Anglicans to Rome - Thread 2

[SteveG]

Traditional Ang:

…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 - 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

Micahel
Your sensitivity on this issue is a bit immature. Shall I be upset that in one post you confused me with Steve b? Of course we recognize your humanity, and I assume you recognize mine even if you DON’T put my name on the post. Of course you are a brother in Christ for whom I hope only the best. My experience on any forum is that you’d better have a pretty thick skin as things get hot and heavy very often. Don’t let this stuff get to you.

And you’ve been acting very hurt about your treatment on this thread, but let’s retrace the history and see if it was as bad as you think.

• You posted a thread (a second time from what I gather) in which you claimed that an offer of unity under certain conditions was made by JPII to TAC.
• Most faithful and educated Catholics (a predominant profile on these boards) said, 'No, no, no. you must be mistaken, or misunderstanding. Such an offer is simply not possible-and they/we tried to explain.

•     You protested and argued 'Where's the mercy.'

• We repeated, despite issues of mercy, this offer is impossible. We argued law, and dogma for 5 days trying to show you why this couldn’t be.

•     rinse and repeat.

•     rinse and repeat.

•     ...

• You come back after a talk with one of the main TAC players and admit, ‘Yes, there was a misunderstanding.’ (as we tried to explain to you).

•     Now you are complaining that you were attacked and your name wasn't used in responses to you.

Of course you were ‘attacked’. You were positing something clearly impossible (as many of us could see), and then continuing to defend it. And while I didn’t read EVERY post in the thread, I don’t recall that you were so badly treated at that. I don’t recall any name calling, or the like that I’ve seen on REALLY contentious threads. Just a little vigorous ‘taking to task’ for an issue that you turned out to be incorrect on. Does this REALLY surprise you. This is not intended to be an ‘I told you so’, but rather to put the entire thread in some perspective.

 

[SteveG]

The mispelling of your name in the previoius post was unintentional. I only clarify so you don’t think I was mocking you in any way.

 

[SteveG]

MaggieOH:

Matt,
There are Catholics who are members of the Catholic Church that do not hold to all of those dogmatic truths, and there are other Catholics who have not gotten beyond St Pius V in their theology. So they have not accepted the First and Second Ecumenical Councils. There are those who claim to be catholic but are in schism because they belong to those who went into schism at Utrecht.

MaggieOh
You are missing a distinction here. You are equating dissent from within the Church, with ALLOWING dissent to enter the church.

There is vast difference between not formally excommunicating a current member of a Catholic community who may well be in dissent, and ALLOWING a community already in dissent to join.

The first evidences a prudential decision to refrain from taking action against a particular individual (presumably for pastoral reason) in the hopes they will come to obedience. It does not imply permission or endorsement of the dissenting belief, only toleration of the individual. The latter is giving express permission for someone to enter the church while not accepting the whole faith. It implies that permission for dissent is being given.

As the old saying goes, you are comparing apples and oranges.

MaggieOH:

This is not the only period in Church history where there has been delicate negotiations to bring people back into the fold of the Catholic Church. It happened with the remnants of the Donatists and Novatians. These were two early schisms and they caused grief within the Church, yet eventually they did return and the rules were laid down for their return in harmony. The precedent for such action was set back in the fifth century.

The key phrase here is ‘in harmony’. The precedent did not include allowing them to hold to their false beliefs. No on here is saying we wouldn’t love the TAC to come home, or that it isn’t possible. We ARE saying that they can’t do it on their own terms, but must accept ALL of the faiith if it is to be accomplished. And as for how we determine that…obedience and union with the Holy See of Rome on matters of Faith and morals.

MaggieOH:

I believe that we should be supportive about these endeavours and we should be supporting Michael as he is continues his journey to the Catholic Church. This is not happening here. All I see are remarks that hurt another person.

Michael’s continuing journey is not the subject of the thread. The subject is regarding a hypothetical union between TAC and the Catholic Church under certain conditions. If Michael wants to become Catholic, all he need do is walk into his local parish and start RCIA classes any time he likes (and surely none of us wish for anything other than Micheal’s joy, peace and ultimately his salvation).

MaggieOH:

Protestants are still our brothers and sisters in Christ. Did you not understand that Jesus said that: “who do the will of my Father are my mother, my brothers and sisters”? (paraphrase) That means that those who lead a righteous life in Christ remain my brothers and sisters in Christ.

He also said the we must be willing to give up our mother, father, brothers and sisters for his sake. Sometimes that means abandoning the comfortable place we are in (whether it be TAC, Lutheranism, etc.). If one knows the Catholic Church is the true Church and accepts her teachings, one should feel obliged by conscience to come home to her. Surely easier said than done. But it’s been done at great cost by many (including yours truly).

