Anglicans to Rome - Thread 2

[MaggieOH]

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…

…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

Hi Michael,

Invincible ignorance as a doctrine only applies to Baptism and salvation . Perhaps there is some other form of ignorance that applies to this special case.

I have just got myself wet from doing a little bit of Internet surfing to find what I could on the TAC. One of the first things that I discovered is that there are at least two groups of Anglicans that have set themselves up to pray the Catholic Rosary daily. There is also a very nice Anglican rosary that is prayed.

I dropped into the Australian website of the TAC which involves a parish not all that far from where I grew up in Melbourne. From this site I learned a few more things about Traditional Anglicans such as the adherence to all of the Marian feasts, including the Assumption (well it goes to show that this is not such a major bridge that has to be crossed).

At the same time I was given a little bit of a history lesson, and suddenly in my mind’s eye I was remembering the initial negotiations that were being opened up between the Vatican and the Archbishop of Canterbury. These negotions, prior to the ordination of women, were railroaded because the radicals succeeded in pushing their agenda of ordaining women to the priesthood, thus killing off the progresses that had been made.

I suspect that those who have been so unwelcoming about this development have not looked into all of the facts, that is the Traditional Anglican Church are very close to the Roman Catholic Church and that there is very little that divides us. Even the declaration regarding primacy does not stand in the way of full communion with the Church. That means that the only roadblock is that of papal infallibility because this doctrine is so poorly understood.

If the TAC was willing to accept all of these doctrines, which is more than likely that they do accept them, then there is nothing standing in the way for that unity. I can see that these doctrines are not necessarily a barrier to TAC full communion with Rome.

Those who object need to consider the desire of the people who want to be in communion with Rome and at the same time have their own separate identity. I believe that this could be a big boost to the Catholic faith.

I nearly forgot one other objection, that of celibacy. This is a western Catholic discipline and I do believe that there is good reason to retain the tradition as it remains. I believe that this is highly negotiable and with the married men who are being allowed to be priests in the Catholic Communion (we have former Anglican priests confirmed into the Catholic Church). It is at the experiment stage because we are all looking on to see whether or not married men can cope with the demands of priesthood.

(tbc)

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Fr. Ambrose:

I’ve just conducted a search of the TAC and Forward in Faith (an allied group) websites. NEITHER lists a parish in New Zealand!

This means that you are probably dealing with disgruntled members of the Anglican Communion (The one that’s ordaining women Priests)
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.

Could you do us both a favor:

Ask them who their PRIMATE is? Is he the Abp. of Canterbury? or, Is he Abp, Hepworth? I’m almost positive their primate will be Abp. Rowan Williams, the Abp of Canterbury, and that they’re none too happy about it right now…

Then, you know those HIGH CHURCH Parishes…If you could be so kind as to give them this information:

The Traditional Anglican Communion
acahome.org/tac/index.htm

If they like what they see, contact information is available by hitting the CONTACT button.

If they’re not ready to make that commitment, but still need to leave the Egypt of the Anglican Communion (++ Canterbury), they can do so by using this looser confederation:

Forward in Faith International
forwardinfaith.com/default.htm

You really will be doing them a favor. Meanwhile, it’s at least an hour past my bedtime, so Goodnight.

May God bless your preparations for Great Lent.

Michael

 

[MaggieOH]

(cont)

I do think that there is a way forward, and that the way forward lies in the solution that was offered to the Eastern Rite churches that are now in communion with Rome.

Since the vow of celibacy is just that, a vow, I cannot see that there is a problem in the possibility of a change to suit the needs of our time.

As far as I am concerned the TAC should be welcomed into the Roman Catholic Church in the same way as the Eastern Rite churches. They should have their own separate rite and the marital status of priests and bishops be upheld.

It is people like Spong that have caused a lot of damage to the Church as a whole as well as to the Anglican communion. There are over 300,000 people to be considered, not just in Australia, USA, Canada, and U.K. but also in Japan and other regions. They need to have that link to authority.

