lose the validity of his ordination. Anglican orders are invalid for reasons other than the fact that Anglican prelates teach heresy. I assumed that you knew that the Catholic Church does not recognize the validity of Anglican orders. And I would certainly never say that EO orders are invalid, because the Catholic Church recognizes the validity of the EO orders.

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.

I do give them credit for that. If they could only go all the way and explicitly accept all the infallible teachings of the true Church, then reunion would be possible.

MaggieOH:

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.

I can definitely understand why those that belong to the TAC would want to distance themselves from most Anglicans. If the TAC has preserved a liturgy that was in use before they broke away from the Catholic Church, that liturgy would still be able to be used if they ever came back into full communion with the Catholic Church.

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.

The same thing can be said about Presbyterians, Lutherans and Mormons.

As far as Papal infallibility is concerned, I will bet that more than 50% of Catholics do not understand what Papal infallibility implies.

Given the state of adult catechesis in the church today, I am not inclined to dispute this. But so what? Bad catechesis is something that we need to correct; it is not something that allows the pope to make “deals” where he offers Anglicans the option of ignoring solemnly defined dogmas of the Church.

• 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.*

I believe that we should pray for all Protestants to rejoin the true Church.

That said, let us suppose there was a way to place a bet in Las Vegas on whether or not the pope has offered full communion to the Anglicans by offering them a deal where the Anglicans can deny three solemnly defined dogmas of the Catholic Church. If that bet were being offered, I would mortgage everything I own and bet that this deal has never been offered, no matter what the odds. I am a sure winner in a bet against such an alleged deal. Christ has guaranteed that the gates of Hell will not prevail against the Church.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

**

MaggieOH:

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.**

**## Some of us are converts too - and had to believe all dogmas. No picking and choosing was allowed. Which is perfectly fair: one does not leave Anglicanism in order to be or stay an Anglican, but to become an RC. And the CC does not let one choose what to believe - she gives a choice between believing all the Church teaches, &, not entering the CC. But not a mix & match: for if one is in the CC, one must believe what the CC believes. **

That is just how things are - it would be very nice if the CC were less inflexible, but she isn’t. We have to live in the CC as it is actually is - not in the CC as it would be nice for us to find it to be. ##

**

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.

**

**## All Churches seem to have much the same problems - there are endless complaints about unorthodoxy in the CC too. The CC is no escape from problems - the problems are merely a bit different. **

---

**A homosexual ordained as bishop - molester priests: what’s the difference ? Neither leaves much room for scoring points off each other. Plenty of Catholics are not too happy to find that certain priests with a record of molestation had been passed to them. The wonder is that so many Catholics have not left the CC. I hope the TAC is aware that bishops are not easy to get rid of in the CC, and that dioceses have to take the bishops Rome gives them. **

---

Besides, accusations of unorthodoxy are not true merely because they are made, whatever the Church one is in. ##

**

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**

**## Someone who does not accept all dogmas is not in full communion, though. **

---

Being confused, is not the same as declining to accept a dogma proposed to one for one’s acceptance after one has been properly instructed. ##

 

[MaggieOH]

Fr Ambrose:

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.

Fr. Ambrose,

I accept the limits that were placed by the moderator. However, I already see that the thread has been going down a slippery slope with unsubstantiated comments about heresies being made.

I want to support Michael rather than be a detractor. I just do not think it right for someone to make an accusation of heresy like this when there is so much work going on to bring about a reconciliation with Rome.

I will be praying for Michael and the TAC that this will be resolved in the near future. Those 300, 000 souls deserve to have a home where they feel comfortable.

MaggieOH

 

[SyroMalankara]

It may be that the TAC has valid orders because they ordained following the strict Sarum rite and went through Old Catholic bishops. Its a possiblity, however small it may be. TA, do you know if TAC is meticulous about episcopal lineage; if so, can you ask your bishop where they get their lineage? Remember it is not only the consecrator, it is also the formula used that will determine validity. Any formula using protestant anti-sacrificial language is ‘utterly null and void.’

