Anglicans to Rome - Thread 2

[Traditional_Ang]

Matt:

You’re confusing the Anglican Communion (++Canterbury) which has reinvalidated their orders over the last 28 years with the Anglicans who’ve left…

Matt16_18:

As far as I can determine, the Catholic Church does not recognize the validity of Anglican Confirmation, and all Anglicans in the RCIA program receive the Sacrament of Confirmation.

…What I’ve been telling you is based on a LINE BY LINE determination by the appropriate office in the Vatican, which they say has stated that those orders will be recognized and that all Ordinations, etc. will be Sub-Conditione when the time comes.

I don’t think the Vatican would be inviting a TAC Bishop to the Retreat of the College of Bishops if they thought his Orders were invalid. Do you?

I don’t think an Archbishop Ordinary would have a reception for 2 newly consecrated Bishops from the TAC if he though their Orders were invalid. Do you?

Matt, a POV, the last parish Anglican rite that came into the Catholic Church (in California), the Ordination was Sub-Conditione as was the Confirmation. Remember, you were claiming that they’d have to be REBAPTIZED!

Blessings and peace and goodnight.

Michael

 

[Matt16_18]

MaggieOH:

… you are wrong when you say that Protestants have to receive Baptism, Confirmation etc. to be initiated into the Catholic Church.

I understand that most Protestants do not have to receive the Sacrament of Baptism to become members of the Catholic Church. There was a time when virtually all Protestant converts in the US received conditional baptism, but that is not the case now.

Also, where it is proved that the Candidate for RCIA has received Confirmation, that person does not receive the Sacrament of Confirmation.

This does not seem to be the case in my Diocese (San Francisco). If you could quote an authoritative source that states that Anglicans that have been confirmed as Anglicans should not receive the Sacrament of Confirmation in the Catholic Church, I would be grateful.

This year we have 4 RCIA candidates and 1 Catechumen who will be received at the Easter Vigil. The Catechumen will be baptised but the others will not have to be baptized.

Yes, of course. Whether one is a catechumen or a candidate depends on whether one has been validly baptized.

They are not fools and they are not as far from Rome as you seem to think.

Please! I have never said that I think Anglicans are fools.

No matter what you think, we should be praying for unity with our brothers and sisters in Christ.

Whoa! Why the hostility? I believe that we should pray for all Protestants to come back into full communion with the Catholic Church.

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Steve:

The Information from that post #1 is not corrent - I and my 1 source were screwed around. Please read about my interview with TAC Biship Chislet.

AT presnt, and for the past 2 months, there’s been an Information Lock-down. It’s 2 sided. I have no idea why I was told what I was told…
steve b:

Michael,

I’ve tried to find anything close to what you’ve been describing. I can’t find anything from the Catholic Church on this. Do you have anything official to point to from the Catholic Church?

…I do know that I have 2 NAMEABLE TAC sources that have been saying the same thing and the notes from The Messenger. So the statements of Bp. Chislett are confirmed by previous conversation with Abp. Hepworth

The Catholics are in the Vatican. They’re ones who managed to hide 840,00 Jews from the Nazis during WW II. If they’re not talking, they’re not talking! Wild horses won’t drag it out!

I’m sorry, but I suspect that they’ll release the information on EWTN with some sort of HUGE mass with 300,000 of us stuffed inside of St. Peter’s (Square?) for one mass Ordination, Consecration and Confirmation all Sub-Conditione! LOL

Let’s put it this way, I’ll let you know when to turn on your TV! LOL

Blessings and peace and goodnight. Michael

 

[Matt16_18]

Traditional Ang:

Remember, we aren’t talking about a Core Dogma that’s defined as “necessary for Salvation,” by an Ecumenical Council.

The dogma of papal infallibility IS a dogma that was defined at an Ecumenical Council - Vatican I. This dogma was reaffirmed at Vatican II.

I can obey the Pope in all things and NOT believe that he’s Infallible…

All men are free to deny the dogma of Papal infallibility. But one cannot be a Catholic and deny her infallible teachings.

… when you and Matt refuse to acknowledge my pleas about the humanity of the people whose case I’m pleading …

When have I ever denied the humanity of Anglicans? All I am saying is that if an Anglican wants to become a Catholic, the Anglican will have to accept the teaching authority of the magisterium of the Catholic Church. If an Anglican cannot do that, then he or she is a Protestant by very defintion of Protestantism.