 

[Matt16_18]

MaggieOH:

you are not addressing the real facts regarding the position of the TAC. From what I am seeing, they are not the same as continuing Anglicans. That means they do not necessarily uphold that document, which seems to relate more to ECUSA than it does to the TAC.

Check out the “Documents” link of this website: The Traditional Anglican Communion. There you will see “The 1977 Affirmation of St Louis, a defining document of the “Continuing Church” movement.”"

If the TAC no longer accepts the “Affirmation of St.Louis”, that is indeed progress.

There is a real hangup about what are dogmatic truths. First you accuse the TAC of being in heresy, and now you are back to what you call dogmatic truths.

This is not a hangup. Heresy is the denial of dogma. The reason that Anglicans are Protestants is because they embrace heresy, i.e. they deny dogmatic truths such as papal infallibility, and the dogmatic truth that Jesus founded ONE church and made his church necessary for our salvation.

There are Catholics who are members of the Catholic Church that do not hold to all of those dogmatic truths, and there are other Catholics who have not gotten beyond St Pius V in their theology.

To know what the Catholic Church infallibly teaches, and then to deny that teaching, is to commit the sin of heresy. Heresy is a sin that causes one to lose their membership in the Catholic Church. There is no such thing as a Catholic that does not accept ALL the infallible teachings of the Catholic Church. A person can be a Protestant and a Christian, but a person cannot deny the infallible teachings of the Catholic Church and be a member of the Catholic Church.

I believe that we should be supportive about these endeavours and we should be supporting Michael as he is continues his journey to the Catholic Church. This is not happening here. All I see are remarks that hurt another person.

I would love to see all Protestants be reunited to the Catholic Church! But the ONLY way that can happen is for Protestants to quit their protesting and accept the all the infallible teachings of the Catholic Church. IOW, Protestants can only become Catholics by renouncing Protestantism.

rjs1:

The Traditional Anglicans should be looking to the Anglican Use Catholics as the pioneers who have led the way. There are several web sites that give details of their liturgy etc.

 

[boethius]

Dear Michael,

It’s been a rough week (or two or three). As I mentioned on the previous thread, my family and I are leaving the ECUSA to become Catholic. However, if my only contact with Catholics was through this forum, I probably would not. Throughout this entire thread (and the last one), there has been almost no expression of joy at the possiblity that thousands of Anglicans might be swimming the Tiber. Instead most of the posters are obsessed with the conditions of this move. Do they not trust their own Pope? Watching this thread unfold has been so depressing. May I suggest that you stop posting here and let the thread die. Those who remain can impress one another with their commitment to dogma and their obvious ignorance of the T.A.C. No one here seems to be interested in encouraging those of us who are leaving our “homes” in order to come Home. Most of the posters here remind me of the elder brother in the parable of the prodigal son. They seem obsessed with the conditions of allowing the prodigal to return. Why not trust that the Father (the Pope) knows what he’s doing and see if the person killing the fatted calf could use an extra hand? Every day that goes by, this thread just gets worse. There are Catholics out there who are excited about what the T.A.C. is doing, they just don’t seem to be on this thread.

I look forward to seeing you on the other side. Happy swimming.

Boethius

 

[Irenicist]

SteveG wrote:

“As the old saying goes, you are comparing apples and oranges.”

You will have to forgive me as I still haven’t mastered the quoting functions on this site.

With all due respect (and I mean this sincerely), both sides in this discussion have been “comparing apples and oranges”.

There is one set of practical rules for admitting converts to the Church as individuals, but there is another set of rules for the reincorporation of formerly dissident Churches as a whole. When you come to the Church as an individual, you join an existing Catholic parish, and receive individualized religious instruction.

When a whole Church is brought into reunion with Rome, however, only its clergy is subjected to the sort of doctrinal tests you suggest. If necessary, this clergy is reordained (sub-conditione or otherwise) and invariably it is instructed to teach the “whole Catholic faith” (including all the doctrines brought up in this discussion) to its flock.

But no Latin rite ordinary goes around testing and, if necessary, reconfirming each of these new Catholics. This task is left to that Church’s clergy. If this now Catholic clergy fails in this task of instruction, either through neglect or through resistance on the part of all or part of the flock, the Holy See applies the appropriate disciplinary sanctions (which may extend to excommunication).

Over time, the end result of individual conversions and reunion is the same. New Catholics are brought into the fold and into full acceptance of the whole of the Catholic faith. The means and timeframes are different, however, and you cannot generalize from your own experience as a convert.

