Anglicans to Rome - Thread 2

[MaggieOH]

Matt16_18:

Where did you get the qualification of “substantial”? Who determines whether heresy is substantial or insubstantial? One big problem that the TAC will have to overcome before they can be received into the Catholic Church is convincing the members of the TAC that practicing artificial contraception is a mortal sin. Are the Anglicans going to be allowed to determine that practicing artificial contraception is an insubstantial matter that they can ignore because they agree with more substantial matters of faith?

The members of the TAC are going to have to accept EVERY infallible teaching of the Catholic Church.

• Here, we are dealing with people who aren’t guilty of anything more than unknowing Heresy.*

.

Matt 16:18,

be careful about what you are stating. You are assuming a lot of things and you have not provided anything in the way of support for what you are saying. For instance you mentioned the issue of contraception. You are assuming that the TAC use artificial means of contraception but you have not provided positive proof.

Then there is the issue of what you are describing as material heresy etc. etc. but you have not provided anything substantive as far as the TAC itself is concerned.

I think that it is possible that the assumptions that you are using relate to the Anglican Communion as a whole and not to the group known as the TAC. For this reason I think that you need to do more homework on all of the issues involved and come up with the substantive proof of what you are saying.

I will not hold my breath whilst waiting for the proofs behind your statements.

MaggieOH

 

[Maccabees]

Before we attack other denoms on their practice of ABC perhaps we should address the 90 percent of catholics in America who practice ABC. I worry about Catholics a lot more than our seperated brethren we should know better.

I am sure this part of what has to be worked out during the talks when they start talking about this you know they are serious about reuniting with the Pope.

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Matt:

That what the term sui iuris means!

To refer to these particular Churches or rites, the 1990 Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches introduced in its Latin text the term sui iuris, which means autonomous. The autonomy of each particular Church, Eastern or Western, shows in its distinctive liturgy, canon law, theological tradition etc. The Latin or Western particular Church is governed by the Code of Canon Law, while the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches outlines the discipline that the Eastern particular Churches have in common.

absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/R/Ro/Roman_Catholic_Church.htm

Matt16_18:

What do you mean by an “autonomous” church? I think that you may be confusing an Orthodox concept of church with the Catholic conception of church.

The Churches refered to were these:

The official yearly Vatican directory, Annuario Pontificio (Libreria Editrice Vaticana), gives the following list of particular Churches or rites within the Roman Catholic Church:

A. Eastern rites of Alexandrian tradition: Coptic, Ethiopic (2).

B. Eastern rites of Antiochian tradition: Malankara, Maronite, Syria (3).

C. Eastern rite of Armenian tradition: Armenian Church (1).

D. Eastern rites of Chaldaean or East-Syrian tradition: Chaldean, Malabar (2).

E. Eastern rites of Constantinopolitan or Byzantine tradition: Albanian (Belarussian, Bulgarian, Greek, Greek-Melkite, Hungarian, Italo-Albanian), Romanian - Russian, Ruthenian - Slovak, Ukrainian (12).

F. Latin rite Quick Summary:Latin rite

absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/R/Ro/Roman_Catholic_Church.htm

You might want to apologize to Irenicist. His usage of “Autonomous” was a proper translation of the term used in Canon Law.

Matt, earlier, you referred to 3 (THREE ) Sacraments of iniation. Since Catholic Dogmatic theology only admits of two (Baptism and Confirmation) what were you elevating to the status of SACRAMENT? And, since you were claiming that TAC members wopuld have to have ALL THEREE, were you claiming that the Magisterium of the Church was WRONG about Schismatic TRINITARIAN Baptism with Water and the proper words?

Matt16_18:

Anglicans that are in an RCIA program must make a profession of the faith before they can receive the Sacraments of Initiation. To receive the Sacraments of Confirmation and the Eucharist, Anglican candidates cannot have ANY mental reservations about accepting EVERY doctrine of the Catholic Church before they make their profession of faith. You are putting the cart before the horse in thinking that adults that do not wholeheartedly accept the teachings of the Catholic Church can partake of the Eucharist. That just isn’t possible.