As a person of English (Irish and Scots) descent, I have been brought up to respect the monarchy of Britain. As you are aware the Queen of England holds the same kind of “position” as the Bishop of Rome. Considering more recent events, such as a forthcoming marriage betwen an adulterous couple, I know that can no longer even support the British monarchy. The example that is being set, and the way in which every thing has been overridden to pander to a very spoiled and selfish prince has clinched it where my attitude is concerned.

There are a lot of issues to be considered and we should not be getting bogged down with talk of alleged heresies. We need to keep to the facts and the accepted set of beliefs.

MaggieOH

 

[Traditional_Ang]

MaggieOH:

Hi Michael,

Invincible ignorance as a doctrine only applies to Baptism and salvation . Perhaps there is some other form of ignorance that applies to this special case.

I have just got myself wet from doing a little bit of Internet surfing to find what I could on the TAC. One of the first things that I discovered is that there are at least two groups of Anglicans that have set themselves up to pray the Catholic Rosary daily. There is also a very nice Anglican rosary that is prayed.

I dropped into the Australian website of the TAC which involves a parish not all that far from where I grew up in Melbourne. From this site I learned a few more things about Traditional Anglicans such as the adherence to all of the Marian feasts, including the Assumption (well it goes to show that this is not such a major bridge that has to be crossed).

At the same time I was given a little bit of a history lesson, and suddenly in my mind’s eye I was remembering the initial negotiations that were being opened up between the Vatican and the Archbishop of Canterbury. These negotions, prior to the ordination of women, were railroaded because the radicals succeeded in pushing their agenda of ordaining women to the priesthood, thus killing off the progresses that had been made.

I suspect that those who have been so unwelcoming about this development have not looked into all of the facts, that is the Traditional Anglican Church are very close to the Roman Catholic Church and that there is very little that divides us. Even the declaration regarding primacy does not stand in the way of full communion with the Church. That means that the only roadblock is that of papal infallibility because this doctrine is so poorly understood.

If the TAC was willing to accept all of these doctrines, which is more than likely that they do accept them, then there is nothing standing in the way for that unity. I can see that these doctrines are not necessarily a barrier to TAC full communion with Rome.

Those who object need to consider the desire of the people who want to be in communion with Rome and at the same time have their own separate identity. I believe that this could be a big boost to the Catholic faith.

I nearly forgot one other objection, that of celibacy. This is a western Catholic discipline and I do believe that there is good reason to retain the tradition as it remains. I believe that this is highly negotiable and with the married men who are being allowed to be priests in the Catholic Communion (we have former Anglican priests confirmed into the Catholic Church). It is at the experiment stage because we are all looking on to see whether or not married men can cope with the demands of priesthood.

(tbc)

Thank you, Maggie.

I’ll read the (tbc) later this evening, after I’ve had some sleep and asked Bishop Chislett a Question or two…

Did you know that St. Peter had a Mother in Law when he started following Jesus? Not only was the first Pope married, but he, like St. Paul and the rest of the Apostles, had to make a living while spreading the Gospel!

Because the TAC in the So. Hemisphere is starting parishes (a LOT in Africa), most of the Priests of those parishes have to work to make a living while growing their congregations.

It’s tough, but it can be done.

Goodnight, and may God bring you respite from the heat wave.

Michael

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Traditional Ang:

I’ve just conducted a search of the TAC and Forward in Faith (an allied group) websites. NEITHER lists a parish in New Zealand!

No, we have some Continuing Anglican parishes in this country -an old friend of mine is Bishop Alexander Price in Auckland - Holy Catholic Church-Anglican Rite. In fact he was once one of my parishioners because he and his wife and family joined the Orthodox Church back in the 1970s.

Ask them who their PRIMATE is? Is he the Abp. of Canterbury? or, Is he Abp, Hepworth? I’m almost positive their primate will be Abp. Rowan Williams, the Abp of Canterbury, and that they’re none too happy about it right now…

The Primate of the Anglican Church in New Zealand is Bishop Whakahuihui Vercoe.

