Anglicans to Rome - Thread 2

[Fr_Ambrose]

I remember that in the previous thread the Orthodox took some stick because they re-chrismate (re-confirm) converts. It has been drawn to my attention that at the Easter Vigil in a few weeks approx. 65 Anglicans will be re-confirmed when they enter the Roman Catholic Church in the Diocese of Scranton.

The Diocese of Scranton will also re-confirm and re-ordain the Episcopalian priest, Eric Bergman a married man, who will become the pastor of this new Anglican Use parish.

My question: why the heartache over the Orthodox Chrismation of converts?

 

[Contarini]

Fr. Ambrose,

I think the objection is to the re-chrismation of Catholic converts to Orthodoxy. Catholics can’t legitimately object to the Orthodox rechrismating Episcopalians, since Catholics do the same thing. I believe you have misunderstood.

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[Joannes]

Hello Father Ambrose:

I think Catholics would whack Eastern Orthodox on the rechrismation issue for two reasons:

(1) Rechrismating converts from Catholicism now shows EO doctrinal befuddlement, since all the EO churches have not always done so. The current practice seems to show either uncertainty as to validity of orders or willingness to attempt conferring the sacrament twice.

(2) They are not ecumenical in rechrismating former Catholics who have already been confirmed, since the Catholic Church has always recognized the validity of sacraments administered by EO’s. Thus the case is not parallel to reconfirming converts from Anglicanism, whose orders are, in Rome’s eyes, at least suspect, so that Rome cannot be certain that these Anglicans have already been confirmed.

That’s how I see it.

Regards,
Joannes

 

[Matt16_18]

Traditional Ang:

…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.

It is a pointless exercise you are offering because the Catholic Church is never going to compromise the truth. All three doctrines that you have listed are solemnly defined dogmas of the Catholic Church. There is only one faith.

I recommend that you read “DOMINUS IESUS”
ON THE UNICITY AND SALVIFIC UNIVERSALITY
OF JESUS CHRIST AND THE CHURCH
… there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him. … the ecclesial communities which have not preserved the valid Episcopate and the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery, [Anglicans] are not Churches in the proper sense; however, those who are baptized in these communities are, by Baptism, incorporated in Christ and thus are in a certain communion, albeit imperfect, with the Church. Baptism in fact tends per se toward the full development of life in Christ, through the integral profession of faith, the Eucharist, and full communion in the Church.

“The Christian faithful are therefore not permitted to imagine that the Church of Christ is nothing more than a collection — divided, yet in some way one — of Churches and ecclesial communities; nor are they free to hold that today the Church of Christ nowhere really exists, and must be considered only as a goal which all Churches and ecclesial communities must strive to reach”. In fact, “the elements of this already-given Church exist, joined together in their fullness in the Catholic Church and, without this fullness, in the other communities”.

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?

I don’t believe for a second that the Pope offered to renounce three solemnly defined dogmas of the Catholic Church as some sort of bizarre exercise in “ecumenism” with Anglicans. Check your sources and see what has been written down by the Pope. I am quite sure you have been misled.

 

[oat_soda]

It is a pointless exercise you are offering because the Catholic Church is never going to compromise the truth. All three doctrines that you have listed are solemnly defined dogmas of the Catholic Church. There is only one faith.

i have to agree with matt16_18. there is no way the pope would allow an anglican catholic church to teach contrary to the truth. it may be that the pope will allow certain members within the TAC communion with rome even if they do not believe in these doctrines because of ignorance. once in communion with rome the TAC must teach all of the truth contained in the church. i think the church recognizes a heirarchy of truth and will allow a imperfect union in the hope that those who do not yet believe will come to embrace the fullness of truth. but, the church will never tolerate any teaching contrary to that of the catholic church.

UNITATIS REDINTEGRATIO chp2 #11
Moreover, in ecumenical dialogue, Catholic theologians standing fast by the teaching of the Church and investigating the divine mysteries with the separated brethren must proceed with love for the truth, with charity, and with humility. When comparing doctrines with one another, they should remember that in Catholic doctrine there exists a “hierarchy” of truths, since they vary in their relation to the fundamental Christian faith. Thus the way will be opened by which through fraternal rivalry all will be stirred to a deeper understanding and a clearer presentation of the unfathomable riches of Christ.(34)

I think the biggest issue is the problem of celibacy. hepworth left the catholic church as a priest probably to get married. a married clergy has no legitimacy in the roman rite and to allow future priests and even bishops in the roman rite to get married would be impossible. but their liturgy should remain intact and the church must preserve all rites of the catholic faith as SC states:

1. Lastly, in faithful obedience to tradition, the sacred Council declares that holy Mother Church holds all lawfully acknowledged rites to be of equal right and dignity; that she wishes to preserve them in the future and to foster them in every way.