If you doubt that this distinction is made, consider that this has been the method followed for each and every one of the Eastern Churches which were brought back into reunion with Rome. This is a disciplinary practice that has almost eight centuries of precedents.

I also do not think it would be valid to argue that Anglicans can only be accepted as individual converts because their rite (suitably purged of heretical accressions) is only four centuries old. How ancient does a Church have to be before it can recognized as following a distinct but valid rite?

Given that Trad Anglican’s inital understanding regarding a specific offer has proven ill founded, we are now dealing with a largely hypothetical case. What then would be objectively required for the TAC to be admitted into full communion with Rome? Here, for purposes of discussion would be my suggested terms of union:

1. All the ordained ministers of the TAC who would wish to pursue their ministry within a reunited Church would have to submit unconditionally and without reservation to the fullness of the Catholic faith.
2. Former TAC ministers unable to make this commitment yet still wishing to maintain their ties to the reunited Church would have to surrender any claims to ordination, and maintain a respectful silence on all points on which their conscience prevents full submission to the magisterium, on pains of disciplinary action by their own ordinaries or, ultimately, by the Holy See.
3. TAC layfolk who wished to enjoy the fruits of reunion would have to be instructed in the fullness of the Catholic faith by their clergy (and if necessary confirmed or reconfirmed sub-conditione), and struggle in good faith to bring their consciences into conformity with the teaching of the Church, maintaining a respectful silence on all issues on which their consciences would not permit them to submit.
4. No member of the reunited Church would be in any way authorized to dissent publicly from any of the Church’s teachings. There would be no requirement, however, for the former TAC (now “Anglican Catholic Church”) to use credal or liturgical formulations stemming from after the original break with Rome, so long as the truth of these formulations is not denied, and the formulations the ACC does use are understood and taught exclusively in an orthodox sense.

As access to communion is a disciplinary issue, the Holy Father would be fully authorized to extend an offer such as I have described above simply by virtue of his Petrine function. Whether such an offer would be wise or expedient is, of course, subject to legitimate discussion. Similar offers, however, have achieved some notable success in the past with Eastern Churches which, on the surface, shared far less with the Catholic Church than does the TAC. The Eastern Catholic Churches have not as a result become the reservoirs of heretical dissent some suggest the ACC would be.

Trad Anglican,

Would these terms meet both the requirements of Justice and Mercy you seek?

Irenicist

 

[Matt16_18]

… this has been the method followed for each and every one of the Eastern Churches which were brought back into reunion with Rome

This really is a case of comparing apples to oranges. Anglicans are Protestants that belong to various ecclesial organizations, they are not members of a church. (See Domius Iesus). The local particular Eastern Churches in schism with the Catholic Church are real churches.

As access to communion is a disciplinary issue, the Holy Father would be fully authorized to extend an offer such as I have described above simply by virtue of his Petrine function.

The reason that the Catholic Church practices closed communion is NOT a “disciplinary issue” - it is a matter of faith.

boethius:

Throughout this entire thread (and the last one), there has been almost no expression of joy at the possiblity that thousands of Anglicans might be swimming the Tiber. Instead most of the posters are obsessed with the conditions of this move.

I would be overjoyed if every Anglican would enter the Catholic Church. The reason why the conditions of reunion are being discussed in this thread is because there seems to be much misunderstanding by some Anglicans about the very nature of the Catholic Church.

rjs1 has hit the nail on the head with his post #333.

rjs1:

… Anglicans (Episcopalians) that HAVE come across to the Catholic Church and have their own liturgy. The members of the Anglican Usage are ex Episcopalians who, after a long period of negotiation and discussion with Rome, were received into the Catholic Church. They have their own liturgical book with the Mass retaining many of the more beautiful parts of the Book of Common Prayer but being thoroughly Catholic throughout.

Why has this not been discussed in this thread? Is it because these Anglican Use Catholics have fully accepted ALL the teachings of the Catholic Church? Also it was made very clear on their reception that already married Episcopal priests could be received and re ordained or conditionally re ordained (but not remarry if their wife died), but under no circumstances would any married bishop be accepted as a bishop.

If the TAC wants to know how Rome is going to respond, all they have to do is look at how Rome has already responded to Anglicans that have rejoined the Church.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

**

MaggieOH:

Oat Soda,

excuse me for pointing out that I am not “sensitive”. However, I am ashamed at the way that fellow Catholics are treating this subject.