Given my preferences, I would much rather have dealt with the human need for some MERCY …

Mercy can only be given to the person who is repentant. If a Protestant does not desire to repent of heresy, what is the Catholic Church supposed to do? Pretend that heresy is not a mortal sin?

 

[MaggieOH]

Matt16_18:

I understand that most Protestants do not have to receive the Sacrament of Baptism to become members of the Catholic Church. There was a time when virtually all Protestant converts in the US received conditional baptism, but that is not the case now.

This does not seem to be the case in my Diocese (San Francisco). If you could quote an authoritative source that states that Anglicans that have been confirmed as Anglicans should not receive the Sacrament of Confirmation in the Catholic Church, I would be grateful.

Yes, of course. Whether one is a catechumen or a candidate depends on whether one has been validly baptized.

Please! I have never said that I think Anglicans are fools.

Whoa! Why the hostility? I believe that we should pray for all Protestants to come back into full communion with the Catholic Church.

Matt 16:18

there has been a lot of hostility on your side with the comments that you have made to TradAng. There has been a lot of insensitivity that has been displayed towards Michael. It really is hard to stomach some of the comments that have been made.

I have seen little in this exchange that shows that you even want to pray for those who are wanting to come back into the Catholic Church. That is why I pointed out the controversy with the Donatists and how that was handled by the Church in order to bring the remaining Donatists back into communion with the Church.

Also, and I really am beginning to suspect that the USA tradition varies significantly from the Australian tradition in the Catholic Church, there should not be any rebaptism of Christians who have been baptized with the Trinitarian formula. If a baptismal certificate has been provided then that should be sufficient proof of the baptism. Conditional baptism is not really the same thing but should have been unnecessary for the majority of converts.

There is a difference between a catechumen and RCIA candidate. The catechumen is one who has not been baptised in any other church. The RCIA candidate is one who has been baptised in another church.

I will have to check some details on procedures but I am sure there are times when the candidates only have to read a confirmation of their desire to enter into the church if their baptism and confirmation are accepted. I reserve the right to be wrong and will retract if I find information contrary to my understanding.

MaggieOH

 

[Matt16_18]

Traditional Ang:

…What I’ve been telling you is based on a LINE BY LINE determination by the appropriate office in the Vatican, which they say has stated that those orders will be recognized and that all Ordinations, etc. will be Sub-Conditione when the time comes.

Whenever an Anglican priest wishes to become a Catholic priest, the Vatican very carefully tries to determine if the Anglican priest may possess valid orders. It is rare, but occasionally the Church does recognize that an Anglican priest has valid orders.

I don’t think the Vatican would be inviting a TAC Bishop to the Retreat of the College of Bishops if they thought his Orders were invalid. Do you?

I think that you are reading to much into this.

Matt, a POV, the last parish Anglican rite that came into the Catholic Church (in California), the Ordination was Sub-Conditione as was the Confirmation. Remember, you were claiming that they’d have to be REBAPTIZED!

I have never said that Anglicans need to be rebaptized because Anglican baptism is invalid! As for conditional Confirmation for Protestants, this is what I found in Wikpedia:Adult converts from Protestantism who were previously baptized with a trinitarian formula are received into communion in the Catholic Church by confirmation. Converts from Eastern Orthodoxy or Oriental Orthodoxy who were chrismated in those Eastern churches are not confirmed, because their chrismation in an Eastern church, unlike confirmation in Protestant churches, is held to be a valid confirmation, and confirming someone who has already been confirmed is forbidden by one of the doctrines of the Council of Trent.

 

[Matt16_18]

MaggieOH:

Matt 16:18

there has been a lot of hostility on your side with the comments that you have made to TradAng.

Where have I been hostile to Trad Anglican?

I have seen little in this exchange that shows that you even want to pray for those who are wanting to come back into the Catholic Church.

I am more than happy to pray for Trad Anglican to be received into the Catholic Church! All I am trying to point out to Trad Anglican is that to become a Catholic, he will have to accept every infallible teaching of the Catholic Church.

Also, and I really am beginning to suspect that the USA tradition varies significantly from the Australian tradition in the Catholic Church, there should not be any rebaptism of Christians who have been baptized with the Trinitarian formula. If a baptismal certificate has been provided then that should be sufficient proof of the baptism. Conditional baptism is not really the same thing but should have been unnecessary for the majority of converts.