Also, I too must concur with those who have stated that full communion will be impossible without acceptance of at least Papal Infallibility - although the non-dogmatic Tradition may be left for further debate - in some form. We Eastern Catholics accept Papal Infallibility as an extension of the Church’s Infallibility, especially in the case of the Petrine Office. But again, your bishop may have said that the discussion is ongoing and you may have misunderstood the intention in your zeal. I have very serious doubt that the Pope will accept any reunion without complete faith. This is not to say that your communities will not be reunited, but that the few unbelieving members will have to go through proper catechesis before being allowed to recieve Eucharist. The believing members of course, will be recieved fully and be allowed to Eucharist.

 

[MaggieOH]

Michael_Thoma:

It may be that the TAC has valid orders because they ordained following the strict Sarum rite and went through Old Catholic bishops. Its a possiblity, however small it may be. TA, do you know if TAC is meticulous about episcopal lineage; if so, can you ask your bishop where they get their lineage? Remember it is not only the consecrator, it is also the formula used that will determine validity. Any formula using protestant anti-sacrificial language is ‘utterly null and void.’

Also, I too must concur with those who have stated that full communion will be impossible without acceptance of at least Papal Infallibility - although the non-dogmatic Tradition may be left for further debate - in some form. We Eastern Catholics accept Papal Infallibility as an extension of the Church’s Infallibility, especially in the case of the Petrine Office. But again, your bishop may have said that the discussion is ongoing and you may have misunderstood the intention in your zeal. I have very serious doubt that the Pope will accept any reunion without complete faith. This is not to say that your communities will not be reunited, but that the few unbelieving members will have to go through proper catechesis before being allowed to recieve Eucharist. The believing members of course, will be recieved fully and be allowed to Eucharist.

These are very well stated comments and I hope that they will be encouraging to Michael.

MaggieOH

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Fr. Ambrose:

I also said that whether or not the Continuing Anglican should be forced to accept the Dogmas the Pope was leaving off the table should be left OUT of the discussion.

Anglicans to Rome - Thread 2 - Post #1

Per Therese Martin’s instructions, we aren’t discussing the doctrines, or even if the TAC should be forced to accept them (BTW, I do accept them). At least not for now.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=460243&postcount=1
Fr Ambrose:

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.

Not only have we been discussing NOTHING BUT whether or nothe Continuing should be forced to accept the Dogmas in question (esp. the Infallibility of the Pope), but not one single person (with the possible exception of Steve B) has said how this makes them feel.

If the guys writing the tape recording about why the Continuing Anglican must accept the Infalibility of the Pope in order to be in Communion with the Catholic Church (when many Catholics so obviously don’t) are on topic, then MaggieOH is most definitely on topic.

Blessings to you and your congregation.

Michael

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Traditional Ang:

If the guys writing the tape recording about why the Continuing Anglican must accept the Infalibility of the Pope in order to be in Communion with the Catholic Church (when many Catholics so obviously don’t) are on topic, then MaggieOH is most definitely on topic.

So it is in order to discuss Maggie’s question, what are the heresies of the TAC?

I don’t want to get into that myself since I would definitely be an outsider and acceptable to neither side. Both Roman Catholicism and historical Traditional Anglicanism (39 Articles) see the Orthodox as holding certain heresies.

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Michael:

I discussed during the first iteration of this Thread how Pope Leo determined that the language used in the 16th-17th Centuries (“Arise, thou minister of Gospel”) rendered Anglican orders to be Null and Void when wroting his Bull in the 19th. After that, various Anglican Bishops “Fortified” their orders by having Old Catholic and other Consecrators present when they were consecrated. At the same time, almost all Americans trace their orders through “NON-JURING” Bishops in Scottland who NEVER used the invaliding language and always used the correct formulation (“Arise, thou Priest of the Catholic Church”).