If someone is serious about their faith, then he/she should be serious about spreading the Gospel message, and not by trying to put barriers in the way of reconciliation with sections of the Boby of Christ.
The bottom line is, that God will not distinguish who will get into heaven according to religious affiliation. ****## “Outside the Church, No Salvation” is a dogma. So He does. Outside Christ = outside salvation. The Council of Florence is pitilessly clear - no one can be saved who is not in the Universal Church of Christ. Not if a man give his body to be burned. The sufferings of the Catholic martyrs under Elizabeth would have been useless, even if they had been disembowelled ten thousand times instead of only once, had they not been in the Church. No learning, no virtue, no suffering, no graces received, can compensate for being in the Church, if that is lacking. #

The bottom line is, those who accept Christ will be judged according to their sins. The bottom line is, that only those who have not had the opportunity to hear the Gospel message and who have lived a life according to the righteousness of God, will be judged according to His Mercy.

---

Since we have well and truly passed the age of the Reformation, the Church also looks at the fact that there are Christians who are born into these other denominations and have never had the opportunity to know the fullness of the Truth. At the same time they do have the truth and they are our brothers and sisters in Christ, even if some are too arrogant to accept that fact.
The bottom line with regard to the TAC happens to be that they do follow what was in place before Henry VIII caused the split that devastated the Catholic Church in England. Of course after that time there were further splits and then portions of what remained as the Anglican Church have become too liberal for their own good. The bottom line is, that the liberals have gone too far and at last many good Christian men and women are waking up to the fact of the lies that have been told to them.**## The TAC are in the same position as these liberals in one very important respect: they are not Catholic in the CC’s sense *if they do not confess her faith. *
I think it is high time we had a bit of sympathy for the liberals, instead of hearing the TAC side of the story and no other. “The TAC has suffered much” - no doubt: does it follow that those they attack, have not ? Stories of suffering are of no relevance to dogma; the TAC members are to be admitted as believers - *not *because they have suffered. Put the emphasis on suffering, and dogmatic truth goes **out of the window: forget the dogma, and the result is sentimentality. The brigands crucified with Christ no doubt both suffered appallingly - but only one believed. He is a Saint - the other is not. Suffering is important - but it cannot be decisive. **
**Some of those burned under Mary I suffered appallingly - that does not make them Saints. One can certainly respect William Tyndale - his execution was badly botched, so he was burned alive: that cannot make him a martyr, because he was not a martyr, if one is Catholic. The C of E, which esteems him as one, is entitled to do so, because it does not pretend to be in union with Rome. **
**If Jews die in mortal sin, the sufferings they underwent won’t prevent their damnation. & and a truly contrite ex-Nazi Jew-killer won’t be damned. **
**Sorry to be so pitiless, but sentimentality is very dangerous. Jesus did not preach sentimentality, but a gracious Gospel with hard edges. ****This hardness, is what stands between confessing the unique Lordship of Christ, and making of Him just another redeemer-figure. If this be bigoted or fanatical, then so be it. Jesus is Lord - and that is that. So His Church is equally hard-edged - this is an instance of the “scandal of particularity”. The Church cannot compromise where Christ did not… **

[continue…]

 

[Irenicist]

Matt16_18 wrote:

“This really is a case of comparing apples to oranges. Anglicans are Protestants that belong to various ecclesial organizations, they are not members of a church. (See Domius Iesus). The local particular Eastern Churches in schism with the Catholic Church are real churches.”

We aren’t talking about all Anglicans in general. We are talking specifically about the TAC. Labelling them as “Protestant” (a label they apparently reject, btw) really has no bearing on the situation. We had previously labelled Chaldeans as “Nestorian” and Syrians as “Monophysite” without this proving to be an inherent bar to their recognition as Churches.

Matt16_18 further wrote:

“The reason that the Catholic Church practices closed communion is NOT a “disciplinary issue” - it is a matter of faith.”

Shared faith is indeed the normal test for eligibility for communion. So far we agree. But the decision to make it so is a disciplinary, not a doctrinal one even if the test decided on is itself doctrinal. Just because doctrine is involved in a practice does not mean the practice is inherently doctrinal.

Let me demonstrate this with a mildly trivial but broadly analogous example. A bishop decides that he is going to reward good cathechism students at a parochial school with a fully funded school trip. He sets successful recitation of the Creed as the test. You will agree, I trust, that this test is implicitly a doctrinal one. Yet the decision to set this test and abide by the results is a disciplinary one.

The Catholic Church does extend communion in extremis to separated members of the Eastern Churches not in communion with Rome (albeit, this is not reciprocated by the Eastern Orthodox), but who are unable to receive communion from a priest of their own Churches. The communicants in this case clearly do not profess the whole Catholic faith. This, in and of itself, strongly suggests that the issue is a disciplinary one, unless you wish to suggest that the Holy Father is somehow guilty of apostasy.