In the US, there are many Protestants that are not baptised with the Trinitarian formula, including all Oneness Pentecostals, Mormons, COGAF, JWs, etc. I have personally attended Southern Baptist baptisms where the Trinitarian formula was not used, and the Southern Baptist denomination is the largest Protestant denomination in the US. Southern Baptists do not believe that baptism is a Sacrament, and they deny that Baptism forgives sin and bestows santifying grace. A good question is whether a Southern Baptist “baptism” is really a valid baptism, since Southern Baptists have no intent to baptize an individual so that they may have their sins forgiven and receive the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Intent is as important as form when it comes to determining the validity of Sacraments.

There is a difference between a catechumen and RCIA candidate. The catechumen is one who has not been baptised in any other church. The RCIA candidate is one who has been baptised in another church.

A candidate must be validly baptized. Something that is not so easy to determine in the US because of the millions of Protestants that do not belong to mainline Protestant churches.

I will have to check some details on procedures but I am sure there are times when the candidates only have to read a confirmation of their desire to enter into the church if their baptism and confirmation are accepted. I reserve the right to be wrong and will retract if I find information contrary to my understanding.

I understand that the EO and OO Sacrament of Confirmation is considered valid, but I don’t know of any Protestant confirmation that is considered to be valid.

 

[MaggieOH]

Matt 16:18,

there are quite a few priests who have come into communion with Rome and have had their Holy Orders confirmed. It is not as rare as you think.

There are a few priests in Australia that have been received into the Roman Catholic Church and who are permitted to be priests. I do know that there are quite a few in the USA. Also, there is one Anglican priest at this present time who has separated from the Anglican communion and is seeking to join the Catholic Church in communion with 60 other people from his former parish as well as a neighbouring parish. He will have to undergo some study to become a Catholic priest so that he can minister to this congregation of people, but let us see exactly what happens.

The issue needs to be resolved for the sake of those who are suffering as a result of the decisions that are being made by the heretics that have control of the Anglican and Episcopalian Church. I would say with some of the new developments that the issue is now one that is urgent.

MaggieOH

 

[oat_soda]

Southern Baptists do not believe that baptism is a Sacrament, and they deny that Baptism forgives sin and bestows santifying grace. A good question is whether a Southern Baptist “baptism” is really a valid baptism

the catechism says that the power of Christ and his Spirit in his sacraments depend on the disposition of the one who recieves them and the intention of the church (CCC 1128). it also says even someone who is not baptized can baptize if he has the required intention and the Trinitarian baptismal formula. the intention required is to will to do what the church does when she baptizes (CCC 1256).

all sacraments are composed of matter and form. the act of baptizing is the intent or matter and the Trinitarian formula is the form. it sounds like as long as the administer of baptism believes in the Trinity, just the act of doing the baptism (intent) with the correct formula (form) makes the baptism is valid, reguardless if the administer thinks baptism is symbolic or not.

i know mormon baptism is invalid even though the form of it appears the same, i.e. baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, because they don’t believe in the Trinity. i’m not sure if the mormons have the intent or form invalid or both.

 

[Joseph_Romero]

This thread’s topic is Anglicans to Rome within the parameters of post 1.

Stay within the topic/parameters or start a new thread.

God Bless,

 

[steve_b]

Traditional Ang:

Steve:

I didn’t miss your question, but, as I and Fr. Ambrose have both explained, there’s been an information lockdown for the past 2 months, so I haven’t been able to get any information from the media…

Michael,

This is what I don’t understnad. If you have the information prior to 2 months ago, how is it that Catholics don’t have it also?
Traditional Ang:

Today, I quoted a TAC Bishop, whom I spoke to today, as to the nature of the talks and the requests by the Vatican. I told you where and when I talked to him and the terms he asked me to use.

If you’ll give me your e-mail, I’ll forward the bulletin announcing his presence at St. Mary’s today so that you can verify those details yourself. I can’t do any more.

If that’s not enough, I’m sorry.