Just so you know, NONE of the validly Baptized members of the Various rites listed above were EVER required to endure RCIA or anything similar before their Churches were accpeted into the Catholic Church.

I advise you to read the recently celebrated Union of Brest

archeparchy.ca/archeparchy/history/brest.htm
newadvent.org/cathen/15130a.htm

Matt, I think you should read this last link prayer fully and slowly. Please don’t dismiss it:

uccdelmar.jesusanswers.com/custom2.html

Blessing and Peace, Michael

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Maccabees:

Before we attack other denoms on their practice of ABC perhaps we should address the 90 percent of catholics in America who practice ABC. I worry about Catholics a lot more than our seperated brethren we should know better.

I am sure this part of what has to be worked out during the talks when they start talking about this you know they are serious about reuniting with the Pope.

Maccabees:

I agree with you, but I think there are those whose real intent seems to be to place barriers in the way of the members of the TAC or to place extra burdens on them above and beyond those required in other UNIONS between the Catholic Church and other Churches.

I don’t think they’re going to listen to you. They haven’t listened to me or to anyone else.

Thank you for your comments and your efforts. I’m affraid your comments have fallen on deaf ears.

If we’re lucky, we might create a “Chinese water torture” effect on one of them, and we’ll have one of them listening to us so he’ll understand that this is more like the “Union of Brest” than the reception of an individual convert.

Blessings and Peace, Michael

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Michael - Regarding your posts Gottle of Geer #392 & #393

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=489477&postcount=392

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=489487&postcount=393

Please read my Post #396:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=489766&postcount=396

Which has most of the answers to what you raise and LINKS for those answers.

1. You admit that PNCC members are allowed to receive communion from Catholic priests, Do you not? And, if you look at the Canon Law, By way of exception simply means that they are required to seek our PNCC clergy first, and extraordinary does NOT mean they have to “be at death’s doorstep”. It simply means they feel an extraordinary need for the Sacrament!
2. Who’s to say that the PNCC, observing the schizms in the Old Catholic Movement (Read the self-report from an Old Catholic Bishop at the end of my reply to Matt), won’t decide to pursure “Full Communion” with Rome? Did you know that they are in negotiations for better relations than the ones they already have, including improved relationships regarding Communion (along with a good deal of the rest of Christendom)?

So, why should the TAC be treated any differently, since the doctrinal disputes ARE THE SAME (at least for High Church Anglo-Catholics - Many of whom don’t even have the doctrinal disputes)??

You listed differences that made the precedent “not on point”, since I delisted at least one, could you please list the others that make it “not on point”? Please don’t list Orders - The priests at my parish all trace theirs to the PNCC, along with every Bishop I’ve met except for the one from the Church of Australia.

Regarding women Priests, that is a matter of the Essential Nature of the Priesthood, which is a Sacerdotal Ministry. The Priest stands in the place of Christ whenever HE adminsters the Sacraments, and during the Mass, he acts as an Alter Christos. This is NOT a Custom. This is Dogma coming from the Scriptures and from whom Christ Himself chose to be His Apostles. Not only that, but the Priesthood extends a ministry begain by Melchizadek, High Priest of Salem, and continued through the sons of Aaron. In the same way that a piece of plastic and grape juice could not be made into Our Lord’s Body and Blood, so to a Woman could not be made into a Priest, no matter how hard you or any one else tried.

Michael, are you for the Ordination of women Priests? Is that why you used the word, “Custom” and not “Dogma”?

The other Precedent for the Union of a Church with The Catholic Church is the Union of Brest. I linked 2 documents on the subject. This is on point, and I think you should read them. Here are the Links for all of the above:

absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/R/Ro/Roman_Catholic_Church.htm
archeparchy.ca/archeparchy/history/brest.htm
newadvent.org/cathen/15130a.htm
uccdelmar.jesusanswers.com/custom2.html

Michael, I’ve been forced to deal with your queries. I think it only right that you should respond to some of mine.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=488082&postcount=390

By the Way, I’ve answered your questions for a while now, what is YOUR position regarding PAPAL INFALIBILITY? The Teaching Magisterium of the Church, Ordinary and Extraordinary? The ALL-MALE PRIESTHOOD? And, I’m sure you’ll remember where this one comes from - Do you believe that our Lord Jesus was BODILY Raised from the Dead on the Third Day?