This decision is tied to a doctrinal test in that it rests on the recognition on the validity of Eastern orders and on the shared understanding of the significance of the eucharist. But the decision to apply this particular test is “disciplinary”, not “doctrinal”, and the test itself does not extend to a requirement for full orthodoxy on the part of the recipient.

No Ecumenical Council has ever defined this practice as “a matter of faith”. As the practice has changed and evolved over the years, it would be difficult to argue that it is part of the Church’s unchanging Tradition. Like priestly celibacy, the use of azimes, or the use of girls’ choirs, it is a simply a disciplinary matter (albeit a very serious one). Disciplinary rules can be changed and modified by the Holy Father for the good of the Church.

Matt16_18 also wrote:

“If the TAC wants to know how Rome is going to respond, all they have to do is look at how Rome has already responded to Anglicans that have rejoined the Church.”

There is an important distinction between the practice surrounding individual conversions (or even the conversion of whole parishes), and that associated with a reunion of Churches. If the negative argument rests entirely on a denial of the TAC’s status as a Church, then we should perhaps restrict the discussion to the validity of its orders and its doctrinal understanding of the sacraments.

Simply labelling the TAC broad brush as “Protestant” is not going to resolve anything, even if the label sticks. Quibbling over the Marian doctrines and papal infallibility would not be relevant to the issue at hand either, as belief in these doctrines is not normally considered a test of whether a denomination qualifies as a Church, else the separated Eastern Churches would not fully qualify either.

It is entirely understandable that some might feel slighted by having had to pass a different (and arguably more stringent) test as individual converts for access to communion. This should not blind us, however, to the reality that the Catholic Church allows for a different approach when faced with the opportunity for a full reunion of separated Churches. Individual converts have to face a more stringent test because their denominations of origin are not prepared to cross the Tiber into the Catholic faith as a body with them. If their original denominations had been more appropriately disposed, the test would have been the same as that applied to all the members of the Eastern Churches that have reunited as a body with Rome over the centuries.

Irenicist

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

**[continued & ended]

Appealing to compassion is dangerous if the compassionate attitude hoped for, requires one to ignore dogma. Compassion there must be - but not at that price. True compassion is consistent with severity and truth: false compassion is sacrilegious enough to ignore divine revelation - it implies that God is a liar. Christ is a Rock - and rocks are not soft and yielding. If they were soft, they could not be a shelter or a foundation. So the hardness of dogma is not hardness for hardness’ sake - it is hard so that it will not be eroded. For that would make it unuseful. Christ the Sponge would not be Christ the Rock of Ages - He is both, & not just a sponge. He is therefore the “Foundation over which men stumble” - “but to those who are called, both Jew & Greek, Christ the Salvation of God…”. One Christ, two responses. One Church - two responses. ##**

Of course there is work to be done and every assistance should be given to pave the way for a reconciliation between the TAC and Rome. That includes an education process as well as the talks that are still going on.

**

**If you had bothered to read the report that I typed in from a local newspaper you should have recognized that the situation is really quite critical. Bishop Chislet is under threat of being “excommunicated” from the Anglican communion. **

## The Anglicans are no more keen on violations of Church Order than we are. If he commits uncanonical acts, then he must face the consequences. Our judgement of Anglican Orders & the ecclesiological status of Anglicanism, however important to us, is not relevant to how Anglicans understand their form of Christianity. Anglicans who commit what is in Anglican terms the sin of schism have only themselves to blame if there are sanctions (and there should be). ##

**

**
Considering the position of the current Australian primate Peter Carnley that might be a good thing. What it means is that the TAC is in jeopardy of losing its church property here in Australia.
If the people who want to join with Rome are members of the High Church of England then there is very little that separates them and us, and we have to acknowledge that fact so that they will feel as though they are wanted, not as though they are nothing more than pieces of fluff to be blown around because nobody cares for their spiritual welfare.
**We who are members of the Catholic Church do not live by the “Law”, whilst we do live by the Ten Commandments. **
Surely it is not too much to ask that some charity is shown towards Michael and those who belong to the Anglican communion and who are agonizing over the decisions that they have to make.

## Charity ? Of course - but charity is not the same as making the theological assessments that people might like to hear. It involves speaking the truth - whether this is easy to the speaker and comfortable to the hearer or not. There is no charity in misrepresentation, however well-meant. It is irrelevant whether this makes one popular - one’s own ego is irrelevant. Let us always have charity - but let us never have false charity. Charity can seem pitiless - “The Divine Pity” is sometimes “A Severe Mercy”: as “The Great Divorce” & “Mere Christianity” show. ##
**

Tell me, have you ever seen an Anglican who believes so much in the Eucharist that he or she was absolutely hungering for it? I have. Do you want to know why? Because nobody from the local Anglican Church was coming to visit her in the retirement village. She was being neglected. Someone has to look after people who are so well disposed to the Sacraments.