The real tragedy of the ordination of women priests by PECUSA (now ECUSA) and the Anglican Communion Worldwide is that they have rendered oOrders that were probably Valid Invalid.
Michael_Thoma:

It may be that the TAC has valid orders because they ordained following the strict Sarum rite and went through Old Catholic bishops. Its a possiblity, however small it may be. TA, do you know if TAC is meticulous about episcopal lineage; if so, can you ask your bishop where they get their lineage? Remember it is not only the consecrator, it is also the formula used that will determine validity. Any formula using protestant anti-sacrificial language is ‘utterly null and void.’

Also, I too must concur with those who have stated that full communion will be impossible without acceptance of at least Papal Infallibility - although the non-dogmatic Tradition may be left for further debate - in some form. We Eastern Catholics accept Papal Infallibility as an extension of the Church’s Infallibility, especially in the case of the Petrine Office. But again, your bishop may have said that the discussion is ongoing and you may have misunderstood the intention in your zeal. I have very serious doubt that the Pope will accept any reunion without complete faith. This is not to say that your communities will not be reunited, but that the few unbelieving members will have to go through proper catechesis before being allowed to recieve Eucharist. The believing members of course, will be recieved fully and be allowed to Eucharist.

Thank you for the answer about the Eastern Catholics and the Infallibility of the Pope. I wwas just about to ask that.

But…weren’t the Ukranian Catholics given a pass on the Filioque and all of the inferences which the Church draws from that about the Relationship of the Son to the Holy Spirit? Because, at the time, didn’t the Pope, in his wisdom, see as more important to bring these Christian brothers into the Catholic Church than to quibble about the doctrine?

And, if the Pope has made the offer which my source is telling me he made, wouldn’t he be doing the same thing again?

Blessings and peace, Michael

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Fr. Ambrose:

I assume you were planning a LOT of penance for Great Lent!

As GKC will confirm, the TAC ,and almost all Continuing Anglicans have dropped the infamous 39 Articles…
Fr Ambrose:

So it is in order to discuss Maggie’s question, what are the heresies of the TAC?

I don’t want to get into that myself since I would definitely be an outsider and acceptable to neither side. Both Roman Catholicism and historical Traditional Anglicanism (39 Articles) see the Orthodox as holding certain heresies.

…If that hadn’t been so, there wouldn’t be a Western Rite of the Orthodox Church or the Anglican Use in the Catholic Church, and NOBODY could have signed the Affirmation of St. Louis

acahome.org/tac/library/docs/affirm.htm

Now, Fr. I’ve linked this to you once already,…

Blessings to you and your congregation.

Michael

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Traditional Ang:

http://www.acahome.org/tac/library/docs/affirm.htm

Now, Fr. I’ve linked this to you once already,…

I studied this a few days ago and was concerned about its “comprehensiveness” and that it does not affirm such things as Purgatory, Prayer to Mary and the Saints, the veneration of images and also relics -things which Traditional Anglicans say are “repugnant to God.”

How does the TAC stand on these?

One of the paragraphs states:
The received Tradition of the Church and its teachings as set forth by “the ancient catholic bishops and doctors,” and especially as defined by the Seven Ecumenical Councils of the undivided Church, to the exclusion of all errors, ancient and modern.

What does the TAC see as the “errors, ancient and modern”? Is this referring to the above teachings?

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Thank you Maggie:

As you can see, what some of the guys were doing was outside the stated limits of the Thread. This is the post setting the limits of the discussion:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=460243&postcount=1

Gr. Ambrose is Orthodox and would probably rather hear that this group were joining the Western Rite of the Orthodx Church…

MaggieOH:

Fr. Ambrose,

I accept the limits that were placed by the moderator. However, I already see that the thread has been going down a slippery slope with unsubstantiated comments about heresies being made.

I want to support Michael rather than be a detractor. I just do not think it right for someone to make an accusation of heresy like this when there is so much work going on to bring about a reconciliation with Rome.

I will be praying for Michael and the TAC that this will be resolved in the near future. Those 300, 000 souls deserve to have a home where they feel comfortable.

MaggieOH

…The last time that happened, some Anglicans parishes tried to join the Catholic Church and were rebuffed by their local Ordinaries in spite of the wishes of Pope John Paul II. That was in the early 1980’s after PECUSA (now ECUSA) started ordaining women “Priests”.