Just click on my name at the top of this post. It will show you how to send me a private e-mail. You can do this with anyone on this board
Traditional Ang:

Steve, believe it or not, the Catholic Laity have some say on the issue, too. All of those crowds cheering the Pope and his efforts are a guage of faithful Catholics’ feelings about what him and what he’s trying to do…

…Steve, could you please call me by name on your posts and append your name at the bottom? I seem to recall that everyone used to and that the lack of it has been part of the coarsening over the past few days -

I’ll be sure and use your name. But I’ll tell you, I’m not big on overduing the name thing. My name is at the top of the post, it seems redundant to put it again at the bottom of the post.
Traditional Ang:

Frankly, between that and the fact that all I’ve heard is the Law of the Church for the last 5 days, I’ve pretty much been made to feel like a used car salesman or a telemarketer, or like a member of the Pope’s entourage confronted by the Orthodox Protestors you described.

Thank you.

I don’t think someone should have to beg to have his humanity recognized or that of the people he’s representing on a CATHOLIC Forum.

Blessings and peace. Michael

1. I don’t think I’ve mentioned any laws in my discussion with you, other than to give a Catechism example of a truth that must be believed.
2. Don’t worry, I don’t look at you as a used car salesman or telemarketer. Your approach is polite, and I think you are sincere in this matter. It’s just that I can’t find documentation from the Catholic side supporting this topic the way it’s been presented.
3. I only brought up the Orthodox because you referenced them in these types of talks vis a vis Anglicans and Rome. I’ll be transparent here Michael. Reading the flow of conversations here on this thread, I can’t see why JPII would allow 500,000 Anglicans who don’t accept all that the Church teaches to come into the Church believing less and possibly even denying what is required of all Catholics to believe…
4. Why should Anglicans like yourself know this defect in requirements is okay, but not Catholics like myself? Personally, I’m having trouble believing this is true. I can’t find anything about this issue in my favorite resource places. That’s why I asked for your assistance. Not from the Anglican point of view but the Catholic side.

I’m currently sponsoring a Protestant gentleman into the Church through RCIA. At the end of his studies, he will accept all that the Church teaches or he won’t be received into the Church on Easter. It’s just that simple. If one can’t accept all that the Church teaches then why become Catholic, Right? It doesn’t make sense… …one should stay where they are if they can’t accept all the beliefs.

That’s my 2 cents.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

**
steve b:
**

If it’s so obscure, that Fr A could only find it on 1 Orthodox site but it’s not available anywhere else, then I’m going to question the accuracy and genuineness. Especially since this is supposed to be the

**“Declaration of the Archbishops and Bishops of the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland” 1826. **

**## This makes no sense - a huge amount of stuff is not “on line”; why must something be on “on line” to be trustworthy ? **

---

**Why should this “Declaration” be incredible ? **

---

**The complete Acts of Vatican I, debates, subscriptions, and all, are not “on line” - unsurprisingly, as they fill three folio volumes in small print, & are in Latin. That does not mean that people who quote them are hallucinating or lying or mistaken. So far, I know of one on-line quotation from them. **

---

**There are at least five volumes of the debates during the Council of Trent - they are not on line; only the final decrees are on line. **

---

**“Denzinger” is not available on line either. **

**

So it ought to be available in Catholic sources also correct, and not JUST on a pholemical Orthodox web site?..

**

---

## That would be nice, but it does not follow. ##

---

**

Oh and I saw it on 1 other geocity site that looks like it copied it off the Orthodox site, but that’s it. No other references available. All I’m saying is, I’d like to see proof of this declaration in more than 1 highly pholemic web site…

---

---

**You mean if the Catholic hierarchy in Ireland denounced papal infallibility, the British would grant Catholics the right to vote and hold office? Otherwise they stay unemancipated? Kind of a quid pro quo? **

---

---

---

**

1870 defined the teaching on papal infallibility. So even if the bishops in 1826 said what they were alleged to say on that 1 web site, it doesn’t matter anyway.

**

---

## It matters - for it shows the witness of bishops to the Faith, at that time. ##

---

**

Because it’s only AFTER

** a belief is defined and made an article of faith, that it must be believed. And that was my original point.

---

**## I can’t comment on the website, as I’ve not see it. **

---

The undefined status of infallibility made no difference to its practical importance. The deposing power of the popes was never a dogma; it was still of great practical importance, for it was acted on, as in 1570. The political loyalty of Catholics was an issue: they were papal subjects as well as British subjects.