.

 

[Irenicist]

Hi all,

I have been following this thread and its predecessor for some weeks now and found it facinating. Not being a party to the negotiations Trad Anglican refers to, I can only speculate. But I can see how such an offer could have been made to the TAC without involving any betrayal of the Catholic faith.

First off, there is an enormous difference between not personally finding it possible to subscribe to a belief as an article of faith, and actually denying it. One has to assume that the Holy Father does not intend new members from the TAC to be a source of dissent. TAC members who would argue that those beliefs were actually untrue would presumably not be accepted into the Church. What then of those TAC members who, while not personally convinced, would allow that those beliefs could legitimately be true, see no inherent contradiction between those beliefs and those they hold, recognize that the infallible Church teaches these beliefs, and have no objection to its continuing to do so? Would you deny them access to communion while contentedly extending it to the large number of cradle Catholics who privately hold similar doubts but aren’t required to pass a theological litmus test each time they approach the communion rail (where such rails still exist).

Next there is the fact that Church does not consider these doctrines to be new. Only their wording and formulation could be new. The Church does not invent new doctrine. So if TAC members can demonstrate that they can adhere without qualms to the formulations these doctrines had in, say the 14th century, why should they be denied entry into the communion? Is not the Church the same now, as it was then, as it was in the third century, and as it was at Pentacost? Or was the Church granting communion for more than 18 centuries to a wide group of people who, unknown to themselves, were unwitting heretics from never having heard nineteenth and twentieth century doctrinal definitions?

The same reasoning applies with respect to the Eastern rite Catholic Churches whose liturgy does not require the Creed to be recited with the filioque. They allow that the filioque (properly understood in all its nuances) is true, and so do not formally dissent. Yet they legitimately claim that the formulation is easily apt to be widely misunderstood (as it is by the bulk of the Eastern Orthodox whose ritual they share), and so do not use it, even though it has been approved by ecumenical councils to which they have subsequently subscribed or even participated in.

Similarly, TAC members admitted into the Church, while not being allowed to reject the underlying truth of these doctrines, might legitimately question whether they have received the most appropriate, accurate or indeed definitive formulation possible. Even the Creed was refined from ecumenical council to ecumenical council, after all, and only those who rejected the new formulations outright were anathemized.

Let’s wait until we can read the fine print of the offer before concluding that the Holy Father has apostized, or that Trad Anglican’s source is just blowing smoke. On the surface, I don’t see anything implausible in his story.

Irenicist

 

[oat_soda]

They allow that the filioque (properly understood in all its nuances) is true, and so do not formally dissent. Yet they legitimately claim that the formulation is easily apt to be widely misunderstood (as it is by the bulk of the Eastern Orthodox whose ritual they share), and so do not use it…

here is the fundamental problem. the church recognizes rites as

ewtn.com/expert/expertfaqframe.asp
A Rite represents an ecclesiastical, or church, tradition about how the sacraments are to be celebrated. … This essence - of matter, form and intention - derives from the divinely revealed nature of the particular sacrament. It cannot be changed by the Church. Scripture and Sacred Tradition, as interpreted by the Magisterium, tells us what is essential in each of the sacraments (2 Thes. 2:15).

When the apostles brought the Gospel to the major cultural centers of their day the essential elements of religious practice were inculturated into those cultures. …essential elements were clothed in the symbols and trappings of the particular people… rituals conveyed the desired spiritual meaning to that culture. In this way the Church becomes all things to all men that some might be saved (1 Cor. 9:22).The Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches describes rites this way in canon 28,

1. A rite is the liturgical, theological, spiritual and disciplinary patrimony, culture and circumstances of history of a distinct people, by which its own manner of living the faith is manifested in each Church sui iuis.
2. The rites treated in this code, unless otherwise stated, are those which arise from the Alexandrian, Antiochene, Armenian, Chaldean and Constantinopolitan traditions. (no anglican)

the patrimony of the anglican church is the roman rite. while it may be a considered separate church in the roman rite, it could never be a seperate rite based on its patrimony. any differences in faith were a result of protestantism’s partial rejection of catholic teachings. this is different then the eastern rites who for the most part, have always maintained the catholic faith in its fullness but have expressed the same unchanging faith in different ways. anglicanism similarity with catholicism is a result of the oxford and ritualist movements of the 19th century which sought to make the anglican church more “roman catholic”.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Joannes:

Hello Father Ambrose:

I think Catholics would whack Eastern Orthodox on the rechrismation issue for two reasons:

(1) Rechrismating converts from Catholicism now shows EO doctrinal befuddlement, since all the EO churches have not always done so. The current practice seems to show either uncertainty as to validity of orders or willingness to attempt conferring the sacrament twice.

