Anglicans to Rome - Thread 2

[Fr_Ambrose]

steve b:

There is only 1 bishop for each rite in an area. There aren’t multiple bishops for each rite in an area.

Where does canon law allow multiple bishops of multiple rites with authority over one and the same area?

1. What are you going to do to solve this problem for yourselves?.

The problem exists only in the West where Orthodoxy has returned in a haphazard fashion on the heels of immigration and sponanteous conversions and the return of numbers of Uniates (their term for themselves, read the history of the uniate return to Orthodoxy in America.)

See efforts begun at Ligonier
ocl.org/Ligonier%20revisited.htm

See the recent speech of the Antiochian’s First Hierarch in America
antiochian.org/news/NewsReprint20031108BladeInterview.htm

also…
ocl.org/Orthodox%20Unity.htm
and…
ocl.org/ForumOnline0999.htm

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

It seems that we are hijacking Michael’s Anglicans to Rome with the focus now on Orthodoxy.

Mea culpa…​

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Fr Ambrose:

Dear Michael,

I made a small response to this in Message #412

Father Ambrose:

The Russian Orthodox who stops by and chats to Bill and I after Daily mass (or used to when I was able to attend), claimed that Postration was forbidden on Sundays. I guess his congregation was very strict on that rule, and he wasn’t a priest responsible for the souls of his congregation.

So, I was confessing a misapprehension of the issue based purely on what he said, which your post has now cleared up.

Why are you trying to increase you penance in Great Lent? LOL

Blessings to your congregation, Michael

 

[Traditional_Ang]

It seems that we are hijacking Michael’s Anglicans to Rome with the focus now on Orthodoxy.

Mea culpa…​

Father:

I seem to recall that something like that happened towards the end of the first thread.

It probably means that Anglicanism, in its role of the “Via media” is serving to create dialogue between East and West.

I also means that some peopel decided they needed a break from banging their heads against a wall. :banghead:

I can’t believe how stubbornly some will resist others who want to be admitted to the Catholic Church.

If being here makes it your fault, it’s your fault. Otherwise, save the “Mea Culpa” for when you really screw up!

Have a Happy Fast and take care of your ticker. Michael

 

[SyroMalankara]

Fr.

How is it canonical to have 4 bishops in Moscow, strictly going by the canons?

Also, what you mentioned on ‘vicar bishops’, this could make canonical the situation. Each Catholic Church/Rite gets its own Vicar bishop.

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Fr. Ambrose:

The problem has existed in America since 1920 (or even before), and so far, what they’ve done is talk.
Fr Ambrose:

Where does canon law allow multiple bishops of multiple rites with authority over one and the same area?

The problem exists only in the West where Orthodoxy has returned in a haphazard fashion on the heels of immigration and sponanteous conversions and the return of numbers of Uniates (their term for themselves, read the history of the uniate return to Orthodoxy in America.)

See efforts begun at Ligonier
ocl.org/Ligonier%20revisited.htm

See the recent speech of the Antiochian’s First Hierarch in America
antiochian.org/news/NewsReprint20031108BladeInterview.htm

also…
ocl.org/Orthodox%20Unity.htm
and…
ocl.org/ForumOnline0999.htm

So far, I’ve not seen anything that shows anything like action on this issue.

I agree with the speakers who said that Orthodoxy in this country loses a lot of it’s power because of its fragmentation.

For better or for worse, the Orthodox in America need some common leadership so they can have a common voice.

Even with different Rites in Catholicism, there is ONE person who can be relied to speak for the Church as a whole to the world and for God to the Church and to the World. For whatever difficulties Catholicism may have, there is a desk that has the sign, The Buck stops here! sitting on it.

Anglicanism doesn’t have that, and neither does Orthodoxy.

Blessings and Peace to you during this Great Lent, Michael

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Traditional Ang:

The problem has existed in America since 1920 (or even before), and so far, what they’ve done is talk.

Not really. It has only been since the Ligonier meeting in 1994 which gathered most of the American Orthodox bishops together that administrative unity had been seriously discussed for North America.

Even with different Rites in Catholicism, there is ONE person who can be relied to speak for the Church as a whole to the world and for God to the Church and to the World. For whatever difficulties Catholicism may have, there is a desk that has the sign, The Buck stops here! sitting on it.

Anglicanism doesn’t have that, and neither does Orthodoxy.