---

Try this link

---

On Bishop Doyle himself

---

Some background

---

---

Hope that helps

---

The sooner we can get back on topic - the better ##

---

---

 

[Traditional_Ang]

MaggieOH:

Michael

you have confirmed what I thought, that the TAC is very much in line with the Catholic Church, but as you say, some continuing Anglicans are not TAC. This might explain the situation. I could not understand why this was said when I understood from what you had been saying that homosexual relationships like that are frowned upon as they should be if a church is to be based upon the Scripture.

God Bless

MaggieOH

Maggie:

I sincerely doubt that any Anglican parish outside of the Anglican Communion would have presented the scene described by jwehlitz.

I do know that just such a scene was discussed in this Thread: I am outraged!!!
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=376136#post376136

You’ll see later in the Thread that the Parish was most definitely Church of England (The Poster who started the thread thought it had been an RC parish). Thankfully, I was able to LINK him to the Website for the C of E Parish Locator which listed the parish in question.

Unless jwehlitz can provide relevant details, I would have to conclude that the parish observed by jwehlitz is in the Anglican Communion (++Canterbury). Further, since a majority of the posters post from the USA, it is probable that the parish is an ECUSA parish.

Blessings and peace.

Michael

 

[MaggieOH]

Traditional Ang:

Maggie:

I sincerely doubt that any Anglican parish outside of the Anglican Communion would have presented the scene described by jwehlitz.

I do know that just such a scene was discussed in this Thread: I am outraged!!!
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=376136#post376136

You’ll see later in the Thread that the Parish was most definitely Church of England (The Poster who started the thread thought it had been an RC parish). Thankfully, I was able to LINK him to the Website for the C of E Parish Locator which listed the parish in question.

Unless jwehlitz can provide relevant details, I would have to conclude that the parish observed by jwehlitz is in the Anglican Communion (++Canterbury). Further, since a majority of the posters post from the USA, it is probable that the parish is an ECUSA parish.

Blessings and peace.

Michael

Michael,

thanks for the link. 'nuff said when I noticed that the rector of the parish is a Rev Clare Herbert. Say no more - yet another example of what happens when a priestess is in charge.

I do see how there could be confusion because of the use of the term Catholic.

Maggie

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

---

Traditional Ang:

MICHAEL:

**

If you scare aware aspiring converts from the Church, you scare tham away from the Kingdom of God and from Salvation. Do you really want to do that?

**## Of course not - but you deserve to be told what you are letting yourselves in for. Then disillusionment should be less of a danger. Being Catholic is not easy - far from it. So it’s only fair that you should come - if you do - with your eyes wide open. Coming in under any illusions is a very bad idea. **

**In a matter of this importance, truth & clarity & plain speaking are essential. Euphoria is fine - provided it does not muddle people’s minds. **

That inference at the end: God is greater than the means He sees fit to employ. We let God down, constantly - but He never lets us down. ##

**

Remember, we aren’t talking about a Core Dogma that’s defined as “necessary for Salvation,” by an Ecumenical Council.

**

I can obey the Pope in all things and NOT believe that he’s Infallible…

**## On certain occasions, and for certain purposes, he is indeed infallible. **

• The dogma
• was defined
• by an ecumenical council.

That is how Rome sees the matter, & that is Rome’s belief on the matter. To be Roman in faith, one has to accept her POV of what is or is not

• **dogmatic **
• **definitive **
• **ecumenical. **

**Therefore, PI is binding in conscience. One is not metaphysically free to deny it - if one wants to be accepted as an RC. **

Catholicism does not distinguish between dogmas according as they are nearer to or farther from the First Truth in the hierarchy of truths - all dogmas are dogmas no matter where they are in that hierarchy. Papal infallibilty is as much to be believed as the definitions of Nicea I or Chalcedon; and for the same motive: it is as much a revealed truth as are the things defined by them. A convert who denies it after he has accepted it in the sense in which the CC receives & believes it, whether he has been a Catholic five minutes or fifty years, is as truly a heretic as Arius.

The Incarnation is expressed in several dogmas - it is also a “core doctrine”: Transubstantiation is not a core doctrine, but, it is expressed in a dogma. And, so too is papal infallibility; even though it is not as central to the heart of the ontological structure of the Church as the Incarnation is. It is not as theologically central - but is equally binding in conscience as that more central matter. ##

**

…The Eastern Church did on at on at least occasion that we know of when needed to deal with a Christological heresy.