Dear Ioannes, your fondness for the word befuddlement is indicative of something

There is no befuddlement on the side of the Orthodox.

The bishop decides how to receive converts, and the three tradtional ways are:

1. Baptism, Chrismation, Eucharist
2. Confession, Chrismation, Eucharist
3. Confession, Confession of Faith, Eucharist

Where’s the befuddlement?

The Orthodox confer Chrismation twice when needed, such as a return from apostacy. It’s always been that way… no befuddlement.

But you are taking us off topic.

My question concerned the Continuing Anglican Movement. Why do Catholics re-confirm them and why then do Catholics get upset when the Orthodox chrismate Catholic converts?

 

[ProdigalSun]

oat soda:

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.

Hello O.S. I just came onto this thread and have not read all of the posts here yet so I’m not sure if this has been covered but “the Churh” does allow marriages of it’s preists in some sircumstances. For instance the St. Michaels parish in the Diocese of Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Has A priest who is a convert from the Anglican church. He was a minister there for quite a few years and left there to become a preist in the Catholic Church. He was ordained just a few years back and he was able to even keep his wife.

Once again sorry if this topic has come up already as I said I have not read the full post.

As far as the topic of this post goes. I welcome all people of every faith to come into Communion with Christs one true Apostolic church. Christs body, blood soul, & divinity is here waiting for all of you!

God Bless!:tiphat:

 

[GKC]

Fr Ambrose:

Dear Ioannes, your fondness for the word befuddlement is indicative of something

There is no befuddlement on the side of the Orthodox.

The bishop decides how to receive converts, and the three tradtional ways are:

1. Baptism, Chrismation, Eucharist
2. Confession, Chrismation, Eucharist
3. Confession, Confession of Faith, Eucharist

Where’s the befuddlement?

The Orthodox confer Chrismation twice when needed, such as a return from apostacy. It’s always been that way… no befuddlement.

But you are taking us off topic.

My question concerned the Continuing Anglican Movement. Why do Catholics re-confirm them and why then do Catholics get upset when the Orthodox chrismate Catholic converts?

My guess would be because the RCC does not recognise the validity of Anglican orders, hence the Anglican confirmation was not done by a bishop in Apostolic Succession (as the RCC sees it). Hence, no confirmation has taken placed at all and there is no re-confirmation, merely a confirmation.

OTOH, if the Orthodox treat a RC convert in that manner, it would logically appear that the Orthdox were looking at RCs as not previously confirmed. Which irritates the RCs.

How’s that?

GKC

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

GKC:

My guess would be because the RCC does not recognise the validity of Anglican orders, hence the Anglican confirmation was not done by a bishop in Apostolic Succession (as the RCC sees it). Hence, no confirmation has taken placed at all and there is no re-confirmation, merely a confirmation.

OTOH, if the Orthodox treat a RC convert in that manner, it would logically appear that the Orthdox were looking at RCs as not previously confirmed. Which irritates the RCs.

How’s that?

So when the Orthodox treat the RCs as the RCs treat the Anglicans the RCs get irritated…?!

Question to any Eastern Catholics reading this thread. Do you chrismate people who have fallen away from the Church and then return? In other words, do you still follow the Orthodox tradition of administering Chrismation more than once or have you adopted the RC theology of its irrepeatability?

 

[ProdigalSun]

prodromos:

So the Pope is exercising his infallibility in not requiring some “potential” Catholics to believe he is infallible. This is weird

Our Pope is not excercising his Infallibility here.

God Bless,:tiphat:

 

[GKC]

Fr Ambrose:

So when the Orthodox treat the RCs as the RCs treat the Anglicans the RCs get irritated…?!

Yep, that’d be my guess, if the Orthodox were to do so because they are denying the apostolic succession of the RC episcopacy.

Are you?