Fr. Ambrose knows about this, because he knows that my father died as an Orthodox in one of those parishes.

He just might be hoping for a reprise writ large.

Again, thank you for your kind words. I’ve begun to feel very much the pariah or like the Samaritan in one of Our Lord’s stories.

May the Lord bless you and keep you; may the Lord cause his face to shine upon you and be gracious to you; may the Lord lift up his countenance upon you and grant you peace.
Numbers 6:24-26

In Christ, Michael

 

[SyroMalankara]

Question to any Eastern Catholics reading this thread. Do you chrismate people who have fallen away from the Church and then return? In other words, do you still follow the Orthodox tradition of administering Chrismation more than once or have you adopted the RC theology of its irrepeatability?

Fr.
Sorry, for the delay in response, I hadn’t check the board in a while. We do Chrismate more than once (although I am not Byzantine Catholic, I am of Syriac Tradition), but going to Orthodoxy is not considered falling away according to the Eastern Catholic Canons. There is no way to formally separate from the Eastern Catholic Church, in other words, Eastern Catholics are bound by EC Canons from baptism to funeral. If someone does return to Catholicism from Orthodoxy, they will make a profession of Faith and possibly be chrismated with myrron as healing, not Confirmation. Although the Sacrament of Initiation (Confirmation) is only once, we do chrismate more than once.

But…weren’t the Ukranian Catholics given a pass on the Filioque and all of the inferences which the Church draws from that about the Relationship of the Son to the Holy Spirit?

No. The Ukrainian and other Byzantines who reunited at the Union of Brest (The Union of Brest this doesn’t include the Syriacs, Chaldeans, Copts, etc…) accepted the filioque clarification as theologically sound. But Byzantines aren’t required to use it because 1)the heresy it is meant to combat was in the West 2)the Creed without the filioque was never changed. No inferences are drawn by the clarification. Both East and West understand that the Source of the Holy Spirit is the Father, and that the Son is instrumental in the Holy Spirit’s outpouring to the world.

Because, at the time, didn’t the Pope, in his wisdom, see as more important to bring these Christian brothers into the Catholic Church than to quibble about the doctrine?

Mike, you need to slow down. You are jumping from statement to assumption to conclusion based on assumption. Doctrine was already settled when Ukrainian Catholics made the profession of Faith. Orthodoxy does not contain any doctrine contrary to the Faith (other than anti-Papal prouncements by local synods or pan-synods that the CC doesn’t consider binding), and any possible misstatements are clarified prior to reception and reiterated by the Profession of Faith.

And, if the Pope has made the offer which my source is telling me he made, wouldn’t he be doing the same thing again?

No, because if what your source says is true, the non-believing Anglicans would come into the Church and excommunicate themselves the moment they disbelieve with the True faith in their hearts. In other words, the moment they are Confirmed, they would become heretics. This is far worse than them being invincibly ignorant. It is better that the unbelievers wait and go through catechesis, while the believers unite. This is not to say they shouldn’t attend Liturgy and come to Church every Sunday, etc. But they should not be recieved until they can accept the full Faith.

 

[MaggieOH]

Michael_Thoma:

Fr.
Sorry, for the delay in response, I hadn’t check the board in a while. We do Chrismate more than once (although I am not Byzantine Catholic, I am of Syriac Tradition), but going to Orthodoxy is not considered falling away according to the Eastern Catholic Canons. There is no way to formally separate from the Eastern Catholic Church, in other words, Eastern Catholics are bound by EC Canons from baptism to funeral. If someone does return to Catholicism from Orthodoxy, they will make a profession of Faith and possibly be chrismated with myrron as healing, not Confirmation. Although the Sacrament of Initiation (Confirmation) is only once, we do chrismate more than once.