**

Michael, when you and Matt refuse to acknowledge my pleas about the humanity of the people whose case I’m pleading (Posts #144, #147,Ê#154, #186, #190, #191 & #210) you leave me with little else but Et tu quoque, esp, when the quoque is as egregious as the American branch of the Catholic Church.****## Matt can answer for himself; I wouldn’t mind betting that he is uncompromising precisely because we are all talking about human beings & their happiness.

For people to be received under an illusion about what being Catholic requires, would be very unfair to them, very damaging & very cruel. ##

**

Given my preferences, I would much rather have dealt with the human need for some MERCY by the 300,000 people I’m trying to represent, som of who took me in when I was in pretty dreadful shape.

**

Michael, you talk as if I don’t know that, but the law and Dogma are to serve us and to fget us to heaven, not serve as a bar from heaven. I realize that you’re not as guilty as Matt, but you still acted as part of the bar…

---

[continued…]
*

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

*…continued…]

---

**

Michael, what do you call it when you and someone else repeat the same thing 20 times, never acknowledging my name or even my humanity, let alonethat I’m a brother in Christ, never acknowledging the human stories that I’m telling, or the humanity of the people I’m talking about, or that they’re brothers and sisters in Christ?

*## If I’ve been unkind or harsh or brutal, I apologise unreservedly. **
I do not apologise for trying to explain why everything defined is to believed as a revealed truth by all. ##

I’d call that a “Broken Record” and you would, too, if it had been done to you for 4 days…Maybe you haven’t seen what happened, but could you please put yourself in my shoes and read ALL the posts directed at me.

**## I’ve read all posts on both threads. If I seem blunt, that is partly because of the word limit. ##

**

I believe that if you do, you’ll see that the next statement you made, about “sensitively”, is just not true…

…And that what happened was a case of piling on…Before you react, please read ALL the posts directed at me since Wednesday, and count just how many times someone (not Fr Ambrose, Michael Toma or Maggie) actually calls me by name. I’d be surprised if the sum total is more than the times I’ve called you by name in this ONE POST!**## I’m sorry - I didn’t know that being personally addressed was so important to you. ##
**

Michael, I’ll let Irenicist supply the answer to you statement bolw - It’s a more patient approach that arrives at the same place, and probably saves a few more souls:

Irenicist - Post #65
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=465250&postcount=65

---

Michael, you aren’t “accepting as Catholics people who are known not to accept the whole faith of the Church,” You’re accepting into Communion people that you know will be faithfull in the 99% that you know they acdept, and who say they’ll listen to you on the rest…

**## But acceptance of 100 % is the requirement. I’m sorry. It would be grossly irresponsible of me to tell you otherwise; & it would be untrue. It would be very nice if one could tell a comforting lie just to be friendly & easy-going. But it would only do harm sooner or later. Besides, what friendship is there in lying to you ? There is no shame in being honestly mistaken, but there is great shame in lying. **

Reception is a total response of the human person to God, so, it involves accepting the totality of what is revealed - not nearly all of it. Understanding takes a lifetime - but the creative act of faith that makes one fully a Catholic, can take one moment. That moment, is roughly analogous to Transubstantiation.

No one can understand all dogmas in one moment - but one is required to believe. ##** ****

…It’s unfair and WRONG to compare people who’ve suffered at the hands of the likes of Spong and Robinson to Spng and Robinson, and you know it!

**

Michael, how do you think you’re going to pursuade these faithful and persecuted people who given up prosperous perishes and easy lives because of the likes of Spong and Robinson to accept the dogmas the Church demands by comparing them to Spong and Robertson who are acknowledged heretics?

You stepped over the line on that one, Michael.

**## One must not insult those one is trying to win - but, the degree of unbelief is irrelevant. Adam is as truly a sinner as Nero - it’s irrelevant that Adam committed just the one sin. Denying PI is as ruinous to being Catholic as denying things far more central. That’s not my idea - see the anathema I quoted. **

Which is a good reason not to single out people as especially bad - Catholic or otherwise. ##

**

God bless. Michael

---

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Matt:

I’m not saying that you DENIED my humanity or that of the Traditional Anglicans. What I’m saying is that for 5 days, you never seemed to ACKNOWLEDGE either my humanity or that of the Traditional Anglicans, many of whom have left comfortable positions and suffered persecution at the hands of the former friends and co-religionists to get away from the rank heresy of the Anglican Communion regarding subjects from the nature of the Priesthood and the Sacraments to the nature of sin to the nature of Christ Himself (allowed, not official).