Blessings and Peace, Michael

 

[Matt16_18]

Traditional Ang

The Eastern Orthodox and the Catholic Church mean different things when they talk about “autonomous Churches”. I thought that perhaps Irenisist was using the term “autonomous church” in the manner of the Orthodox. From the article you quoted:Unlike “families” or “communions” of Churches that see themselves as distinct Churches, the Church of those who are in full communion with the Pope considers itself a single Church, not a federation of Churches.

Matt, earlier, you referred to 3 (THREE ) Sacraments of iniation. Since Catholic Dogmatic theology only admits of two (Baptism and Confirmation) what were you elevating to the status of SACRAMENT?

**Catechism of the Catholic Church

1212** The sacraments of Christian initiation - Baptism, Confirmation, and the Eucharist - lay the foundations of every Christian life. “The sharing in the divine nature given to men through the grace of Christ bears a certain likeness to the origin, development, and nourishing of natural life. The faithful are born anew by Baptism, strengthened by the sacrament of Confirmation, and receive in the Eucharist the food of eternal life. By means of these sacraments of Christian initiation, they thus receive in increasing measure the treasures of the divine life and advance toward the perfection of charity.”

Just so you know, NONE of the validly Baptized members of the Various rites listed above were EVER required to endure RCIA or anything similar before their Churches were accpeted into the Catholic Church.

I understand that. Unlike the TAC, which is a Protestant ecclesial community without valid Sacraments of Confirmation and Eucharist, the members of the communities on your list belonged to true churches with valid Sacraments. The members of these local particular churches had already received the Sacraments of Initiation, (which are typically given to infants in Eastern Churches). The situation of the TAC is far different, and that is why I keep saying that you and Irenisist are comparing apples to oranges. Both of you are comparing a Protestant ecclesial community that is not a church in the proper sense, to true sister churches.

 

[Matt16_18]

MaggieOH:

Matt 16:18,

be careful about what you are stating. You are assuming a lot of things and you have not provided anything in the way of support for what you are saying. For instance you mentioned the issue of contraception. You are assuming that the TAC use artificial means of contraception but you have not provided positive proof.

How can anyone know what the TAC believes about anything with absolute certainty? Whom does the TAC recognize as having the ultimate temporal authority to settle matters of doctrinal dispute? How can anyone know when the TAC has settled a disputed point of doctrine or morality? The great defect of Anglo-Catholicism revolves around the issue of temporal authority.

If the TAC is willing to accept the authority of the Pope, then they are making a step in the right direction, to be sure.

St. Thomas More, pray for us! St Margaret of Clitherow, pray for us!

 

[SyroMalankara]

Peace to all, especially TA-Mike and Matt and GoG,

Ok. Forget the name of the TAC for a minute.

IF they are all ordained via PNCC, they are considered Old Catholics by canon law, who use the Sarum Rite. Whether they call themselves TAC or Anglo or whatever; assuming their Holy Orders are valid and from PNCC, they are essentially PNCC that use Sarum rites. This would make their Holy Orders valid, as long as their Rites followed the correct formulae.

If the Vatican were to incorporate the whole Anglo group sui juris under the Latin Church, there would be NO impediments. This would create two sui juris Churches in the West, the Roman and Anglican. No problem.
They could also decide to incorporate the Anglo group within the Roman Rite in the Latin Church as a prelature. Again no problems, except they wouldn’t always get their own bishops and would likely be headed by Roman bishops.

TA-Mike,

Could you provide the text of the Ritual of Ordination, this would clear up a lot of issues? (or a link to it.)

Also, is Abp. Hepworth married? How many TAC bishops are married vs. celibate? Not an impediment, just wondering.
Also was Abp Hebworth a baptised Catholic who left to Anglicanism?

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Michael_Thoma:

If the Vatican were to incorporate the whole Anglo group sui juris under the Latin Church, there would be NO impediments. This would create two sui juris Churches in the West, the Roman and Anglican. No problem.