No. The Ukrainian and other Byzantines who reunited at the Union of Brest (The Union of Brest this doesn’t include the Syriacs, Chaldeans, Copts, etc…) accepted the filioque clarification as theologically sound. But Byzantines aren’t required to use it because 1)the heresy it is meant to combat was in the West 2)the Creed without the filioque was never changed. No inferences are drawn by the clarification. Both East and West understand that the Source of the Holy Spirit is the Father, and that the Son is instrumental in the Holy Spirit’s outpouring to the world.

Mike, you need to slow down. You are jumping from statement to assumption to conclusion based on assumption. Doctrine was already settled when Ukrainian Catholics made the profession of Faith. Orthodoxy does not contain any doctrine contrary to the Faith (other than anti-Papal prouncements by local synods or pan-synods that the CC doesn’t consider binding), and any possible misstatements are clarified prior to reception and reiterated by the Profession of Faith.

No, because if what your source says is true, the non-believing Anglicans would come into the Church and excommunicate themselves the moment they disbelieve with the True faith in their hearts. In other words, the moment they are Confirmed, they would become heretics. This is far worse than them being invincibly ignorant. It is better that the unbelievers wait and go through catechesis, while the believers unite. This is not to say they shouldn’t attend Liturgy and come to Church every Sunday, etc. But they should not be recieved until they can accept the full Faith.

Just a quick comment. Anyone who has heard the Gospel message cannot be considered to be invincibly ignorant

Maggie

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Fr. Ambrose:

I’ve had arguments with you about PURGATORY which you, as an Orthodox, don’t accept!

The prayer book I carry around with me (ST. AUGUSTINE’S PRAYER BOOK has devotion to the Theotokos and the Saints ALL OVER THE PLACE. I’ve found out that I’m the only one in a class full of CATHOLICS who regularly prays THE ANGELUS & THE ROSARY!

St. Mary’s has several statues, including THE ANNUNCIATION by De la Rubio which is OVER THE HIGH ALTER and several “Icons” (I don’t know if they’re the real thing) in various places arounf the Church!

And, like ALL Anglican Churches, St. Mary’s has a RELIC in the HIGH ALTER and others in other places aroungd the Church!

As GKC will tell you, this is the normal situation for HIGH CHURCH ANGLICANS!…
Fr Ambrose:

I studied this a few days ago and was concerned about its “comprehensiveness” and that it does not affirm such things as Purgatory, Prayer to Mary and the Saints, the veneration of images and also relics -things which Traditional Anglicans say are “repugnant to God.”

How does the TAC stand on these?

One of the paragraphs states:
The received Tradition of the Church and its teachings as set forth by “the ancient catholic bishops and doctors,” and especially as defined by the Seven Ecumenical Councils of the undivided Church, to the exclusion of all errors, ancient and modern.

What does the TAC see as the “errors, ancient and modern”? Is this referring to the above teachings?

As you know, Veneration of the Bless Virgin Mary (The Theotokos) and the Saints and of Icons were both instituted by the First 7 Ecumenical Councils and by the Early Church they represented. Traditional Anglicans have all agreed to be bound by those Councils, the Creeds and the clear sense of Scripture.

Although I’ve heard of some of the LOW CHURCH EVANGELICALS saying that they have problems with some of the above, I’ve never heard them say they were “Repugnant to God”.

I really don’t appreciate what you’re doing - The 39 Articles WERE DISCARDED! That’s the only way my father and the rest of St. Michael’s could ever have thought of becoming Orthodox.

So, could you please drop this unedifying line of thought - before you cause to be done to me what was done to you on the last night of the last thread??

Blessings and peace.

Michael

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Maggie:

We’ve been talking about Invincible Ignorancein relation to a specific dogma promulgated less than 130 years ago…Not in relation to the rest of the Gospel of Christ which Traditional Anglican so eagerly accept…

MaggieOH:

Just a quick comment. Anyone who has heard the Gospel message cannot be considered to be invincibly ignorant

Maggie

…I’m probably beginning to get incoherent because I’m now questioning if I was right to state the offer with such joy.

I really thought that Catholics would, “Rejoice and be exceeding glad, because that which was lost is now found,” but that hasn’t been the case.