GKC

Question to any Eastern Catholics reading this thread. Do you chrismate people who have fallen away from the Church and then return? In other words, do you still follow the Orthodox tradition of administering Chrismation more than once or have you adopted the RC theology of its irrepeatability?

 

[mercygate]

Fr Ambrose:

My question concerned the Continuing Anglican Movement. Why do Catholics re-confirm them and why then do Catholics get upset when the Orthodox chrismate Catholic converts?

Catholics do not re-confirm Anglicans who come into the Church. Anglican sacraments are not recognized by Rome because Anglican Orders are not recognized. Anglican Converts are confirmed, not re-confirmed.

Why would a Catholic be upset when the Orthodox chrismate Catholic converts? If you mean the equivalent of Confirmation, the answer is obvious. Catholic sacraments are valid. If you mean a chrismation other than confirmation, the question does not apply.

 

[Joannes]

Hello Father Ambrose:

GKC in his answer to your post below has stated my position well. By “befuddlement” I mean that the EO churches receive or have received former Catholics in various ways at various times. It seems also that they are willing to repeat the sacrament of confirmation/chrismation and maybe even baptism (?), though Rome teaches that these are not repeatable. Therefore you get “the stick” from us for this and for not being ecumenical to us…

They have waffled as well on the sacrament of Anglican orders, have they not? My information is that the ROC doesn’t recognize them, while Constantinople (see ucl.ac.uk/~ucgbmxd/patriarc.htm on this) does.
I also know that some EO’s don’t accept validity of the Mass said by Catholic priests, though others do. They do all these things even though they have no decisions of an ecumenical council, and they know well that indifvidual bishops can be mistaken.

Rome does not “reconfirm” former Anglicans who swim the Tiber. She considers that these were probably not in fact validly confirmed, and this because of Apostolicae Curae. Maybe she confirms them sub conditione, I don’t know. But oin any case there is no will to RE-confirm them, as there is with the EO’s.

Regards,
Joannes

Regards,
Joannes
Fr Ambrose:

Dear Ioannes, your fondness for the word befuddlement is indicative of something

There is no befuddlement on the side of the Orthodox.

The bishop decides how to receive converts, and the three tradtional ways are:

1. Baptism, Chrismation, Eucharist
2. Confession, Chrismation, Eucharist
3. Confession, Confession of Faith, Eucharist

Where’s the befuddlement?

The Orthodox confer Chrismation twice when needed, such as a return from apostacy. It’s always been that way… no befuddlement.

But you are taking us off topic.

My question concerned the Continuing Anglican Movement. Why do Catholics re-confirm them and why then do Catholics get upset when the Orthodox chrismate Catholic converts?

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

mercygate:

Why would a Catholic be upset when the Orthodox chrismate Catholic converts? If you mean the equivalent of Confirmation, the answer is obvious. Catholic sacraments are valid.

And yet the French Benedictine scholar Placide Deseille and his band of Benedictine monks were all baptized and (re-)ordained when they converted to Orthodoxy, at the hands of bishops of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. And this doesn’t seem to have caused any upset or any problems in the ecumenical relationship between Rome and Constantinople. In fact it seems warmer than ever.

If you mean a chrismation other than confirmation, the question does not apply.

Good point! Is an Orthodox Chrismation the same event as a Catholic Confirmation?

 

[GKC]

mercygate:

Catholics do not re-confirm Anglicans who come into the Church. Anglican sacraments are not recognized by Rome because Anglican Orders are not recognized. Anglican Converts are confirmed, not re-confirmed.

Why would a Catholic be upset when the Orthodox chrismate Catholic converts? If you mean the equivalent of Confirmation, the answer is obvious. Catholic sacraments are valid. If you mean a chrismation other than confirmation, the question does not apply.

Yep. That’s pretty much what I said, above.

GKC

 

[GKC]

Joannes:

Hello Father Ambrose:

GKC in his answer to your post below has stated my position well. By “befuddlement” I mean that the EO churches receive or have received former Catholics in various ways at various times. It seems also that they are willing to repeat the sacrament of confirmation/chrismation and maybe even baptism (?), though Rome teaches that these are not repeatable. Therefore you get “the stick” from us for this and for not being ecumenical to us…

They have waffled as well on the sacrament of Anglican orders, have they not? My information is that the ROC doesn’t recognize them, while Constantinople (see ucl.ac.uk/~ucgbmxd/patriarc.htm on this) does.
I also know that some EO’s don’t accept validity of the Mass said by Catholic priests, though others do. They do all these things even though they have no decisions of an ecumenical council, and they know well that indifvidual bishops can be mistaken.