Dear Michael, I have found that the Anglican clergy whom I know are aware of the alternatives. We have given a home in Orthodoxy to several Anglican priests in this country.

Btw, did you know that David Virtue is a New Zealander from Wellington?

Then, you know those HIGH CHURCH Parishes…If you could be so kind as to give them this information:

The Traditional Anglican Communion
acahome.org/tac/index.htm

If they like what they see, contact information is available by hitting the CONTACT button.

If they’re not ready to make that commitment, but still need to leave the Egypt of the Anglican Communion (++ Canterbury), they can do so by using this looser confederation:

Forward in Faith International
forwardinfaith.com/default.htm

You really will be doing them a favor. Meanwhile, it’s at least an hour past my bedtime, so Goodnight.

May God bless your preparations for Great Lent.

Michael

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Traditional Ang:

The Traditional Anglican Communion
acahome.org/tac/index.htm

Dear Michael, you have told us that the TAC has discarded the 39 Articles…

I really don’t appreciate what you’re doing - The 39 Articles WERE DISCARDED!

Well, replying with the same frankness which you have spoken to me, I also do not appreciate what you are doing.

The official site for the TAC which you reference above makes it clear that the 39 Articles are not discarded at all but remain as one of your foundational documents!!

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

4.2 The standard of Faith and Worship of this Communion is that expressed in the first Book of Common Prayer, and Ordinal, of Edward VI and in the following revisions:

(A) The Church of England, use of 1662, and its authorized translations;

The Book of Common Prayer INCLUDES the 39 Articles!!!

So what gives? You say they are discarded but the TAC site says they still form part of “the standard of Faith and Worship of this Communion…”

 

[jwehlitz]

Hello,

I’ve been reading this thread with great interest, since I am an Episcopalian who has about had it with the Episcopal Church not just condoning but actually promoting heresy and immorality.

My wife and I are at a point where we are trying to sort out the claims of both the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church. Both have such reasonable sounding reasons why they are the True Church, and not the other.

It will be interesting to hear what Michael has to say after he has had a chance to ask questions of the visiting Bishop. In spite of the unimpeachable source, I suspect that someone somewhere has misunderstood something about what, if anything, is being offered. In this thread, there are references to unimpeachable sources who say mutually exclusive things. One, that the offer was made, and the other that the TAC archbishop was heard to deny the rumour.

I really don’t see any way that John Paul II could have made the offer as understood by Michael and his Pastor. Even though I don’t know yet if I will wind up Catholic or Othodox, I have great admiration for John Paul the II. I really consider him a living saint, and he would be the last person who would violate what he and other Popes have stated.

Does anyone have a reference to a written offer? There has been an awful lot of time and emotion expended here; all based on what I have to consider a rumour. I would love to see some concrete information.

 

[jwehlitz]

I found the following online in the November issue of the Messenger, the newsletter of the TAC.

Toward Communion with the Holy See

The Primate and Bishops of the Traditional Anglican Communion, assisted by advisers from the TAC and the Catholic Church, have been working for the past two years on several documents that respond to invitations from the Pope to reflect on ways in which the ministry of Peter might benefit the churches separated from the Holy See.

These documents will be finalized in the next few weeks, and will be published after being sent to the Holy See, to enable the TAC to reflect on Unity and Authority in the life of our church. The Messenger will carry details when available.

Here is a link to the newsletter:

themessenger.com.au/MessengerPDFs/CurrentIssue.pdf

I realize that this is from November, but things do tend to move slowly when it comes to Church unification. Besides, there is nothing further about it on the TAC Website. It seems unlikely that things would go from discussing documents to the verge of re-unification in just a few months. Of course, I have been known to be wrong on occasion!!

