Anglicans to Rome - Thread 2

  • Thread starter Thread starter Traditional_Ang
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Traditional Ang:
Fr. Ambrose:
  1. They are being required to accept Papal Supremacy - That was in place at the time of the Anglican Schism, and was the reason King Henry VIII could not get his annulment from Katherine of Aragon.
Click to expand...
Wouldn’t accepting Papal “supremecy” require you to accept what ever the Papal says, or believes. I don’t understand how this could be possible to accept the Holy See as supreme authority over the christian world, and yet not accept all of its teachings. kind of Impossible…isn’t it?

MHO:
Personally I submit, fully, and whatever the Church[led by the Pope] decides is fine with me.
I’m all about unity, but I really don’t like the Idea of “compromise”.

I will be either hot or cold, and not luke warm. I will either accept His teachings or none at all, lest He spit me out.

What do you all think?

Peace of the Lord be with you!
 
HEPWORTH: We are not applying to be part of the Roman rite. We are Anglican and catholic. We have an Anglican Use Rite not used anywhere else in the world. We want to be united but not absorbed.
Click to expand...
We have something to offer the world of Catholicism. What we have to offer is our evangelism, we balance the beauty of holiness, the Anglican heritage of lay involvement as well as the highly developed Anglican concept of a family at the heart of the parish rather than a celibate priest. These are charisms the current church needs.
Click to expand...
i disagree. there is no church more pro-family then the catholic church. considering it’s ONLY the catholic church who has held on to the indissolubility of marriage and the rejection of contraceptives of all forms and abortion. (of course this may be technically true but not practiced by many catholics especially here in america). in fact, it was the anglicans who first allowed contraceptives in marriage in the 2nd lambeth conference. this guy’s pride is getting in the way.

historically, he can’t say that the married priesthood is a legitimate tradition passed on since the days of the apostles because the church of england was always part of the roman church until henry the 8th. it is a result of protestantism which rejected the ministerial priesthood and celibacy as a prefigurement and sign of our future destiny where we will not be given up in marriage but united with God the bridegroom. there is no way the pope will allow this because he’s in the roman rite weather he wants to believe it or not.
 
GKC,

One correction–the Book of Divine Worship is not based on the 1928 but on the 1979, with the Eucharistic Prayer in Rite 1 being a translation of the Tridentine and in Rite II the regular “Novus Ordo” options. This I suspect is one reason why the Anglican Use has not proven more attractive to traditionalist Anglicans. I believe that the TAC would keep a form of the 1928. But perhaps Michael can fill us in on this.

Edwin
 
40.png
Contarini:
GKC,

One correction–the Book of Divine Worship is not based on the 1928 but on the 1979, with the Eucharistic Prayer in Rite 1 being a translation of the Tridentine and in Rite II the regular “Novus Ordo” options. This I suspect is one reason why the Anglican Use has not proven more attractive to traditionalist Anglicans. I believe that the TAC would keep a form of the 1928. But perhaps Michael can fill us in on this.

Edwin
Click to expand...
Greetings, my friend.

Oops. You are correct, of course. My faux pas.

I would expect that the TAC would prefer something along the 28 lines, if “expect” is the word I want here.

Did I ever mention who had done the frontispiece to the Book of Divine Worship? I have some of his original work, myself.

GKC
 
VIRTUOSITY: You were once a Roman Catholic priest, now an Anglo-Catholic Archbishop. Are you marching inevitably towards Rome?
Click to expand...
HEPWORTH: We have formally asked Rome to be an Anglican Church in full communion with the Holy See. We have been in conversation with Rome for over 12 years.
Click to expand...
i think hepworth has an agenda to keep a married priesthood because he probably left the catholic church to get married. also, he’s been in dialouge for 12 years!! i expect it’ll take another 12 years for this to work out. the case for celibacy in the roman rite is too strong.
 
**
Traditional Ang:
Fr. Ambrose:
Click to expand...
I did see you post, AFTER the other thread had been euthanized due to the FURBALL! The information Lockdown explains why I couldn’t find anything to confirm my primary source, and why I felt like Don Corleone in “The Godfather”.
**I can only tell you that my source is UNIMPEACHABLE, and that I wouldn’t have run the story without that. **
This is the sum of what I know:
1. The TAC is seeking and being offerred the same status within the Catholic Church as the Eastern Catholic Churches have received.
2. They are being required to accept Papal Supremacy - That was in place at the time of the Anglican Schism, and was the reason King Henry VIII could not get his annulment from Katherine of Aragon.
3. They aren’t being required to accept Papal Infallibility. I don’t know why, but that is what’s been offerred.
As I’ve said, they would be fools not to accept, esp. given the state of the Church most of us have left.
Blessings to you and your congregation.
In Christ, Michael****## Then why must most other Catholics accept Papal Infallibility ? **
**Alternatively - why are your crowd being underfed / “sold short” ? 🙂 **
…still waiting for an answer explaining how Catholics can have different things to believe, yet be of one Faith (IOW, how one Catholic’s sin of heresy can be another’s permitted liberty)… ##
 