What about the canon law concerning territorial integrity established by the Ecumenical Councils? There cannot be two sui juris Churches or dioceses existing in the same geographical territory because this violates the unity of the local Church. One bishop, one city.

Admittedly this principle has taken a beating with the immigration of members of various sui juris Churches into the Patriarchate of Rome, notably into America and Australia, but this is an anomalous situation. It was not foreseen at the time when these Churches were created in their ancestral homelands and it will need remedying in the New World.

Rome had no choice in these situations; they grew like Pollyanna in the wake of immigration. But can Rome intentionally contravene the Ecumenical Councils by creating two Churches within the one territory?

 

[Irenicist]

Fr Ambrose:

What about the canon law concerning territorial integrity established by the Ecumenical Councils? There cannot be two sui juris Churches or dioceses existing in the same geographical territory because this violates the unity of the local Church. One bishop, one city.

Admittedly this principle has taken a beating with the immigration of members of various sui juris Churches into the Patriarchate of Rome, notably into America and Australia, but this is an anomalous situation. It was not foreseen at the time when these Churches were created in their ancestral homelands and it will need remedying in the New World.

Rome had no choice in these situations; they grew like Pollyanna in the wake of immigration. But can Rome intentionally contravene the Ecumenical Councils by creating two Churches within the one territory?

Yes, disciplinary decisions taken by an ecumenical council are not doctrinal and may be set aside or completely reversed by a subsequent council or by the Pope.

Irenicist

 

[Irenicist]

Gottle of Geer:

## There would not be any emergency or grave pastoral need arising from the absence of a non-Catholic pastor. That is the condition for non-Catholic reception. Why should impatience be pandered to ? If members of the TAC are sincere in wanting to be received, they should have the patience to go through the same discipline as everyone else. ##

If the TAC clergy hypothetically crossed the Tiber as a body, there would be no appropriate “non-Catholic pastor” from whom former TAC members could receive communion. Unless I am mistaken, this extraordinary situation is precicely why the TAC would seek assurances that it could continue to minister, at least on an intermim basis, to this fraction of its flock after reunion. It would be an extraordinary situation created by the process of reunion.

Where exactly would former TAC members who did care about apostolic succession, were willing in principle to join their clergy into the Catholic Church, and did subscribe to an orthodox understanding of the eucharist commune? Would you have them go to Eastern Orthodox clergy instead?

Traditional Ang’s initial and provocative hypothesis, that former TAC members would not have to accept all Catholic beliefs in order to reunite with Rome was certainly problematic, and required considerable further qualification and nuance. But if what he meant was “…could be admitted to communion on an interim basis so long as they did not affirm heretical beliefs, did not explicitly deny orthodox ones, participated in good faith in a programme of instruction, and did not seek communion outside the Church”, then the case would meet all the extraordinary requirements provided for under canon law. Again, it would be up to the Holy Father to decide whether to allow for such a situation.

I don’t think Traditional Ang was suggesting a continuing and unique right of dissent for a rite as a whole.

Irenicist

 

[steve_b]

Maccabees:

Before we attack other denoms on their practice of ABC perhaps we should address the 90 percent of catholics in America who practice ABC. I worry about Catholics a lot more than our seperated brethren we should know better.

I am sure this part of what has to be worked out during the talks when they start talking about this you know they are serious about reuniting with the Pope.

You are right to worry about Catholics who use ABC. The Church condemns it and not without a mountain of teaching, and Catholics know it, but many ignore the teaching anyway. I don’t know about the 90% figure you state. If they would just listen to the Church, and practice NFP instead. It’s far better than ABC. I keep thinking of the scripture passage “today I put before you life and death blessings and curses, choose life” Look at how many people choose death and curses… of their soul.

 

[steve_b]

Fr Ambrose:

What about the canon law concerning territorial integrity established by the Ecumenical Councils? There cannot be two sui juris Churches or dioceses existing in the same geographical territory because this violates the unity of the local Church. One bishop, one city.

Admittedly this principle has taken a beating with the immigration of members of various sui juris Churches into the Patriarchate of Rome, notably into America and Australia, but this is an anomalous situation. It was not foreseen at the time when these Churches were created in their ancestral homelands and it will need remedying in the New World.

