B
buzzcut
Guest
Traditional Ang:
That seems to me to be big news. Why isn’t it in the newspapers and all over the internet?
- Status
P
prodromos
Guest
Traditional Ang:
John.
Michael, I think you should be more careful in your choice of words. I believe there would be many who would be cautious of accepting an agreement which turns a blind eye towards those who do not believe things which are considered necessary dogmas for the remainder of the body. I can tell you right now that Orthodox wouldn’t touch this agreement with a barge pole. This would make us fools by your declaration would it not?
John.
F
Fr_Ambrose
Guest
Imagine the difference in history if the Pope had given Henry his annulment, if the Pope was not afraid to do so because he had Charles V breathing down his neck and rampaging all over Rome to protect the marriage of his aunt Catherine. England may still have been Mary’s Vale and under the Pope. There’d be no Church of England and no TAC.
G
GKC
Guest
Oh dear. Here I am contributing to thread drift, after all. Sorry, Trad. Ang.
Clement was known for vacillating on many things beyond the issue of Henry’s quest for an annulment.
Julius’ dispensation was certainly theoretically within the Papal powers, as they were understood at the time. Though the question of whether such a dispensation was *ultra vires * for even the Pope (i.e., whether the Levitical prohibition was dispensable, or was of divine law), had been kicked around for several centuries, with differing results at differing times. Details available.
But the matter of the impediment and the adequacy of the dispensation in 1506 are far more complicated (history is like that) than is suggested here. It is probable that Catherine and Arthur had not consummated their marriage. Certainly that was her testimony, and that of her duenna, from the first. While that possibly eliminated the impediment of affinity in the first degree (specifically, the Levitical impediment), it raised the impediment of the justice of public honesty, which arises from an unconsummated marriage. Which Julius’ dispensation did not specifically address. This did not attack the dispensation as ultra vires, as in the Levitical arguement, but as faulty. That is, in the incredibly complex world of annulments, dispensations and impediments by which the sacrament of marriage was managed, and the world of statecraft was able routinely to make and break dynastic marriages as real-politick demanded, there was reasonable argument that the dispensation was incomplete, and the annulment a reasonable request. Certainly that is the way the system worked at the time, and Henry had no reason to suspect his* causa* would be rejected. Look, after all, at the result of his sister’s petition for an anulment, in March 1527, 2 months before Henry’s own case was presented.
The bottom line: history is complicated. The issue of dynastic marriage in the 16th century was equally complicated. Henry was playing by the rules of the day, and he had a case, even if he failed to see its true strength (Wolsey did). Charles was playing by another set of rules; those of *force majeure *. Charles won. No surprise.
This is a subject I am fond of discussing. More details available. Sorry again, Trad. Ang.
GKC
A
azcelt
Guest
this could snowball!maybe the lutherans would be next.
O
oat_soda
Guest
maybe, but maybe not. there were protestants in england at that time. the bottom line is henry was pridefull and didn’t obey the pope. pride is the devils favorite sin. if england was totally catholic at that time, i would think that there would have been more resistance to what henry did. but who knows.
i think TAC is going too far if they want to continue a married priesthood. the current priests can be grandfathered, but that is the extent of it. there is no way the church would allow priests to be married. the pope won’t accept that considering they are in the latin rite. they would have celibate bishops like the eastern churches do. besides, even if they did, it isn’t proper to the occidental church.
E
e-catholic
Guest
Things develop slowly in Catholicism. I would give it a chance, there are those who would like to see invallibility go by the wayside, although not Primacy. I think if we give it a chance we will somehow end up back where we were on this issue before Vatican I.
Did I actually say that?
F
Fr_Ambrose
Guest
I think you didThings develop slowly in Catholicism. I would give it a chance, there are those who would like to see invallibility go by the wayside, although not Primacy. I think if we give it a chance we will somehow end up back where we were on this issue before Vatican I.
If we go back to pre-Vatican I beliefs then we can find an expression of it in a statement issued by the Irish Episcopate in 1826. I think I have posted this statement before in another thread.
In 1826, in the time of the pontificate of Pope Leo XII, the Irish bishops signed the “Declaration of the Archbishops and Bishops of the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland” which affirmed:
**“The Catholics of Ireland declare their belief that it is not an article of the Catholic faith, neither are they required to believe, that the Pope is infallible.”