You can’t believe the amount of hurt on this side of the key board and the amount of self-control I’ve had to use not to just absolutely let the guys have it.

And, now, Fr. Ambrose plays Agent provocateur when he knows better!

I’m just beside myself…

Thank you for your help.

Blessings and peace to you.

Michael

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Michael:

I’m sorry if I just blabbered on. If you’ll read the last two days of the Thread, you’ll see that I’ve pretty much been subjected to “Broken Record”, a repetitive restatement of Church Dogma over and over again by posters who seemed as interested in listening to what I had to say as Vegetarians at a Cattleman’s Convention…
Michael_Thoma:

Fr.
Sorry, for the delay in response, I hadn’t check the board in a while. We do Chrismate more than once (although I am not Byzantine Catholic, I am of Syriac Tradition), but going to Orthodoxy is not considered falling away according to the Eastern Catholic Canons. There is no way to formally separate from the Eastern Catholic Church, in other words, Eastern Catholics are bound by EC Canons from baptism to funeral. If someone does return to Catholicism from Orthodoxy, they will make a profession of Faith and possibly be chrismated with myrron as healing, not Confirmation. Although the Sacrament of Initiation (Confirmation) is only once, we do chrismate more than once.

No. The Ukrainian and other Byzantines who reunited at the Union of Brest (The Union of Brest this doesn’t include the Syriacs, Chaldeans, Copts, etc…) accepted the filioque clarification as theologically sound. But Byzantines aren’t required to use it because 1)the heresy it is meant to combat was in the West 2)the Creed without the filioque was never changed. No inferences are drawn by the clarification. Both East and West understand that the Source of the Holy Spirit is the Father, and that the Son is instrumental in the Holy Spirit’s outpouring to the world.

Mike, you need to slow down. You are jumping from statement to assumption to conclusion based on assumption. Doctrine was already settled when Ukrainian Catholics made the profession of Faith. Orthodoxy does not contain any doctrine contrary to the Faith (other than anti-Papal prouncements by local synods or pan-synods that the CC doesn’t consider binding), and any possible misstatements are clarified prior to reception and reiterated by the Profession of Faith.

No, because if what your source says is true, the non-believing Anglicans would come into the Church and excommunicate themselves the moment they disbelieve with the True faith in their hearts. In other words, the moment they are Confirmed, they would become heretics. This is far worse than them being invincibly ignorant. It is better that the unbelievers wait and go through catechesis, while the believers unite. This is not to say they shouldn’t attend Liturgy and come to Church every Sunday, etc. But they should not be recieved until they can accept the full Faith.

…I don’t think I’ve been called by name (except by Fr. Ambrose and a brief stint by Maggie before) for two days until you and Maggie came here now. IS THAT ANY WAY TO LOVE SOMEONE INTO THE KINGDOM OF GOD?!?

It’s not like I’m the enemy! it’s not like I’m the poster who goes around trying to push his agenda of euthansia and forced abortion and sterilaztion - I was just asking for MERCY!

What was wrong with that?

I’m sorry about the babbling.

Blessings and peace.

Michael

 

[SyroMalankara]

Mike,

No one’s against you, at least I’m not. The thing is, we want you and everyone else who wishes to be a Catholic to know what it is to be a Catholic. Of course your more than welcome to join, it seems you have already accepted all the dogmas and Faith, but we were talking about the hypothetical few that wouldn’t accept the full faith. To these few, we can’t be dishonest and accept them on false presumptions. That would be a lie, and why would we want them to come to the pillar and foundation of Truth on a lie?

Its not that we don’t want you, of course we do, its just that I think that you get a bit excited and take some things out of context. Lets just wait for the real thing to occur and then celebrate. Right now we should be cautious, afterall as you have said, its been 12 years, whats another 1 or 2 ?

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Thank you for your answer, but there was no way that I could learn from the Saint Louis Affirmation whether or not you accepted these beliefs and practices.

In my country the 39 Articles are still taken to be the foundation of traditional Anglicanism and High Church Anglicanism is very much the exception -only three parishes out of thousands.