What about Greek, Russian, Coptic, Syrian, etc Orthodox churches in the same city? I’m thinking of cities like Los Angeles.
Fr Ambrose:

Rome had no choice in these situations; they grew like Pollyanna in the wake of immigration. But can Rome intentionally contravene the Ecumenical Councils by creating two Churches within the one territory?

Immigration doesn’t cause Catholics problems at all. We do just fine. How about you Orthodox having different Orthodox churches even in the same city?

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

**
Traditional Ang:

Michael - Regarding your posts Gottle of Geer #392 & #393

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=489477&postcount=392

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=489487&postcount=393

Please read my Post #396:
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=489766&postcount=396

Which has most of the answers to what you raise and LINKS for those answers.

1. You admit that PNCC members are allowed to receive communion from Catholic priests, Do you not?**

**## Certainly - but their status is not analogous to that of the TAC, as explained already. They are not trying to have Catholic things without becoming Catholic - the TAC wants (it appears) to have Catholic things even though it is not certain that they will be Catholic in faith. At least with the PNCC one knows where one is dogmatically; the TAC’s position is much less certain. **

**IOW - what possible excuse can there be for giving the Eucharist to people who may end up, not as Catholics at all, but as members of some anti-sacramental group ? It is to avoid such things that the CC does not give the Eucharist to aspiring converts, but only to received converts. **
**If you want the Eucharist - you can jolly well wait for it; or is it not worth waiting for ? Why is this so hard to grasp ? Why must Church discipline be deformed to suit the TAC ? Deform the discipline on this, and the dogma suffers; for the discipline is a fence around the dogma. ## **

**

And, if you look at the Canon Law, By way of exception

simply means that they are required to seek our PNCC clergy first, and extraordinary does NOT mean they have to “be at death’s doorstep”. It simply means they feel an extraordinary need for the Sacrament!**

## TY, but I know that ##

**

1. Who’s to say that the PNCC, observing the schizms in the Old Catholic Movement (Read the self-report from an Old Catholic Bishop at the end of my reply to Matt), won’t decide to pursure “Full Communion” with Rome?

**

## At present, they are not in communion - and that is what matters. Or is the CC to give communion to every Anglican with the requisite faith, on the plea that Rome & Canterbury are also pursuing ecumenical discussions ? Of course not ! So the parallel with the PNCC is still invalid. ##

**

Did you know that they are in negotiations for better relations than the ones they already have, including improved relationships regarding Communion (along with a good deal of the rest of Christendom)?

So, why should the TAC be treated any differently, since the doctrinal disputes ARE THE SAME (at least for High Church Anglo-Catholics - Many of whom don’t even have the doctrinal disputes)??**

## The TAC is not being treated differently - that is what seems to be found so objectionable. And those Anglicans are not seeking to be RC - the TAC is. ##

**

You listed differences that made the precedent “not on point”, since I delisted at least one, could you please list the others that make it “not on point”? Please don’t list Orders - The priests at my parish all trace theirs to the PNCC, along with every Bishop I’ve met except for the one from the Church of Australia.

**

## See this post ##

[continue…]

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

[continued & ended]

**

Regarding women Priests, that is a matter of the Essential Nature of the Priesthood, which is a Sacerdotal Ministry. The Priest stands in the place of Christ whenever HE adminsters the Sacraments, and during the Mass, he acts as an Alter Christos. This is NOT a Custom. This is Dogma coming from the Scriptures and from whom Christ Himself chose to be His Apostles. Not only that, but the Priesthood extends a ministry begain by Melchizadek, High Priest of Salem, and continued through the sons of Aaron. In the same way that a piece of plastic and grape juice could not be made into Our Lord’s Body and Blood, so to a Woman could not be made into a Priest, no matter how hard you or any one else tried.