 

[GKC]

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…

I certainly will so affirm and more than that, I’ll point out that Anglo-Catholics generally are not interested in the Articles, as a document in itself. The Articles are something that confuse a lot of non-Anglicans, who think, incorrectly, that they function as a sort of Confession for Anglicanism. This takes a lot of explaining. But were I to do so here, I fear I’d be on shacky ground with respect to the strictures on the thread. I think Fr A. was right in his understanding of the imposed limits.I myself have been admonished by an administrator (gently, and in a friendly fashion) for letting my fascination with history lead this thread astray into historical thickets.

In similar manner, I must forebear from any discussion of the history of, doctrines involved in, and Anglican reactions to Apostolicae Curae, which seems to be appearing with some frquency in the thread, or even my belief that Trad Ang is quoting (“Minister of the Gospel” ) something that doesn’t occur at all in the 1552 Edwardine Ordinal, the subject of AC.

So, I think I’m a spectator from here on. Trad Ang, how says +Chislett?

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

**
steve b:
**

---

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.

---

---

---

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

---

---

---

**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? **

---

---

No, sources that don’t have a decidedly ANTI Roman spin.**

**## LOL. **

---

**The whole thing is perfectly genuine - some of us rely on books Unfortunately, this subject is too obscure to have been copied on to the Net. **

---

The Emancipation Act has a background in which all those issues were discussed - one cannot look at the events of 1826, as though the events of 1870 had occurred before them. That would be daft. ##

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

**
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.

**## So what have we all been writing over 200 posts about ? If the TAC members wishing to be instructed, & then received, are not going to accept them, they will not be RCs in any sense worth discussing. The whole thing would be a massive sham . It would be living a lie. **

---

**At least Anglicanism is honest enough not to claim to be the same as the RCC in faith - but this, is simply an Anglican approach to dogma dressed as a claim to be RC in faith. It is dishonest, no matter whether 300,000 or 30 million are involved. **

---

**It is not pleasant to say that, but that is all that can be said. **

---

**It is better to scare away aspiring converts by being uncompromisingly firm on dogma, than to accept as converts people whose acceptance of dogmas is incomplete. There can no more be a negotiable dogma than there can be a lying Holy Spirit. **

**

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](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=460243&postcount=1)

[snip]

---

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)**

## **** How does the unbelief of those already RC justify any unbelief among those in the TAC who wish to become and be known as RCs?

---

Dogma is dogma, no matter who denies it, or how many. ##

**

are on topic, then MaggieOH is most definitely on topic.

---

Blessings to you and your congregation.

---

Michael**

**## It’s no tape recording. It has to be said, clearly, unambiguously, explicitly, honestly, accurately, sensitively, openly. **

---

Be instructed, accept the entirety of RCC teaching, and be received

---

or

---

**Be instructed, accept something less than the entirety of RCC teaching, and don’t be received. **

---

**Take it - or leave it. It is that simple. **

---

**“But this is not pastoral”, someone may say. OK - but it is not pastoral to accept as Catholics people who are known not to accept the whole faith of the Church. One might as well call John Spong or Gene Robinson Roman Catholics, if someone can become a Catholic without recognising the need to accept all Catholic teaching. The TAC’s members would no more be RCs than those men are, if they could be received into the CC while not giving their full assent to all dogmas. **

---

In fact, they should be required to affirm their sincere and whole-hearted belief in the very dogmas they are cagey about. There are several precedents for this. Converts from Catharism had to express explicitly their firm faith in God the Creator. No loophole must be left for any wriggling. ##

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

**
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.**

## I am very poorly informed about USA Anglicanism(s ?) - is the USA equivalent of the Oxford Movement itself called the Oxford Movement ? - but it sounds to me rather as though the Anglicanisms there that aspire to avoid “liberalism” are an Anglican counterpart of “Lefebvrism”: beautiful liturgy, strong concern for doctrine (except for the Articles), but no communion with the parent body in England. If they junk the 39 Articles, they are much closer to Rome than to Canterbury: an Ecclesia vagans, as it were - an ecclesiastical waif. It sounds like “Anglicanism on my own terms” - again, just like the Lefebvrists, who are Roman in everything, except for one thing: their not being in union with Rome. And that is what this proposed offer sounds like.