**

MaggieOH
**

 

[mark_a]

What’s the latest? Any real news?

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

* Originally Posted by SteveG*

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

Certainly not, and that’s only my subjective feelings on the matter (which you solicited in post 1), and not the reason why this shouldn’t happen. There are other objective reasons why this can not and will not happen despite my ‘feelings’ on the matter.

I would not, nor do I have the power to either grant or deny them any such grace. The grace God offers can only be denied by those to whom it is offerred. But we must remember that it can indeed be denied. One of the ways is refusal to submit to Christ’s teachings. Read John 6 (discourse on the Eucharist) and ask yourself if it was ‘fair’ that Jesus allowed many of his disciples to ‘no longer go about with him.’ Why didn’t he just say…‘No, wait. I see, you are getting ‘most’ of what I am teaching, so let’s just ignore this little teaching here and I’ll help you work through it later.’ No, what he did was he allowed them to walk away. He offered them the truth and the grace that affords, and they freely rejected it. Explain to me how this is different?

I pray regularly for the unity of all Christians, but we can not lie, nor fudge, nor ignore the difference and hope they will go away once we are all one happy family. It makes me think of the Woman who married a man who didn’t have certain qualities she was looking for in a spouse. But she married him nonetheless in hopes that one day she could change him. I think we all know what kind of disaster this usually leads too.

In truth, the offer that you are laying out would be the door to which every kind of heresy would enter. If such a thing were too happen, how could the Church then draw a line as to what other teachings could be ignored in hopes of latter being cleared up? Why allow this for only Anglicans, and for only these few doctrines? Why not make an exception for the teaching on contraception? Or abortion? Do you see what kind of door this would open. It all sounds so hopeful. But it’s a recipe for disaster. It’s why am am absolutely confident that no such offer has been made, nor even could be made.

If they want to enter the hospital, they need to fill out ALL the registration forms. Sorry, you know, red tape and all.

I am sorry, but no this can’t work. The fundamental issue here is one of authority. Either they recognize the authority of the Church to teach on faith and morals and will be obedient to that, or the do not. If they don’t why bother coming in at all? They are still ‘Protestant’ at that point.

**## Good post. **

---

It looks very much as if the TAC has somehow got the impression that CC is more flexible than it really is. Such confusions do good to nobody at all; they only end in tears. ##

 

[MaggieOH]

boethius:

Dear Michael,

It’s been a rough week (or two or three). As I mentioned on the previous thread, my family and I are leaving the ECUSA to become Catholic. However, if my only contact with Catholics was through this forum, I probably would not. Throughout this entire thread (and the last one), there has been almost no expression of joy at the possiblity that thousands of Anglicans might be swimming the Tiber. Instead most of the posters are obsessed with the conditions of this move. Do they not trust their own Pope? Watching this thread unfold has been so depressing. May I suggest that you stop posting here and let the thread die. Those who remain can impress one another with their commitment to dogma and their obvious ignorance of the T.A.C. No one here seems to be interested in encouraging those of us who are leaving our “homes” in order to come Home. Most of the posters here remind me of the elder brother in the parable of the prodigal son. They seem obsessed with the conditions of allowing the prodigal to return. Why not trust that the Father (the Pope) knows what he’s doing and see if the person killing the fatted calf could use an extra hand? Every day that goes by, this thread just gets worse. There are Catholics out there who are excited about what the T.A.C. is doing, they just don’t seem to be on this thread.

I look forward to seeing you on the other side. Happy swimming.

Boethius

Boethius,

I am saddened that you think, that I, a cradle Catholic is not happy for all who want to leave what has become true heresy.

I am delighted by these moves and I am praying that this will happen.

I believe that all must bend just that little bit so that we can be One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

We are brothers and sisters in Christ, and the aim should be that we are once more united, such that the heretics of those other denominations are left to their own devices.

I have been to a few of the TAC websites, and I am convinced that they do in fact accept the doctrines and dogma of the Catholic faith. Whatever barriers remain I am certain, that through prayerful consideration these can be mounted too.

Congratulations on your own decision to leave the ECUSA and join the Catholic Church. I am certain that you are making the right decision for you and your family. May God be with you during your time in RCIA.

MaggieOH

 

[boethius]

MaggieOH,

Thank you for your kind reply. Your voice has been one of the few positive ones during the last few days (weeks).