Michael, are you for the Ordination of women Priests? Is that why you used the word, “Custom” and not “Dogma”?**

**## No, it was not. I was referring to one of the arguments made against the ordination of women - not to the status of the doctrinal objection to such a thing’s happening. **

When** I say I favour it, you can object to my so doing - but not** before. ##

**

The other Precedent for the Union of a Church with The Catholic Church is the Union of Brest. I linked 2 documents on the subject. This is on point, and I think you should read them. Here are the Links for all of the above:

absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/R/Ro/Roman_Catholic_Church.htm

archeparchy.ca/archeparchy/history/brest.htm

newadvent.org/cathen/15130a.htm

uccdelmar.jesusanswers.com/custom2.html

Michael, I’ve been forced**

---

## I don’t think so - you could have declined to reply ##

---

**

to deal with your queries. I think it only right that you should respond to some of mine.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=488082&postcount=390

By the Way, I’ve answered your questions for a while now, what is YOUR position regarding PAPAL INFALIBILITY? The Teaching Magisterium of the Church, Ordinary and Extraordinary? The ALL-MALE PRIESTHOOD? And, I’m sure you’ll remember where this one comes from - Do you believe that our Lord Jesus was BODILY Raised from the Dead on the Third Day?**

## I am not the ex-Anglican seeking to become RC - I’m RC already. So I don’t have to answer your questions. But those who wish to enter the CC, do have to accept the Church’s Faith, in toto** - without leaving things out. That would still be so even if I were an atheist. You, and the TAC, are the ones who want to have exceptions made for you - so you, and the TAC, are the ones who need to be told what to expect. So trying to divert the questions won’t work. ## **

**

Blessings and Peace, Michael

**

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Irenicist:

Yes, disciplinary decisions taken by an ecumenical council are not doctrinal and may be set aside or completely reversed by a subsequent council or by the Pope.

Irenicist

I fear that this would be looking at the rationale of the Ecumenical Councils without sufficient understanding. Their decisions about the territorial integrity of a diocese or a national Church are not disciplinary ones but they flow from the Church’s self-understanding of her unity as based in the Eucharistic assembly and the bishop. I would say, with much regret, that Rome has in the main lost this understanding of the Church and now locates it in the Supreme Pontiff and his will. This loss or (to phrase it more irenically) this overlayering of the patristic mindset is what allows the concept that these are merely disciplinary canons which the Pontiff may revoke if he chooses.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

steve b:

What about Greek, Russian, Coptic, Syrian, etc Orthodox churches in the same city? I’m thinking of cities like Los Angeles.

Immigration doesn’t cause Catholics problems at all. We do just fine. How about you Orthodox having different Orthodox churches even in the same city?

We have discussed this before, I think. The Orthodox in the West, thanks to the influx of immigrants and refugees, are in the same non-canonical situation as the Catholics. More than one bishop has authority over the same territory. Our Churches are very aware that this is contrary to the sacred canons and there are movements to correct it which are gaining momentum.

As a concrete example of the jurisdictional overlapping let’s look at the Catholic Church in Sydney, Australia (very close to me) and see how many Catholic and also Orthodox bishops have authority in that city. It’s a complete hotchpotch of overlapping Catholic bishops and jurisdictions and, to a lesser extent, of Orthodox ones.

1. Maronite Catholic bishop
2. Melkite Catholic bishop
3. Greek Catholic bishop
4. Ukranian Catholic bishop
5. Armenian Catholic bishop
6. Chaldean Catholic bishop
7. Coptic Catholic bishop
8. Ethiopian Catholic bishop
9. Malabarese Catholic bishop
10. Malankarese Catholic bishop
11. Russian Catholic bishop
12. Syrian Catholic bishop

That makes TWELVE Catholic bishops with episcopal rights in Sydney. Add in the regular Latin Catholic bishop and that makes THIRTEEN Catholic bishops all ruling over ONE city!!!

The Orthodox have five bishops with authority over Sydney:

Greek bishop
Russian
Serbian
Romanian
Antiochian

 

[SyroMalankara]

Fr Ambrose:

We have discussed this before, I think. The Orthodox in the West, thanks to the influx of immigrants and refugees, are in the same non-canonical situation as the Catholics. More than one bishop has authority over the same territory. Our Churches are very aware that this is contrary to the sacred canons and there are movements to correct it which are gaining momentum.