**
40.png
prodromos:
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.
Click to expand...
****## Only “cautious” ? That sort of approach makes hay of every conciliar definition going: either something is divinely revealed, and must be believed on pain of committing heresy and earning Hell - or not. How can something be divinely revealed, yet be optional for some, but not for others ? One might as soon have a Bible which contains books which some must accept, and that others are free to leave out. In fact, that detail is always coming up in “Prot-Cath” discussion. ## **
**
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?
Click to expand...
John.## It’s unconvincing here too, because there is plenty of “unbelief” in the CC too. I can’t off-hand think of a problem in Anglicanism that is not also to be found in the CC. **

**I fear some people are going to be in for some nasty shocks. **

**Conversely, if they know these things go on in the CC too - what is the positive attraction of the CC ? **

Maybe the problems the two share - or do not, if any - have little if anything to do with theology and churchmanship. Just a thought. ##
 
Traditional Ang:
So, with that in mind, as of two weeks ago, I was informed by my source, who happens to be my Pastor, that an offer had been made to Archbishop John Hepworth, the Primate of the Traditional Anglican Communion by Pope John Paul II for FULL COMMUNION with the Catholic Church and His Holiness, Pope Paul II.

The details were no less astounding to me than they were to many of the other poster of the forum, because they included that the TAC would NOT be required to accept the Infallibility of the Pope or the two Marion doctrines (The Assumption of the BVM & the Immaculate Conception of the BVM).
Click to expand...
You better check your sources again and read for yourself what was actually written down by the Pope. What you are saying is impossible. Anglicans can never be in full communion with the Catholic Church unless they accept ALL of the infallible dogmas of the Catholic Church.
 
Hello all:

I get the impression that this arrangement between Abp. Hepworth and the Holy See is something that will let the TAC “come in out of the cold” for a while, that is, a somewhat tentative and provisional union. This seems to be true since the TAC will not in fact have to share the same faith with Rome, though it seems there are hopes that this shared faith will grow over time?

I think it’s necessary that both sides be well aware of this, as it’s really a matter of honesty. Such an arrangement has to be only provisional, temporary, or it seems to me that it would really become a lie. Who could accept union with Rome if he rejected some of the Roman Primacy as false?

Don’t misunderstand me, however: I am not in opposition to the apparent proposal, as it seems that the basis for it is to be found in the long-time willingness of Rome to provide sacraments to separated Eastern Christians who do not have recourse to their own ministers, for their own spiritual good. Or am I missing something?

Regards,
Joannes
 
Fr. Ambrose:

Your source might hav this one confused with a similar one involving many of the same cast of characters. That’s what St. Mary’s and a couple of other parishes were seeking in the late 1970’s - early 80’s. From what I’ve heard, the Pope went for it, but it was blocked by the local ordinary.
Fr Ambrose:
My own unimpeachable source informs that the TAC is seeking, not a sui juris status such as the Eastern Catholic Churches enjoy, but to be integrated into the Roman Catholic Church as a prelature. This would give them a status akin to Opus Dei. The Indult Catholics also hope to become a prelature but so far this has been blocked by the bishops.

I think that the traditional Episcopalians have already tried for a prelature only a few years ago with the Episcopalian Bishop Pope of Texas. This was supported by Cardinal Law and by Cardinal Ratzinger. For some reason which eludes me the proposal evaporated.
Click to expand...
In the 1980’s, things got chaotic in the Anglican Church of North America (the structure that was formed by the people who left the then PECUSA in 1977). I’m sure that others joined in the quest. The Anglican use parishes and the Western Rite of the Orthodox Church are both groups that came out of that situation.

Remember, my father died as a member of the Orthodox Church and Faith.

As I said before, St. Mary’s will have COMPANY this Sunday, and I shall endeavor to get more details then.

Blessings to you and your congregation.

In Christ, Michael
 
40.png
jimmy:
Thankyou Michael, I was a little confused because, from your first post it seemed like this might be like a back slapping type of thing where both accept the other. But you have cleared it up for me. It seems like it is much more of a commitment than what I thought.
Click to expand...
Jimmy:

To those of us who are ready, it isn’t much of a commitment.