**The RCC is not “Traditional Anglicanism” with Papal add-ons - it is a different beast entirely. It’s a different genus of Church from Anglicanism - not an ultra-High version of the “Highest” of “High” Anglican Churches. I fear very much that the TAC has the wrong end of the wrong stick; for ****attractive liturgy is irrelevant to the legitimacy of a Church. I’m sure Arian Liturgies were beautiful, in their day - that gives them no theological legitimacy whatever. Aesthetic excellence is no substitute for right faith. Which may be why RCs are sometimes so Philistine, and why RC art is sometimes toe-curlingly tacky . **

==========

**Maggie: **

---

"Very little divide[d]" orthodox from Arian - one letter, to be exact. It was enough to change the meaning of the Church’s Faith, and to make Arianism a heresy.

---

==========

---

Michael:

We all need mercy - whether we are John Spong, Abp. Hepworth, or the Pope. But the Pope has no more authority to sanction the incomplete Catholicism that the TAC appear to want, than to baptise a monkey.

The "recording " is being played, because the same, impossible, terms of union are being suggested. No amount of pleading, no arguments, no anything, can possibly make it possible. To suggest it could ever happen, would be deceitful, and cruel. It is is far kinder to say this now, than to raise false hopes, as so often has happened in other ways. ##

---

** ##**

 

[SyroMalankara]

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?

Well, we are not really sure what the specifics are, so I would refrain from getting into this.

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

Recieving Communion in the Catholic Church implies acceptance of all dogma.

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?

In the case of Orthodox, the interim would be simply continuing Divine Liturgy, until the Profession of Faith is made, at which time they would be united to the Pope. It becomes more complicated for Anglicans as we don’t know if they are validly ordained or if they celebrate the proper Liturgy, or if the Eucharist is being recieved. See its complicated by this: if the Anglican minister is ordained a Catholic priest, then we will know that the Eucharist is valid, but then the few unbelieving members definitely cannot be allowed to recieve. The way it is now, the Vatican doesn’t know whether or not Eucharist is celebrated in TAC and it is really outside their jurisdiction. The question is: How does the priest, once he becomes Catholic, pastorally care for those who have trouble accepting all Catholic dogma?
Celibacy is really a non-issue as far as doctrine is concerned. This is a matter of administration. I suppose there would be no real reason the Anglicans couldn’t be a Church sui iurus, although the Anglican Church historically has been directly under the Bishop of Rome.
I don’t think Bishops will be allowed to be married, as this is against precedent for East and West, since the discipline was implemented. I don’t see why priests can’t be.

Question - is Bishop Hepworth married? I couldn’t find any info that he is…

 

[Matt16_18]

Traditional Ang:

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

Do you understand that Protestants are received into the Church through reception of the Sacraments of Initiation (i.e. Baptism, Confirmation and Eucharist)? To be in full communion with the Catholic Church necessitates the reception of the Sacrament of Communion (the Holy Eucharist).

A Protestant that desires to be in perfect communion with the Catholic Church needs to be a member of the Catholic Church. The Pope has no authority whatsoever to allow Protestants that do not accept the infallible teachings of the Church to receive the Sacraments of Initiation, since that would require the pope to radically alter the nature of the Sacraments of Initiation. Such a radical altering of the Sacraments of Initiation would render the Sacraments invalid.**Catechism of the Catholic Church

Christian Initiation

1229** From the time of the apostles, becoming a Christian has been accomplished by a journey and initiation in several stages. This journey can be covered rapidly or slowly, but certain essential elements will always have to be present: proclamation of the Word, acceptance of the Gospel entailing conversion, profession of faith, Baptism itself, the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, and admission to Eucharistic communion.

** The Effects Of Confirmation

1303 **… Confirmation brings an increase and deepening of baptismal grace:
…

• it renders our bond with the Church more perfect;
• it gives us a special strength of the Holy Spirit to spread and defend the faith by word and action as true witnesses of Christ …

**The Eucharist - Source And Summit Of Ecclesial Life

1327** In brief, the Eucharist is the sum and summary of our faith: “Our way of thinking is attuned to the Eucharist, and the Eucharist in turn confirms our way of thinking.”