You simply IGNORED what they had experienced in order to try to hold to what they believed to be the Catholic Faith, and instead…

Matt16_18:

When have I ever denied the humanity of Anglicans? All I am saying is that if an Anglican wants to become a Catholic, the Anglican will have to accept the teaching authority of the magisterium of the Catholic Church. If an Anglican cannot do that, then he or she is a Protestant by very defintion of Protestantism.

…Went to a series of Posts about the LAW and the LAW and the LAW all of which are condensed into the two sentences above above.

And, Matt, they never said they would deny the Magisterium of the Catholic Church - Why make the trip if that’s what you’re going to do. As far as I had been instructed (now shown to be wrong by Bp. Chislett), the Pope had only offered to allow members of the Traditional Anglican Communion (++Hepworth) to be silent regarding a part of the Magisterium of the Church for a period of time while the TAC was brought into Communion with the Catholic Church.

I’m sure you understand that the Magisterium of the Church includes a LOT more than just the Infallibility of the Pope. Otherwise, the Church would have had NO Magisterium for her first 1840 years!

Matt, Mercy and Grace are part of how Jesus brought sinners into repentence - He never waited until they expressed repentence before he demonstrated the MERCY and GRACE available to them - How do you think he brought them to Him, to repentence to Faith, and, for many, to martyrdom?..

Matt16_18:

Mercy can only be given to the person who is repentant. If a Protestant does not desire to repent of heresy, what is the Catholic Church supposed to do? Pretend that heresy is not a mortal sin?

…Matt, if you know what heresies the Prostestant has fallen into, your job is to help him out of the pit. Now, how do you think you do that? Do you do that by citing code and CCC, never acknowledging his humanity or his situation or even saying his name?? or, Do you think you do it by getting down in the pit with him and helping him to get out? The priests on EWTN like to say “MERCY IS MORE POWERFUL THAN SHAME!” in answer to a whole host of sins, even Abortion. Which do you think you’ve been using for last 5 days on me and the members of the TAC?

What did the Samaritan (the ECF identify Him as Jesus) do to the man (that’s us) caught by robbers (Demons and SINS) on the road to Jerrico? Did he cite all the LAWS about why he had NO business being on that road? or, Did he go over to him, bind his wounds, put him on his own beast, and get him to the inn (the Church)?

Now, you’ve referred several times to heresies held by Traditional Anglicans, those Anglicans in the TAC (++Hepworth) and no longer in the Anglican Communion (++Canterbury). Can you list what you believe those heresies to be?

I’d like to know if you know. Or, If you’ve been calling members of the TAC “Protestant heretics” because of memories of what the LOW-CHURCH Epoiscopalians used to hold, or what Bishop James A. (“call me Jim”) Pike used to say.

Matt, Heresy is only a Mortal Sin when it is a knowing and conscious decision, that is when a person has had the DOGMAS in question presented in their completeness, in a form the person can understand, and they’ve been willfully rejected anyway.

Why do you persist in accusing Traditional Anglicans of knowing Mortal Sin, when at most they’re guilty of is IGNORANCE, which is NOT A SIN?!? Why do you persist on making that accusation when this has been made clear several times?!?

Blessings and peace.

Michael

 

[jwehlitz]

Traditional Ang and Maggie OH,

I didn’t mean to sound offensive, and I wasn’t being critical of the TAC, just pointing out that some of the parishes might have to go through a lot of change before they would be ready to join the Catholic Church. The parish I mentioned is a parish of the Anglican Church in America, which I understand is part of the TAC. When I was there was just after they had pulled out of ECUSA. If the TAC position on gay lifestyles is comparable to that of the Catholic Church (the official position), then that parish is likely to have changed a lot. I hope so.

Of course many people have left the ECUSA, C of E etc., due to the gay situation. I will be one of them in the near future. Actually the ordination of gays to the priesthood, and the consecration of a gay bishop are just symptoms of the fact that ECUSA is being run by a group of heretics.

Anyway, I apologize if I sounded offensive in my original post.

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Michael:

I didn’t know that part of what we were getting ourselves in for was rejection from our “fellow Catholics,” because they somehow believed that we hadn’t be made to do enough, or suffer enough…
Gottle of Geer:

Of course not - but you deserve to be told what you are letting yourselves in for. Then disillusionment should be less of a danger. Being Catholic is not easy - far from it. So it’s only fair that you should come - if you do - with your eyes wide open. Coming in under any illusions is a very bad idea.