I don’t have the time and energy to analyze why so many of the posts to this thread (like its predecessor) have been so uncharitable. Perhaps it is the nature of the medium and perhaps it is because this is part of an “apologetics” apostolate. So often, these things have a way of devolving into misunderstanding and the parading of one’s own erudition.

The bottom line seems to be that (sooner or later) the T.A.C. will enter into full communion with Rome. This will, no doubt, be done on terms that honor both the deposit of faith and the dignity of those Anglicans who are submitting to the Bishop of Rome. When this reunion occurs, it will be (I think) of momentous historical significance, being the first healing of the breach caused by the sixteenth-century de-/reformation. Will those who have been doubting the Pope’s competence to insure that reunion occurs on the proper terms rejoice at that time? Or will they continue to be skeptical, assuming that the Anglicans must be smuggling in heresy and thereby raining on the parade (who appointed them to be judges anyway?!!)? Deo volente, the reunion will occur in our lifetimes.

Until then, many of us will be crossing on our own (and avoiding electronic forums).

Cheers,
Boethius

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

**
mark a:

What’s the latest? Any real news?

**

**## Nothing new, AFAIK. **

There is one bit of news, on a related matter - apparently the Pope is in hospital again. That’s all I know. ##

 

[Traditional_Ang]

GKC:

ARCIC and the Original “Gift of Authority” were both products of talks between the Catholic Church and the Anglican communion (++Canterbury)…

GKC:

Michael,

“Archbishop Hepworth and the TAC have just handed the Vatican a raft a responses, among those is a response to The Gift of Authority. I don’t know what that paper says, and it’s not available on the web.”

lf you mean “The Gift of Authority”, just google it. Put ARCIC in the search line, too.

GKC

…I was even subjected to communtary on it by Griswald of all people! Talk about the BLIND LEADING THE BLIND!

I wouldn’t mind, but some friends of mine are getting ready for a shooting war in Israel, and there’s not a blasted thing I can do to stop it!

So please, NO pursuit of the perigrinated waterfowl!! Please…

Blessings and Peace, Michael

 

[Traditional_Ang]

GKC - This what you get when you put in “Gift of Authority” and Hepworth or "Traditional Anglican Communion"

From FiF International News:

A Statement by the Primate of the Traditional Anglican Communion on the Windsor Report
Oct 19, 2004
forwardinfaith.com/artman/publish/article_165.shtml

In The Messenger: Click, Download and read until you find it.

CHURCH HEAD FINDS REPORT FROM CANTERBURY ÒHURTFULÓ,
COMMUNION TO SEEK UNITY WITH ROME
acahome.org/tac/news/pr041018.htm

A Statement by the Primate of the Traditional Anglican Communion on th Windsor Repor
by John Hepworth
virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=1495

challengeonline.org/modules/news/article.php?storyid=58

trinity-anglican.org:81/news.php?item.5

listserv.episcopalian.org/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind0410c&L=virtuosity&D=1&H=1&O=D&F=&S=&P=2847

Meanwhile, those wanting to know what my friends are going through at the hands of the radicals in ECUSA just might waht to scroll down and read this article:

Three Calif. Church Property
Suits May Be Combined

*In September, the L.A. diocese filed suit, laying claim to the parishesÕ buildings. Bruno claimed he had no choice but Òto preserve these churches as houses of worship for faithful Episcopalians as they have been since their founding…Ó One suit was filed in Orange County and the two others in the Los Angeles Superior Court.

The three parishes contend that the buildings belong to them-- and it is indeed possible that California case law will back their assertion.

They said that the dioceseÕs lawsuit is Òdevoid of fairness and compassionÓ and an attempt to ÒpunishÓ the three congregations and their clergy Òfor exercising their religious freedom of choice to affiliate with another diocese and bishop in the Anglican Communion.Ó

Indeed, the suits appear to exceed in their punitive nature most of their precursors around ECUSA, since they sue and seek damages from unpaid, elected parish leaders. The suits demand as well all Òchurch funds and assets, investments, intellectual property and non-fixtures, such as Bibles, chalices and other articles pertaining to worship.Ó

An analysis by the Anglican Communion Network Think Tank also notes Òmelodramatic rhetoricÓ from Bishop Bruno. Among other things, the bishop reportedly alleges in the suit against St. James that its clergy and vestry Òconspired, plotted and schemedÓ against ECUSA and to ÒstealÓ the parishÕs property. Bruno decries the idea that property he thinks should serve only Episcopalians is being used by members of a Òforeign, non-Episcopal church.Ó*

challengeonline.org/modules/wfsection/article.php?articleid=38

MATT, That means members of the vestry (who don’t make a DIME) could lose their homes if they lose the suit! Is that persecution enough for you??