Rome does not “reconfirm” former Anglicans who swim the Tiber. She considers that these were probably not in fact validly confirmed, and this because of Apostolicae Curae. Maybe she confirms them sub conditione, I don’t know. But oin any case there is no will to RE-confirm them, as there is with the EO’s.

Regards,
Joannes

Regards,
Joannes

Greetings Joannes,

Glad I got it right.

At least 2 Anglican clergy have been ordained *sub conditione *, Fr. Graham Leonard, one time Anglican bishop of London and Fr. John J. Hughes, author of the best book(s) on *Apostlicae Curae * I know of (giving the Anglican perspective.

As to the Orthodox views on the validity of of Anglican orders, they are, as I said, subtle. Back in the 20s-30s, the Anglican communion polled several Orthodox patriarchs as to that question. (The link you gave is to one of the responses). The results, generally, looked favorable to the Anglicans, with comments that a given patriachy had never considered the requirement to re-ordain Anglicans, or that they were looked at the same as RC orders. But what was really being conveyed was that the Orthodox look at both RC and Anglican orders, being outside the True Church, as valid but “empty”, that is, they would be valid, if the individual were to become Orthodox.

Unlike most things I pontificate on, I might be wrong on this one.

GKC

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Joannes:

GKC in his answer to your post below has stated my position well. By “befuddlement” I mean that the EO churches receive or have received former Catholics in various ways at various times.

We still do. I myself have received Roman Catholics by all of the three ways, under the bishop’s directive - sometimes by Baptism, sometimes by Chrismation, sometimes by a Profession of faith.

It seems also that they are willing to repeat the sacrament of confirmation/chrismation

Chrismation is NOT an irrepeatable Mystery in the East. There is a difference here in sacramental theology.

and maybe even baptism (?), though Rome teaches that these are not repeatable.

We are unable as you would expect to rebaptize those who have received the Church’s Baptism. *Confiteor unum baptisma… * Those who have been baptized in a ceremony outside the Church may be baptized with the Baptism of the Church when they enter her.

Therefore you get “the stick” from us for this and for not being ecumenical to us…

But you are not being ecumenical to the Anglicans…?!

They have waffled as well on the sacrament of Anglican orders, have they not? My information is that the ROC doesn’t recognize them, while Constantinople (see ucl.ac.uk/~ucgbmxd/patriarc.htm on this) does.

No waffling.

See the text to which you refer…

That the practice in the Church affords no indication that the Orthodox Church has ever officially treated the validity of Anglican Orders as in doubt, in such a way as would point to the re-ordination of the Anglican clergy as required **in the case of the union of the two Churches. **

Since the union of the two Churches has never occured the Orthodox ordain every Anglican clergyman who is received without exception.

From the closed thread “Anglicans to Rome?”…

While the Orthodox do not recognise the Sacraments of those outside the Church there is room for ‘economy’ to come into operation in order to ease the way.

The talks of the Anglo-Catholics with Romanians, Greeks and Russians at the beginning of the 20th century made the point that if the Anglicans were able to ‘upskill’ their whole faith community to the level of the Anglo-Catholics, then they would be able to come into the Orthodox communion en masse without the need for re-ordination.

This is not of course tantamount to accepting their Orders within their own Church as they stand. The exercise of ‘ekonomia’ operates only when the entry into Orthodoxy occurs because the Church has the plenitude of grace and the power to bind and to loose and to infuse grace where there was no grace before. It is accepted that entry of the Anglican Church into the fulness of Orthodoxy would, by the power of the Holy Spirit, provide whatever was lacking in the previous Anglican ordinations.

But until that day, which seems less and less likely, the Orthodox ordain all Anglican priests. Of course if the receiving bishop does not desire to ordain him he is received as a layman.

 

[Contarini]

Fr Ambrose:

So when the Orthodox treat the RCs as the RCs treat the Anglicans the RCs get irritated…?!

Why shouldn’t they? Acording to RC theology, we radically changed our theology of ordination making our orders invalid. The RC’s have not done so. We Anglicans get irritated at the way they treat us. And Methodists and other Protestants get irritated at us (at least at the Anglo-Catholics) because of our attitude toward them. I guess that’s just how it goes. This sort of thing is not determined by a quid pro quo.

Edwin