…We usually discuss “what people are letting themselves in for” when the topic is PERSECUTION FOR BEING CATHOLIC!

And, sometimes it’s important to let people have their euporia…They’ve had plenty of the other -
Gottle of Geer:

In a matter of this importance, truth & clarity & plain speaking are essential. Euphoria is fine - provided it does not muddle people’s minds.

• I still can’t shake the feeling that you haven’t the slightest idea of what these people have gone through just to LEAVE the Anglican Communion they grew up in, and the persecution they’ve faced from their former friends and co-religionists!

If you did, You would be standing up on a chair cheering, just like Maggie is!

That’s why I think it’s important for you and Matt to ACKNOWLEDGE what these people have SACRIFICED and the PERSECUTION many of them have experienced at the hands of their former co-religionists!

Michael, have you been forced to leave a good job because you’re a Catholic?
Have most of your old friends stopped returning your phone calls and started harrassing your family because you’re a Catholic?
Have some of your old friends called you names you wouldn’t repeat in front of your mother because you’re a Catholic? Have they repeated some of these names to the press
Have they kicked you and your congregation out of your building because you’re Catholics? Have they called you tresspassers and worse in court briefs?

I’m just suggesting a walk in the shoes of the people who took me in 16 months ago.

Michael, I believe the doctrines, so you’ve been preaching to the converted.
Gottle of Geer:

For people to be received under an illusion about what being Catholic requires, would be very unfair to them, very damaging & very cruel.

Why didn’t you say this in one of the multiple posts you wrote about why Traditional Anglicans had to accept the Infallibility of the Pope?

It would have been far more human than all the citations of the Code of the Law and the CCC.

One last thing - It is a CORE DOCTRINE of any thread I’m on that 1 Thread is Unreadable, So please…

Blessings and peace. Michael

 

[Traditional_Ang]

jwehlitz:

That’s why it’s important to give the details. I understand if you’re reticent to give them publicy, then PM them to me so that I can be sure. I may ask you some questions so that I know what I’m talking about and don’t make a you know what of myself.

BTW, that goes for everyone else, esp. on the West Coast! I happen to know the person in charge of discipline for this Deanery…

jwehlitz:

Traditional Ang and Maggie OH,

I didn’t mean to sound offensive, and I wasn’t being critical of the TAC, just pointing out that some of the parishes might have to go through a lot of change before they would be ready to join the Catholic Church. The parish I mentioned is a parish of the Anglican Church in America, which I understand is part of the TAC. When I was there was just after they had pulled out of ECUSA. If the TAC position on gay lifestyles is comparable to that of the Catholic Church (the official position), then that parish is likely to have changed a lot. I hope so.

…Or, they may have even been asked to leave…

…I think the Consecration of Robinson and the failure of the Anglican Communion to correct the problem is pretty much a last call to those who actually believe to get out of that dead body. I don’t know if people who don’t leave now will be able to muster the needed courage to do so later…

jwehlitz:

Of course many people have left the ECUSA, C of E etc., due to the gay situation. I will be one of them in the near future. Actually the ordination of gays to the priesthood, and the consecration of a gay bishop are just symptoms of the fact that ECUSA is being run by a group of heretics.

…Speaking of leaving ECUSA, do us both a favor, go to at least a few Roman Catholic Masses. If you don’t like one parish try anog=ther. If you don’t like one Mass, try another. If you can find a LATIN INDULT, try that! Once you’ve found a parish or Mass you seem to like, ask: Do they preach the word of God? Do they pretty much stick to the missalette as far as the prayers and propers and the Creed? Do they handle the Eucharist reverently and with care? Do they have a reserve Sacrament and times for visitation and veneration?

If you can answer “Yes” to those questions, try to stay put and tell the parish priest who and are and that you want to join RCIA.

If not, there’s the TAC, we’ll get there, eventually.

jwehlitz:

Anyway, I apologize if I sounded offensive in my original post.

Apology accepted. You have to learn to count to 10 before hitting the keyboard, then edit, then 10 more, then edit, and then after that, it’s just too bad…The scripture says, “Let everyone be quick to listen, slow to speak, slow to anger.” (James 1:19)

Then you won’t do things like that.

Blessings and peace. Michael