**
Isn’t that a magnificent statement from the entire Irish episcopate?
So we see that the spark of Irish orthodoxy could blaze into life from time to time. Of course it was stamped out in 1870 when Vatican I declared the Pope to be infallible… but until 1870 nobody in Ireland, and certainly not the Irish bishops, believed that the Pope was infallible.
F
Fr_Ambrose
Guest
oat soda:
Here is one article
‘Anglican-Use’ Rite Attracts Both Converts and Catholics
National Catholic Register
Feb. 2-10, 2003
ncregister.com/Register_News/020203rite.htm
A couple of parishes:
Our Lady of the Atonement Anglican Use Catholic Church
atonementonline.com/intro.html
Saint Mary the Virgin Anglican Use Catholic Church
stmarythevirgin.org/
Can anybody provide an overall view of these Anglican Catholic churches?
You’ll find that the Vatican has been creating what are called “Anglican Use” parishes in the States for the last 20 years. These all have married parish priests at the helm.
Here is one article
‘Anglican-Use’ Rite Attracts Both Converts and Catholics
National Catholic Register
Feb. 2-10, 2003
ncregister.com/Register_News/020203rite.htm
A couple of parishes:
Our Lady of the Atonement Anglican Use Catholic Church
atonementonline.com/intro.html
Saint Mary the Virgin Anglican Use Catholic Church
stmarythevirgin.org/
Can anybody provide an overall view of these Anglican Catholic churches?
G
GKC
Guest
Fr Ambrose:
The Anglican Use, under the Papal Provision, was a grudging method of making an attempt to accomodate the numbers of Episcopalians who left ECUSA 20 odd years ago, when the Troubles began in earnest. It was never a wide spread phenomenon, nor popular with the American hierarchy. At the most, it comprised around 10 parishes, one of them in my hometown, formed by half the Episcopalians who left Good Shepherd Episcopal Church (the other half formed my Continuing Anglican parish).
There is no provision for the long term survival of these parishes. Usually they are converted to NO parishes, upon the death of the original former ECUSA priest. The parish in my hometown went that route, and is now a NO parish (recently permitted to host an indult Tridentine Latin Mass once a month). I think there are perhaps 6 AU parishes left, most in Texas.
One might speculate that any TAC parishes received by Rome might become AU, or something like it. but like everything else connected with this subject, the idea boggles my mind. It also raises the question of what sort of liturgy a TAC in communion with Rome would use. The Book of Divine Worship (a suitable Romanized version of the 1928 BP) used by the AU parishes might be the thing, I guess.
GKC
Anglican use permits married clergy, it depends on whether the clergy in question , all former Anglican clergy who have submited to Rome, were married when they did so.
The Anglican Use, under the Papal Provision, was a grudging method of making an attempt to accomodate the numbers of Episcopalians who left ECUSA 20 odd years ago, when the Troubles began in earnest. It was never a wide spread phenomenon, nor popular with the American hierarchy. At the most, it comprised around 10 parishes, one of them in my hometown, formed by half the Episcopalians who left Good Shepherd Episcopal Church (the other half formed my Continuing Anglican parish).
There is no provision for the long term survival of these parishes. Usually they are converted to NO parishes, upon the death of the original former ECUSA priest. The parish in my hometown went that route, and is now a NO parish (recently permitted to host an indult Tridentine Latin Mass once a month). I think there are perhaps 6 AU parishes left, most in Texas.
One might speculate that any TAC parishes received by Rome might become AU, or something like it. but like everything else connected with this subject, the idea boggles my mind. It also raises the question of what sort of liturgy a TAC in communion with Rome would use. The Book of Divine Worship (a suitable Romanized version of the 1928 BP) used by the AU parishes might be the thing, I guess.
GKC
O
oat_soda
Guest
i know that. there are a lot more married clergy in england from anglican converts but they typically don’t have their own parish but assist in various roles. my point was the church would grandfather those priests in TAC who are allready married. they will not allow future priests in the anglican catholic church to be married. in fact, henry the 8th wanted to keep priests celibate. married clergy in anglican churches is the result of protestantism.
for better or worse, the church isn’t micromanaged by the pope or cardinal ratzinger. the pope allows his cardinals in charge of the various congregations to do as they please. even the bishops can pretty much do as they will. this is why our liturgy is in such bad shape and why we have such a homo problem in the church. if our liturgy was celebrated according to the pope’s desire or ratzinger’s, the anglican use parishes wouldn’t mind celebrating the normative mass.