We’re working out how to convince the “Nervous Nellies” that there’s a LOT more for them to GAIN from doing this than for them to lose.

I remember some of the chaos over at the Anglican Church of North American and when they tried to consecrate a layman as Bishop!

He told me it was the fastest he had run in nearly forty years, and he was 78 at the time! LOL - He did when he told the story!

Sorry if there was any misapprehension.

Blessings, Michael
 
TWF:

I understand and agree to all of the follower. We have amemeber of the Congregation at St. Mary’s who can defend the below FROM SCRIPTURE! I’ve seen him do it!..
40.png
twf:
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.
  1. Ecumenical councils are infallible.
  2. Papal infallibility was declared by Council, and thus is infallible.
  3. The “Marian doctrines” mentioned above were declared infallibly by the Pope.
  4. To disagree with any infallibly declared dogma of the Holy Catholic Church is, by defintion heresy.
  5. To be in heresy, is to remove oneself from the mystical body of the Holy Catholic Church.
Therefore, I do not see how it is canonically nor mystically possible for a body of Christians who deny three infallibly proclaimed dogmas of Holy Mother Church to be in full communion with the Holy Father.

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.
Click to expand...
…This is what the Holy Father is thinking…

GKC - #34:

Orignally Posted by oat soda

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.

GKC’s answer

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.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=462264&postcount=34

You have a Pope who knows when and how to think like a PASTOR and a SHEPHERD!

Blessings and peace to you.

In Christ, Michael
 
John:

I’m sorry if I offended you by my choice of words, but the two situations couldn’t be more dissimilar! They just couldn’t be more different!..
40.png
prodromos:
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.
Click to expand...
…ECUSA recently CONSECRATED a man as Bishop who left his wife and young children for his gay lover. Do you think that Orthodoxy would ever conceive of doing or allowing such a thing?

The Anglican Communion not only has WOMEN PRIESTS, THEY HAVE WOMEN BISHOPS! Do you think Orthodoxy would even consider the former, let alone the later?

…ECUSA has a “Working Theology” which bears as much resemblance of the Gospel of Salvation as I do to a sprinter! I covered that here:

Re: Ecumenism-New American Bible-Offensive Language to Jews Deleted Post #44
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=437108&postcount=44

Please read the post, and the articles, and tell me if you think Orthodoxy would preach and live by the ECUSA “Working Theology”?

John, I could go on and on, but the 2 situations bear NO resemblance. Anglicans in the Anglican Communion (esp. those in the Northern Hemisphere) are not hearing the Gospel of Jesus Christ. They’re hearing socially correct Gobbledygook preached instead! I would never even think of accusing Fr. Ambrose of doing that to his congregation! And, Fr. Ambrose would be caught dead before he did it!

And, John, on top of that, there’s the squabbling nature of the Alphabet Soup Church groups that the various dissenting Anglicans belong to. One attempt at unity was simply ruined due, not to doctrinal disputes, but to personality difficulties and human pride! It was an absolute DISASTER!

I know the poor man who was tasked with trying to get them together, and that’s all I’m at liberty to tell you.

Again, I’m sorry if you were offended at my choice of words, but they were NOT intended for you or any other Orthodox! And, they can’t possibly apply to you given the state of the Orthodox Churches.

John, I’m sorry I didn’t respond earlier, but I was busy on another Thread.

May God richly bless you.

In Christ, Michael
 
Buzzcut:

Hepworth and friends began talks with the Vatican in 1994! NO ONE KNEW ABOUT IT!

I’ve only recently found out about that EARLY DATE my self DURING THE PAST FEW MONTHS!..
40.png
buzzcut:
That seems to me to be big news. Why isn’t it in the newspapers and all over the internet?
Click to expand...
…Abp. Hepwroth PERSONALLY notified all parishes he could visit of the nature and progress of the talks FEB-APR, 2004. Because I was at St, Mary’s, and we were among his first stops, we were among the first to be told.

At that time, we were sworn to secrecy. I understand the information was given to the to the parishes Abp. Hepworth wasn’t able to visit. They were also told to keep it quiet.

What you’ve had since then is a 300,000 person Conspiracy until the information was partially broken last Dec., and I was allowed to post details on the last Anglicans to Rome Thread.

Apparently, I got permission to post before everything was put into LOCK-DOWN! Fr. Ambrose found out about the LOCK-DOWN when he was trying to confirm my story during the last Thread!

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=450952&postcount=281

Well, thay can’t blame me for posting the information. I confirmed that I had permission and told my source where I would be posting the information.