So when you speak of Traditional Anglicanism it is really something a bit different from Traditional Anglicanism. It seems to be a more modern variant which came into existence with the Oxford Movement? People in this country would not see your kind of “Traditional” Anglicanism as being in any way traditional.
Traditional Ang:

Fr. Ambrose:

I’ve had arguments with you about PURGATORY which you, as an Orthodox, don’t accept!

The prayer book I carry around with me (ST. AUGUSTINE’S PRAYER BOOK has devotion to the Theotokos and the Saints ALL OVER THE PLACE. I’ve found out that I’m the only one in a class full of CATHOLICS who regularly prays THE ANGELUS & THE ROSARY!

St. Mary’s has several statues, including THE ANNUNCIATION by De la Rubio which is OVER THE HIGH ALTER and several “Icons” (I don’t know if they’re the real thing) in various places arounf the Church!

And, like ALL Anglican Churches, St. Mary’s has a RELIC in the HIGH ALTER and others in other places aroungd the Church!

As GKC will tell you, this is the normal situation for HIGH CHURCH ANGLICANS!…

As you know, Veneration of the Bless Virgin Mary (The Theotokos) and the Saints and of Icons were both instituted by the First 7 Ecumenical Councils and by the Early Church they represented. Traditional Anglicans have all agreed to be bound by those Councils, the Creeds and the clear sense of Scripture.

Although I’ve heard of some of the LOW CHURCH EVANGELICALS saying that they have problems with some of the above, I’ve never heard them say they were “Repugnant to God”.

I really don’t appreciate what you’re doing - The 39 Articles WERE DISCARDED! That’s the only way my father and the rest of St. Michael’s could ever have thought of becoming Orthodox.

So, could you please drop this unedifying line of thought - before you cause to be done to me what was done to you on the last night of the last thread??

Blessings and peace.

Michael

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Thanks for listening to me, Michael - It’s a lot better than the tape recorder.

I’m sure that my source believes what he was told, and I believe him…Could the Pope have proposed a deal for Communion in order to give Anglican parishes considering leaving the Anglican Communion (the ones with Bishop Spong who’re ordaining women priests, etc) a way out that he’s “endorsed”?
Michael_Thoma:

Mike,

No one’s against you, at least I’m not. The thing is, we want you and everyone else who wishes to be a Catholic to know what it is to be a Catholic. Of course your more than welcome to join, it seems you have already accepted all the dogmas and Faith, but we were talking about the hypothetical few that wouldn’t accept the full faith. To these few, we can’t be dishonest and accept them on false presumptions. That would be a lie, and why would we want them to come to the pillar and foundation of Truth on a lie?

Its not that we don’t want you, of course we do, its just that I think that you get a bit excited and take some things out of context. Lets just wait for the real thing to occur and then celebrate. Right now we should be cautious, afterall as you have said, its been 12 years, whats another 1 or 2 ?

…Could Pope John Paul II be dealing with this rather extraordinary situation through a rather extraordinary means? or, Are you saying that this means is unavailable to him, even as a temporary expedient?

Does the Pope have to accept these Anglicans INTO the Church to Grant them FULL COMMUNION??

Because you are an Eastern Catholic, you might know of an INTERMEDIATE STEP…Is there one that Pope John Paul II could be thinking of?

I’ve heard the LAW stated for the last week…What the Continuing Anglicans need is MERCY.

Blessings and peace.

Michael

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Traditional Ang:

And, now, Fr. Ambrose plays Agent provocateur when he knows better!

I don’t think that is fair!

I studied the Saint Louis document which is what you recommended and I found that it is low and vague as regards doctrinal content. The let-out clause especially caught my attention.

“The received Tradition of the Church and its teachings as set forth by “the ancient catholic bishops and doctors,” and especially as defined by the Seven Ecumenical Councils of the undivided Church, to the exclusion of all errors, ancient and modern.”

If the TAC were speaking with the Orthodox, I am sure they would need to have that explained.