F
Fr_Ambrose
Guest
oat soda:
I have been told that the negotiations have had both married bishops and married priests as a major topic… and not just for the clergy now coming into Rome but for the future clergy as well.
G
GKC
Guest
oat soda:
GKC
In which case they would not be Anglican Use, which is defined by the Anglican derived liturgy they use.
GKC
O
oat_soda
Guest
the anglican liturgy is basically a roman rite liturgy with cramner’s reforms. it was derived from the sarum rite which was similar to the dominican rite and other roman liturgies common in france and england. ultimately, the “anglican rite” is just a variation or the “roman rite”. hence, there is no “anglican rite” as being legitimately separate theologically and historically like the byzantine/coptic/antiochene/or armenian rites for example. it’s really just a temporary stepping stone to catholicism. it has no long term legitimacy.
G
GKC
Guest
oat soda:
GKC
Yes, that last is what I said about there being no provision for the survival of the Anglican Use (not Rite) in the RCC. Accordingly, that lure to the disaffected Anglicans is going to disappear.
GKC
O
oat_soda
Guest
i can sympathize with anglicans. this is why i said if our liturgy was where it should be, the differences would be small enough where the anglicans wouldn’t care. our liturgy should be our greatest selling point.
G
Ghosty
Guest
It’s my belief and understanding that the general principle being put forth here, namely that Churches returning to the Catholic Church aren’t required to accept doctrines that have been declared in their absence, is more of an attempt (perhaps misguided) in “starting from square one”. Essentially, since they were unified with the Church without having to accept those things, and did not leave because of those declarations, they can be unified again without accepting them.
Now I believe that the general thought is that somewhere down the road they will get “caught up” with the rest of the Church once they have they the place to debate and discuss such matters as “part of the family”, and those that don’t accept will leave the Church as proper heretics and not simply “heretics by default, and through no fault of their own.”
This is simply my impression, however, and in no way indicative of the true motives or plans.
Now I believe that the general thought is that somewhere down the road they will get “caught up” with the rest of the Church once they have they the place to debate and discuss such matters as “part of the family”, and those that don’t accept will leave the Church as proper heretics and not simply “heretics by default, and through no fault of their own.”
This is simply my impression, however, and in no way indicative of the true motives or plans.
T
twf
Guest
I’d bey very happy to see a segment of Anglicans be re-united with the See of Peter…but I don’t understand this. How is it that our Holy Father is settling for compromise? Here is my problem.
Any ideas?
Traditional Anglican: I’m not trying to put you or your church down…but I’m just wondering how this is possible, and what the Holy Father may be thinking.
- Ecumenical councils are infallible.
- Papal infallibility was declared by Council, and thus is infallible.
- The “Marian doctrines” mentioned above were declared infallibly by the Pope.
- To disagree with any infallibly declared dogma of the Holy Catholic Church is, by defintion heresy.
- To be in heresy, is to remove oneself from the mystical body of the Holy Catholic Church.
Any ideas?
Traditional Anglican: I’m not trying to put you or your church down…but I’m just wondering how this is possible, and what the Holy Father may be thinking.
G
Ghosty
Guest
Because they haven’t had a chance to “deny” it yet. I really don’t think that the idea is that they can come into the Church and never accept those things. I’m pretty sure it’s a basis for the beginnings of intercommunion based on the way the Church was when they left. I can’t imagine the Pope letting outright denial of Dogma persist within the Church; there must be something that’s not being understood here.
F
Fr_Ambrose
Guest
An interesting interview on the Virtueonline site with Archbishop Hepworth, in July of last year.
TAC PRIMATE FLEXES MUSCLE IN TROUBLED ANGLICAN RING
virtueonline.org/portal/modules/tinycontent/index.php?id=68
The article is about 1 1/2" down the web page.
I did not know that Archbishop Hepworth is a Roman Catholic priest!
TAC PRIMATE FLEXES MUSCLE IN TROUBLED ANGLICAN RING
virtueonline.org/portal/modules/tinycontent/index.php?id=68
The article is about 1 1/2" down the web page.
I did not know that Archbishop Hepworth is a Roman Catholic priest!
- Status