Just a thought, actually a realization…As I said, I told my source WHERE I WOULD BE POSTING THE INFORMATION. Brothers and Sisters, if you wanted to see how believing Catholics, those who take their Faith seriously, would take such an offer to a group such as the one I belong to, how would you find the information out? That’s esp. if you wanted to know if the FAITHFUL would accept my group under these terms?

Well, are we in? Do I need to tell the rest of the TAC who’re ready to get their “Swimsuits” ready?

It is just a thought, that maybe people a lot smarter than I want to make sure that you guys will accept the deal before they do it this summer.

Blessings and peace to you all.

In Christ, Michael
 
40.png
GKC:
Greetings, my friend.

Oops. You are correct, of course. My faux pas.

I would expect that the TAC would prefer something along the 28 lines, if “expect” is the word I want here.

Did I ever mention who had done the frontispiece to the Book of Divine Worship? I have some of his original work, myself.

GKC
Click to expand...
GKC:

From everything I’ve heard, You’re right. 1928 BCP with a very liberal laddling of the Anglican Missal. I’ve heard there would be some changes, but I don’t know what they would be.

Sign up as a “Parishioner” of St. Mary’s so you get on the “Listserv”, and You Know Who will start sending you copies of the Sunday Bulletins in Adobe format (that has the propers and readings of the day). Send some money, and you can get the Mass booklet which has some other nifty prayers included as well as the Unchanging parts of the Mass.

For “Low Mass” we do the OLD Confitier in English, and a couple of other changes from the BCP.

The effort might be worth it if you really want to know.

May God continue to bless your Lentin Fast.

In Christ, Michael
 
Matt:

The one source has repeated his story, 2x. As I said, we’re having COMPANY in the form of a BISHOP (and a Bishop-Elect) this Sunday. I shall take the opportunity to question them both…
40.png
Matt16_18:
You better check your sources again and read for yourself what was actually written down by the Pope. What you are saying is impossible. Anglicans can never be in full communion with the Catholic Church unless they accept ALL of the infallible dogmas of the Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
…As I said in a previous post, I’ve realized that part of this exercise may have been to see if you as Faithful Catholics would accept this group of new Catholics who accept all the Church’s Doctrine with 3 notable exceptions: Papal Infallibility, The Immaculate Conception of the BVM and the Assumption of the BVM. Please understand, many Anglicans ACCEPT these doctrines, and many Catholics act as if they don’t.

The question is this: This is the Pope’s offer, and someone seems intent on YOUR answer. Will you accept us as Catholics if I and those who agree with me can get this Quarrelsome group of Anglicans to remember what they signed on for and to take the deal?

Please pray for God’s Grace in this situation. I think we’re all going to need it.

Blessings to you on your Lenten Fast.

In Christ, Michael
 
Gottle:

Sorry I was gone. If you search my postings and activities for the past two days, you’ll see that I was quite busy and then took a day off to recover…

Gottle of Geer said:
******## Then why must most other Catholics accept Papal Infallibility ? **
**Alternatively - why are your crowd being underfed / “sold short” ? 🙂 **
…still waiting for an answer explaining how Catholics can have different things to believe, yet be of one Faith (IOW, how one Catholic’s sin of heresy can be another’s permitted liberty)… ##
Click to expand...

…You might have to argue with the Pope about all of that. I’m not the one who made the offer. He is.

If you really believe that he’s infallible, then you have to trust that he knows (on some level) what he’s doing. This is a man who’s been led of God for most of his life, and has made far more courageous, and right, calls than I can remember.

Gottle, I’ve just found out that I’m not nearly as smart as I thought I was, and definitely not so as he is. Don’t ask me how.

This is the last thing he’s going to do before he dies, and you just have to trust that he knows that he’s doing, and that he’s arrived at this decision after a LONG period of prayer and discernment.

I really believe that Pope John Paul II has only 3 questions now:
  1. Will the Bishops, Clergy and Parishioners of the TAC take the deal His holiness has offered? You already know my thoughts on that.
  2. How many other dissident Anglicans will join the “Trans-Tiberian Swim”? How many of the Alphabet Soup will decide that stability, order and Authority really are that necessary? How many other Anglicans still with the Anglican Communion or the C of E will decide to return to the Catholic Church? You also know my thoughts on this.
  3. Will Faithful Catholics accept these new Catholics as Catholics? Or, Will you regard us as somehow “impaired”? I just thought of this one during the past two hours.
Sorry I didn’t get back to you sooner.

May God bless your Lentin Fast.

In Christ, Michael
 
Traditional Ang:
If you really believe that he’s infallible, then you have to trust that he knows (on some level) what he’s doing.
Click to expand...
So the Pope is exercising his infallibility in not requiring some “potential” Catholics to believe he is infallible. This is weird :confused:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top