 

[SyroMalankara]

Matt,

The Anglican’s who are baptized do have a valid Trinitatrian baptism, so they are “separated members” to some degree.

When they do (re)unite to Rome, if it is found that their ordinations are possibly valid (through Old Catholic, PNCC, or other lines) then they maybe ordained sub conditionally, to remove all doubt. The question is, if TAC Anglican ordinations are a maybe, are Anglican confirmations a maybe? If so they need confirmation sub conditionally. If TAC ordinations are found fully valid (unlikely), then nothing else but the profession of Faith and renounciation of errors is necessary for full reception into the Catholic Church.

 

[Traditional_Ang]

GKC:

As the one who set the limits on the Thread, I give you permission to post how you and your other HIGH CHURCH CHURCH ANGLO-CATHOLIC Friends see the 39 Articles. Fr. Ambrose sees them as an obstacle. I don’t because, they’ve been torn out of most of the prayer books at St. Mary’s, and we use a “misselette” which is a combination of the BCP 1928 and the Anglican Missal.

You might be right, but there is Invaliding Language that rendered Anglican Orders Invalid (Probably by our good friends the puritans who martyred King Charles)…And, you’ll have to send the corection by P/M…

GKC:

I certainly will so affirm and more than that, I’ll point out that Anglo-Catholics generally are not interested in the Articles, as a document in itself. The Articles are something that confuse a lot of non-Anglicans, who think, incorrectly, that they function as a sort of Confession for Anglicanism. This takes a lot of explaining. But were I to do so here, I fear I’d be on shacky ground with respect to the strictures on the thread. I think Fr A. was right in his understanding of the imposed limits.

In similar manner, I must forebear from any discussion of the history of, doctrines involved in, and Anglican reactions to Apostolicae Curae, which seems to be appearing with some frquency in the thread, or even my belief that Trad Ang is quoting (“Minister of the Gospel” ) something that doesn’t occur at all in the 1552 Edwardine Ordinal, the subject of AC.

So, I think I’m a spectator from here on. Trad Ang, how says +Chislett?

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus.

Regarding Today’s visit with Bishop Chislett - It seems that my source was mistaken, and that, therefore, I was mistaken about the offer or at least the idea of the terms of the offer.

Bp. Chislett kept using the term “Pilgrimage” to describe what’s happening, and that’s the term he asked me to use. The Vatican has asked the TAC to begin sending Bishops to the meetings of the College of Bishops, begining with the next meeting (I do believe that is this summer). The Bishops who are sent are also supposed to go on retreat with their Catholic “Alter Egos” when the College of Bishops does.

The Catholic Abp. where he was consecrated (Rosemont, PA) held a reception for him and Bp. Moyers. One of the things they set-up was a couple of working groups (one clergy, the other laity) to talk about issues effecting both communities and “get to know each other”.

Bp. Chislett said that both the Vatican and Abp. Hepworth want to do this wherever possible, and what Catholics and Traditional Anglicans to work together on as broad a range of issues as possible.

Apparently, both the Vatican and the TAC have agreed that the final form should be as I described earlier, an Anglican Catholic Church in union with the Catholic church and functioning like the Eastern Catholic Churches do now.

That’s the condensation of 30 minutes of discussion.

I’m sorry that I led some of you astray on this one. please understand that I was also led astray.

Blessings, Michael

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Michael:

You are correct in that Anglicans have valid Trinitarian Baptiam with the correct form and words, so REBAPTISM is not necessary…
Michael_Thoma:

Matt,

The Anglican’s who are baptized do have a valid Trinitatrian baptism, so they are “separated members” to some degree.