Blessings and Peace, Michael

 

[Traditional_Ang]

****

**## Nothing new, AFAIK. **

There is one bit of news, on a related matter - apparently the Pope is in hospital again. That’s all I know. ##

Michael:

Pope John Paul II just had a Tracheotomy. He had another Breathing episode this morning where he just couldn’t breath, and this effectively takes the issue away from his throat muscles which aren’t working properly.

The same thing was done to Cheif Justice Reihnquist in December. If you have time to say some extra prayers, you might want to add him in. I have for past last few weeks.

Blessings and peace, Michael

 

[Traditional_Ang]

boethius:

MaggieOH,

Thank you for your kind reply. Your voice has been one of the few positive ones during the last few days (weeks).

I don’t have the time and energy to analyze why so many of the posts to this thread (like its predecessor) have been so uncharitable. Perhaps it is the nature of the medium and perhaps it is because this is part of an “apologetics” apostolate. So often, these things have a way of devolving into misunderstanding and the parading of one’s own erudition.

The bottom line seems to be that (sooner or later) the T.A.C. will enter into full communion with Rome. This will, no doubt, be done on terms that honor both the deposit of faith and the dignity of those Anglicans who are submitting to the Bishop of Rome. When this reunion occurs, it will be (I think) of momentous historical significance, being the first healing of the breach caused by the sixteenth-century de-/reformation. Will those who have been doubting the Pope’s competence to insure that reunion occurs on the proper terms rejoice at that time? Or will they continue to be skeptical, assuming that the Anglicans must be smuggling in heresy and thereby raining on the parade (who appointed them to be judges anyway?!!)? Deo volente, the reunion will occur in our lifetimes.

Until then, many of us will be crossing on our own (and avoiding electronic forums).

Cheers,
Boethius

Thank you Boethius:

Your thoughts and prayers are appreciated. I used to post on a ME forum ( I just went back over for a few days when I got some upsetting news).

Electronic Forums can be useful - I was dragged back to Our Lord by a Rabbi in the ME Forum. And, I learned a lot about the ME over there (as well as a little bit of Hebrew), but they have their limitations, and they can get out of hand. As I saw here a couple of weeks ago.

Just so you know, Bishop Chislett used the term “YEARS”, not “DECADES”, and the Vatican has made requests of the TAC that sound to me as if it’s getting pretty serious, esp., the request to have TAC Bishops attend the retreats and meetings of the College of Bishops beginning this summer.

So, Keep on praying. I’ll be grateful, and so will a lot of other people.

Peace be with you and with your household, Michael

 

[Traditional_Ang]

rjs1:

It was discussed. At the time the Anglican USE was being negotiated, the Pope wanted to create and Anglican RITE which would be more PERMANENT, but, partially due to the small number of applicants (4 paishes in the first batch) and the reisstance of many of the local Archbishop Ordinaries wh would be responsible for adminstering them, the best he could get was a Pastoral Provision for a USA, much like the Pastoral Provision for the Latin Indult Masses…

rjs1:

I am puzzled that in this whole thread (unless I have missed it) there has been no mention of the group of Anglicans (Episcopalians) that HAVE come across to the Catholic Church and have their own liturgy. The members of the Anglican Usage are ex Episcopalians who, after a long period of negotaition and discussion with Rome, were received into the Catholic Church. They have their own liturgical book with the Mass retaining many of the more beautiful parts of the Book of Common Prayer but being thoroughly Catholic throughout.

Why has this not been discussed in this thread? Is it because these Anglican Use Catholics have fully accepted ALL the teachings of the Catholic Church? Also it was made very clear on their reception that already married Episcopal priests could be received and re ordained or conditionally re ordained (but not remarry if their wife died), but under no circumstances would any married bishop be accepted as a bishop. He would have to accept ordination as a priest.
Th wonderful Anglican bishop of London, Graham Leonard, when he converted to the Catholic Church, was reordained as a priest, not a bishop, because he was married. Why has this fact not been mentioned in connection with the leader of the Traditional Anglicans, Bishop Hepworth, who, I gather, is married?
The Traditional Anglicans should be looking to the Anglican Use Catholics as the pioneers who have led the way. There are several web sites that give details of their liturgy etc.

…Now, the group applying for admission is much larger (Abp Hepworth believed that 265,000 would be making the swim as of the latest counting, only God knows how many latest split in the Anglican Communion will add to that), so Pope John Paul II believes he has a much better case for an Anglican RITE, which would be far more PERMANENT.

Of course none of this is to discount what Anglican Use Parishes have to go through to join the Catholic Church. I just wish they didn’t have this habit of becoming NO parishes after 15 or 20 years, as has been the case.

Blessings and peace, Michael