So isn’t it a miracle of the Holy Spirit that Orthodoxy does not have that special ONE man but all the same it is still preaching the identical faith which it did in the 3rd century and the 8th century and the 12th century. Even that special ONE man has been full of praise for the amazing coherence and endurance of the Orthodox faith, and hey, we did it all without him. Our buck stops with the Holy Spirit whom the Lord sent to His Church, to keep us in all truth. Two thousand years on and His promise is still holding up.

 

[rjs1]

Traditional Ang:

Father:

I also means that some peopel decided they needed a break from banging their heads against a wall. :banghead:

I can’t believe how stubbornly some will resist others who want to be admitted to the Catholic Church.

I can’t believe how stubbornly the “others” who want to be admiited to the Catholic Church are insisting on not having to accept all of the Church’s teachings and yet still be admitted.

 

[Irenicist]

rjs1:

I can’t believe how stubbornly the “others” who want to be admiited to the Catholic Church are insisting on not having to accept all of the Church’s teachings and yet still be admitted.

That’s interesting. I have never met any, stubborn or otherwise, who have so insisted. If you are basing this on Traditional Ang’s original thread, you should keep in mind that he never claimed any TAC members were actually willing to go over to Rome on the condition that they could still dissent As some of us seem intent on bashing your own private ghosts in the form of straw men, can we just let this thread die? Our respective positions (and misapprehensions) should seem to be set in stone to any objective observer by now. Yes/No arguments are particularly unedifying.

Irenicist

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Michael,

Take a look at Messages # 37 and #38 on the "Why Don’t Orthodox Join Catholics?" thread.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=43375

It addresses two points - papal supremacy and the contemporary liturgical disorder in the Roman Catholic Church. The latter point is as pertinent for the TAC as it would be for the Orthodox if we were considering uniting with Rome.

 

[Irish_Melkite]

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

Father Ambrose, a chara

Is it my imagination or did not I previously disabuse you of this fallacy you like to promote? The search mechanism is choosing not to work for the moment and I’m in no mood to recreate from scratch, so it will wait till later.

Many years,

Neil

 

[Matt16_18]

rjs1:

I can’t believe how stubbornly the “others” who want to be admiited to the Catholic Church are insisting on not having to accept all of the Church’s teachings and yet still be admitted.

Easter Vigil
Rite of Initiation

CELEBRATION OF RECEPTION

INVITATION

Presider: Would our candidates, [John and Jane Doe] who requests full communion with the Catholic Church please stand.

Presider: [John and Jane Doe]. Of your own free will, you have asked to be received into the full communion of the Catholic Church. You have made your decision after careful thought, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. I now invite you to come forward with your sponsor and in the presence of this community to profess the Catholic faith. In this faith, you will be one with us for the first time at the Eucharistic table of our Lord Jesus, the sign of the Church’s unity.

Please come forward with your sponsors.

(After a brief explanation of what full communion with the catholic church means, the presider invites [John and Jane Doe] to make their profession of faith.)

Candidates: I believe and profess all that the holy Catholic Church believes, teaches, and proclaims to be revealed by God.

ACT OF RECEPTION

Presider: [John and Jane Doe]. The Lord receives you into the Catholic Church. His loving kindness has led you here, so that in the unity of the Holy Spirit, you may have full communion with us in the faith that you have professed in the presence of God’s family.

Note the words in the Profession of Faith that is made by the candidates asking for the reception into the Church: “I believe and profess ALL that the holy Catholic Church believes, teaches, and proclaims to be revealed by God.

The Profession of Faith does NOT say: “I believe some of the things that the Catholic Church teaches”, nor; “I believe the “essential doctrines” as defined in the first seven Ecumenical Councils”; nor, “I believe everything except the doctrine of papal infallibility”; nor “I believe what my conscience tells me is true …”.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Irish Melkite:

Father Ambrose, a chara

Is it my imagination or did not I previously disabuse you of this fallacy you like to promote?

I believe you pointed out that some of these ethnic communities in Sydney are small and do not have their own bishops living in Sydney but are entrusted for the time being to the care of the Latin ordinary.

I use Sydney as an example because it is the megalopolis which is closest to me and I can easily access information about the various ethnic Catholic Churches there.

If we shift our focus to, say, New York, we would find that these Churches do have resident bishops.

And, Beannachtai na Feile Padraig! We had our town procession last night and the week’s celebrations are under way.