As a concrete example of the jurisdictional overlapping let’s look at the Catholic Church in Sydney, Australia (very close to me) and see how many Catholic and also Orthodox bishops have authority in that city. It’s a complete hotchpotch of overlapping Catholic bishops and jurisdictions and, to a lesser extent, of Orthodox ones.

1. Maronite Catholic bishop
2. Melkite Catholic bishop
3. Greek Catholic bishop
4. Ukranian Catholic bishop
5. Armenian Catholic bishop
6. Chaldean Catholic bishop
7. Coptic Catholic bishop
8. Ethiopian Catholic bishop
9. Malabarese Catholic bishop
10. Malankarese Catholic bishop
11. Russian Catholic bishop
12. Syrian Catholic bishop

That makes TWELVE Catholic bishops with episcopal rights in Sydney. Add in the regular Latin Catholic bishop and that makes THIRTEEN Catholic bishops all ruling over ONE city!!!

The Orthodox have five bishops with authority over Sydney:

Greek bishop
Russian
Serbian
Romanian
Antiochian

Fr. I can’t speak for the Orthodox jurisdictions, but as far as the Catholic go. Most of the ones with smaller membership, such as Syro-Malabar, Syro-Malankara, Russian, Copt, Greek, and Ethiopian would be missions of the local Bishop. The others are divided by ethic/Traditional heirarchy. I think this is a very reasonable solution, at least until the details can be worked out.

My personal solution, and this would probably work for the Orthodox as well would be to appoint Vicars General or Corepiscopa to be the leaders in each Tradition, under the local bishop.

Fr. I had another question. I was reading something and I happened to come across a GOA Cathedral’s website and they stated that kneeling (prostration) on Sundays was permitted because most people cannot attend on weekdays. I then saw this same information on a number or Greek sites. Is this a Greek thing or do all E.Orthodox have this option?

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Michael_Thoma:

I was reading something and I happened to come across a GOA Cathedral’s website and they stated that kneeling (prostration) on Sundays was permitted because most people cannot attend on weekdays. I then saw this same information on a number or Greek sites. Is this a Greek thing or do all E.Orthodox have this option?

It is true that there is a modicum of diversity about this in the Western diaspora. The clergy would, by and large, prefer people not to perform prostrations on Saturdays and Sundays but then we bump up against the fact the most parish churches offer only Saturday night and Sunday morning services. In cases where pious people want to prostrate at the time of the Consecration/Epiclesis, most clergy will not forbid them. They understand what impels the people to do this. In a monastery on the other hand, you might get a monk hauling you to your feet and giving you a lecture if you prostrated on a Sunday

This is not a major problem and this small aberration will die away as parish life strengthens and begins to offer more weekday services.

 

[Irenicist]

Fr Ambrose:

I fear that this would be looking at the rationale of the Ecumenical Councils without sufficient understanding. Their decisions about the territorial integrity of a diocese or a national Church are not disciplinary ones but they flow from the Church’s self-understanding of her unity as based in the Eucharistic assembly and the bishop. I would say, with much regret, that Rome has in the main lost this understanding of the Church and now locates it in the Supreme Pontiff and his will. This loss or (to phrase it more irenically) this overlayering of the patristic mindset is what allows the concept that these are merely disciplinary canons which the Pontiff may revoke if he chooses.

Father, I am certainly not here to pick quarrels. Suffice it to say that Catholics and Orthodox do not agree on the disciplinary nature of the provision. In the Catholic understanding, the eucharistic assembly relates to a “community”, not to real estate. As you have noted the existence of territorially overlapping Orthodox jurisdictions, it would seem that the Catholic Church at least has the virtue of living up to its own understanding of the canons.

Catholics see little virtue in the inconsistently followed Orthodox practice. Some see it as the root of an unedifying virus of ecclesiastical “nationalism”, and note the far more common incidence of “territorial” disputes within Orthodoxy (cases in Ukraine, Macedonia and Thrace come to mind).

I doubt many Catholics would recognize themselves and their Church in your suggestion that they “locate” their unity in “the Supreme Pontiff and his will”. The Pope in his Petrine function is the guardian of unity, not its source or its creator.

Irenicist