When they do (re)unite to Rome, if it is found that their ordinations are possibly valid (through Old Catholic, PNCC, or other lines) then they maybe ordained sub conditionally, to remove all doubt. The question is, if TAC Anglican ordinations are a maybe, are Anglican confirmations a maybe? If so they need confirmation sub conditionally. If TAC ordinations are found fully valid (unlikely), then nothing else but the profession of Faith and renounciation of errors is necessary for full reception into the Catholic Church.

…As I explained earlier, I have had more than one source explain to me that Cardinal Ratzinger and his crew have done a LINE BY LINE on most of the priests and Bishops in the TAC, and because of the process of “butressing” by having an ordinand from either the Old Catholic or the Polish National Catholic or some other group whose orders were/are recognized as valid by Rome during the last 100 years and after the split of 1977, most of the TAC orders appear to be valid in the eyes of Rome.

This was shocking when I first reported it. This means that Ordinations and Confimations would be *Sub-Conditione/].

Fr. Ambrose stated that disaffected Anglicans are beeing allowed to receive Communion in New Zealand. apparently, this is being done under a Pastoral Provision using a 4 prong test:

1. Is the person validly Baptized?
2. Does the person believe the Catholic Faith?
3. Would the person usually receive in his own Church?
4. Is that available to him now due to some reason that’s not his own fault except for traveling?

Blessings and peace.

Michael*

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Traditional Ang:

Fr. Ambrose stated that disaffected Anglicans are beeing allowed to receive Communion in New Zealand.

No, no! I did not say disaffected Anglicans. It can be any Anglicans.

I think that this is just a case of ecumenical fuzzy wuzziness. It goes on all over the place but without any episcopal approval. A bit like the Navy’s “Dont ask, don’t tell.”

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Fr. Ambrose:

As I’ve said before, the “Continuoum” contains a veritable alphabet soup that ranges in churchmansip and doctrine from LOW-CHURCH EVANGELICAL to HIGH-CHURCH ANGLO-CATHOLIC. The “Holy Catholic Church-Anglican Rite” happens to be more towards the LOW-CHURCH EVANGELICAL end of that spectrum doctrinally. They’re not in my communion, so I can’t be responsible for their doctrine, and I won’t be. If your friend/former parishioner had been more towards my end and that of the TAC, it would have been easier for him to have remained your parishioner…
Fr Ambrose:

No, we have some Continuing Anglican parishes in this country -an old friend of mine is Bishop Alexander Price in Auckland - Holy Catholic Church-Anglican Rite. In fact he was once one of my parishioners because he and his wife and family joined the Orthodox Church back in the 1970s.

Dear Michael, I have found that the Anglican clergy whom I know are aware of the alternatives. We have given a home in Orthodoxy to several Anglican priests in this country.

Btw, did you know that David Virtue is a New Zealander from Wellington?

…For more information on the TAC, go to both websites and Tab the lIinks:

acahome.org/index.htm

acahome.org/tac/index.htm

Well, I’m glad to hear that some of the Anglican Priests have left the Anglican Communion and have found a home elsewhere - Take care of them, please. It probably took a lot of soul-searching for them to leave.

NOW, that’s why David Virtue always soundfs a LITTLE ODD…LOL

May God bless you and keep you one step ahead of your cardiologist.

In Christ, Michael

 

[jwehlitz]

So much for unimpeachable sources. Everyone is capable of misunderstanding, and this issue, from the start, looked like one where someone (or several someones) along the line of communication thouroughly misunderstood what they were told. Wishfull thinking can play a role as well.

I guess that one reason that I just couldn’t see this happening is that parts of the TAC are pretty far from Rome in many ways. One example that comes to mind is that although TAC is very big on opposition to the ordination of women, they never seem to mention an objection to gay lifestyles. I personally have only visited one TAC parish, and the place was absolutely crawling with same sex couples. It’s kind of odd to be so focused on the fact that the Episcopal Church, C of E etc. have (or attempt to have) women priests, but to ignore a very big moral issue. It would be hard to imagine that particular parish being greeted with open arms by the Catholic Church. I’m not going to identify the parish, since I too am capable of misunderstanding.