 

[rjs1]

Irenicist:

That’s interesting. I have never met any, stubborn or otherwise, who have so insisted. If you are basing this on Traditional Ang’s original thread, you should keep in mind that he never claimed any TAC members were actually willing to go over to Rome on the condition that they could still dissent As some of us seem intent on bashing your own private ghosts in the form of straw men, can we just let this thread die? Our respective positions (and misapprehensions) should seem to be set in stone to any objective observer by now. Yes/No arguments are particularly unedifying.

Irenicist

Traditional Anglican has been arguing for the possibility of being received by the Catholic Church, while not accepting several doctrines.
I merely used some of his own words about stubborness to point out that, if he is calling Catholics stubborn because they insist on full acceptance of the Church’s teachings as a condition of entry, then surely those who keep wanting entry on their own terms instead of the Church’s terms could also be considered stubborn.

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Dear rjs1:

I realize that I’m a retread “the cat dragged in” some 17 months ago after 25 years of wandering down the “Road to Jericho”. That has led (as Irenicist has thoughtfully out) to a certain imprecision in speach/terms). At the same time, I was defending the Pope’s right and Authority per his Petrine Office to make the offer I inadiquately discribed, NOT the right of the TAC members of Dissent from Church Teaching. I don’t think you understood that.

As I was originally informed, Members of the TAC would not have been required to give PUBLIC ASSENT to the de fide dogma of the Catholic faith, the Infallibility of the Pope. Their leaders (since this is a Church being accepted into Communion with Rome and NOT an individual (The Precedents and Formula for this are already laid out) would still be required to give PUBLIC ASSENT to ALL of the other de fide Dogmas of the Catholic Church (with the exception fo those resting only on the Infallibility of the Pope) including PAPAL SUPREMACY which was well established before the First Vatican Council.

rjs1:

Traditional Anglican has been arguing for the possibility of being received by the Catholic Church, while not accepting several doctrines.
I merely used some of his own words about stubborness to point out that, if he is calling Catholics stubborn because they insist on full acceptance of the Church’s teachings as a condition of entry, then surely those who keep wanting entry on their own terms instead of the Church’s terms could also be considered stubborn.

Since you’ve misunderstood what I said, I need to emphasize this. At NO time would ANY Member of the New Anglican Catholic Church have been allowed to DISSENT from ANY dogma of the Catholic Church, PUBLICLY or otherwise.

BTW, AT NO TIME DID I SAY THAT CATHOLICS WERE STUBBORN who tried to explain what they believed to be the teaching the teaching of the church in Love and Charity. I did say that those who repetitively stated the Law of the Church, while refusing the recognise the humanity of the people who are applying to be included in the Church while facing persecution from their former friends and co-religionists for what they believed to be the Catholic Faith were lacking in Charity and would only serve to drive them away. Please understand that after some 3 days of hearing hearing nothing but the Law, much of which wasn’t even applicable, used as a bludgeon against me.

I believed what my source told me, and based on some precedents relating to Eastern Catholics (esp. the Articles of Brest), that the Pope had the Right and Authority to make the Offer, with the notion that later generations would be taught the fullness of the Faith as Eastern Catholics have been for hundreds of years.

Regarding some form of “Shared Communion” (If you have a more precise term…), Vatican II stated that the Eucharist should be offered to EO Christians forced to attend Masses at Catholic Parishes; Old Catholics (until they began ordaining women “Priests”) were, and members of the Polish National Catholic Church are, allowed to receive the Eucharist in Catholic churches under certain Limited Circumstances; and the Vatican has very recently decided to provisionally allow the Swiss Church to offer the Eucharist to unspecified “Protestants” (probably dissaffected Anglicans from the C of E).

One poster said that these precedents were neither applicable nor on point, but could provide no reason why. I’m sorry, but simply saying that something is not applicable, when they appear to be so, doesn’t make them not applicable.

Since I posted the first post on this thread, I’ve had occasion to interview a TAC Bishop at length on this topic. He assures me that no such offer was made, but that the Bishops of the TAC would be responsible for instructing the members of the new Anglican Catholic Church in the fullness of the Faith, as the Bishops, etc. of the Eastern Catholic Churches were, upon the acceptance of the TAC’s acceptance into the Catholic Church and the name change to the Anglican Catholic Church.

As was done in the Eastern Catholic Churches, The Patriarch/Metropolitan/Primate (and some Bishops) would go to Rome and make the Profession of Faith in the name of the new Anglican Catholic Church. They would then be responsible to insure that the fulness of the Faith is taught to the members. We’re already being “encouraged” to buy and read the Catechism.

There would be no Latin Rite Priest or Bishop administering a Rite of Initiation as described by Matt.

I hope this eases any confusion. BTW, next time, before calling someone stubborn, you might want to ask what he meant.

Blessings and Peace. Michael

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Fr. Ambrose:

As you know, I’m a supporter of Papal supremacy. One thing that’s avtually shocked me here are the limits CATHOLIC POSTERS have wanted to place on the Pope’s Authority when the subject became what he could do Pastorally to make the transition easier for members of the TAC. I suspect some of them would take the Orthodox position if it would KEEP US OUT!
Fr Ambrose:

Michael,

Take a look at Messages # 37 and #38 on the "Why Don’t Orthodox Join Catholics?" thread.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=43375

It addresses two points - papal supremacy and the contemporary liturgical disorder in the Roman Catholic Church. The latter point is as pertinent for the TAC as it would be for the Orthodox if we were considering uniting with Rome.

I do believe that you just might be right about liturgigical problems in the Catholic church, and I live in a Diocese that’s particulary notorious for many of those “Innovations”, esp. ones that seem to effect the presentation of doctrine. That’s one thing that’s caused me to stay put.

The Vatican may be figuring to influence the “evolution” of the Novus Ordo by bringing in the Anglican Missal (with the TAC) which would allow them to bring some majesty and awe back into the Mass.

I think that a lot of the LIBERALS are actually afraid that some of the people you described will start attending the Anglican Catholic Church. What they don’t realize is that Canon Law would make that very difficult unless they officially changed Rites.

What I would be more afraid of is that some people would start demanding something more like the Anglican Missal in their own Parishes.

Blessings and Peace, Michael

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Traditional Ang:

I think that a lot of the LIBERALS are actually afraid that some of the people you described will start attending the Anglican Catholic Church. What they don’t realize is that Canon Law would make that very difficult unless they officially changed Rites.

I don’t know about this changing Rites. I find it difficult to grasp that Rome would create a sui juris Church which is essentially of the Latin Rite. It is more likely that they would take you in as a Prelature (rather like the status of Opus Dei.)

But even if you were a sui juris Church there would be nothing to stop everybody of a mind from attending and communing. They couldn’t have their marriages and funerals with you but just about everything else.

 

[SyroMalankara]

Fr.,

Could you explain to me how having more than one bishop in a large metropolitan [post #438] is canonical (strictly speaking), even though more than one is needed because of population?

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Michael_Thoma:

Fr.,

Could you explain to me how having more than one bishop in a large metropolitan [post #438] is canonical (strictly speaking), even though more than one is needed because of population?

Large metropolitan areas can divided into several dioceses.

 

[Matt16_18]

Traditional Ang:

Since I posted the first post on this thread, I’ve had occasion to interview a TAC Bishop at length on this topic. He assures me that no such offer was made, but that the Bishops of the TAC would be responsible for instructing the members of the new Anglican Catholic Church in the fullness of the Faith, as the Bishops, etc. of the Eastern Catholic Churches were, upon the acceptance of the TAC’s acceptance into the Catholic Church and the name change to the Anglican Catholic Church.

As was done in the Eastern Catholic Churches, The Patriarch/Metropolitan/Primate (and some Bishops) would go to Rome and make the Profession of Faith in the name of the new Anglican Catholic Church. They would then be responsible to insure that the fulness of the Faith is taught to the members. We’re already being “encouraged” to buy and read the Catechism.

There would be no Latin Rite Priest or Bishop administering a Rite of Initiation as described by Matt.

I hope this eases any confusion.

You are still insisting that the Anglicans belong to a church in the proper sense of the term. I believe that Rome sees the TAC as a Protestant ecclesial community with invalid sacraments. Michael Thoma has implied that Rome might think that the TAC are really closet members of the PNCC, but that is just being silly.

One poster said that these precedents were neither applicable nor on point, but could provide no reason why. I’m sorry, but simply saying that something is not applicable, when they appear to be so, doesn’t make them not applicable.

The comparison that you are making between the Anglicans and the Eastern Catholics is false because the Anglicans do not posses valid orders. The precedents that apply to the TAC are easily found by looking at the Anglicans that have become Catholics.