Anglicans to Rome - Thread 2

[GKC]

Fr Ambrose:

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.

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

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.

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

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.

Yep, I’m on a roll.

GKC

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

**
Traditional Ang:

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…

…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.**
## AFAIK, infallibility is not involved. IMO, its definition was a catastrophic blunder of the first magnitude. But if the Apostles couldn’t wreck the Church - neither can popes ##
**

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.**
## I’m worried about the voluntarism that sometimes pops up in his teaching - notably in Veritatis Splendor 35. I see it here, in what seems to amount to an offer to re-shape Catholicism. This is consistent with his generosity to non-Catholics, but generosity is no protection against teaching X to one lot of Catholics, and not-X to another lot of Catholics. Inconsistency of such a kind is sure to take its revenge sooner or later. So I agree with prodromos. May be that this episode is a delayed revenge on the cult of infallibilism we have in the CC: treat the Pope as utterly right in all he does - and he will act as though he is exactly that. ##

**

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.]**

## “Put not your trust in any son of man”. The question is not one of intelligence, but of not messing up what one has been entrusted with. “No man is a hero to his valet”##
**

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******]**

---

## TY for your very gracious post. There was no hurry.

---

**It’s not as though one hadn’t been trying out various arguments for justifying this strange proposal - but I still can’t make sense of it. **

---

**There is, certainly, the danger of adopting a “dog in the manger” approach, like the elder brother in the parable, or the workers in the vineyard who had toiled all day. One mustn’t be ungracious - and yet: I can’t see how it can make sense, given the enormous sanctions attached to not accepting certain doctrines. “Everyone is told only his own story”, granted - but what is required of the TAC can all the same not fail to be of close interest to other Catholics. **

---

[continue…]

---

---

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

[continued, ended]

---

**Not even a Pope has jurisdiction to alter the principle of non-contradiction. To do so, has as an effect the undermining of all propositions which express dogmas. He is, in effect, acting as a Creator of doctrine, not as its custodian - and that is beyond his competence. **

---

**Something just does not make sense. ## **

---

------------

---

{Sorry about the poor formatting- this computer is being a crying nuisance. }

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Fr. Ambrose:

I think it was because people didn’t realize that you see Chrismation differently than they see Confirmation. Westerners are used to thinking of it as a ONE SHOT DEA; whereas. you are used to thinking of it as something that can be done at Baptism and then AS NEEDED (Kind of like medicine)!..
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?

…In the case above, I believe there’s a question of the validity of the orders, and therefore, of whether they received the Sacrament of Confirmation (they’re coming over from ECUSA, I believe - I might be corrected). In all probability, both the Confirmations and the Ordination are Sub-Conditione, which is now the standard procedure in these circumstances. I’m glad to hear that they’re being accepted.

On the other Thread, those of us who paid attention learned something about how the Orthodox view Chrismation that we didn’t know before, for that I thank you.

May God bless you and keep you healthy.

In Christ, Michael

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Matthew:

I never said that!…

Matt16_18:

I donÕt 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 ÒecumenismÓ with Anglicans. Check your sources and see what has been written down by the Pope. I am quite sure you have been misled.

What I’ve said all along is that Pope John Paul II has offerred to ACCEPT people into the Church who, for whatever reason, aren’t able to accept these truths. I’ve been very clear about this.

We both know of theologians, Biships and priests who act as if they don’t believe these, and of some who just don’t, and many Catholics who don’t follow the Pope’s teachings on a nyumber of issues. And, We both know that Catholics aren’t asked if they believe these every time they approach to receive Communion.

I do seem to recall that St. Thomas still was one of the Eleven (after Judas’ death) after he expressed severe doubts about Our Lord’s Resurrection.

Blessings in Christ, Michael

 

[Matt16_18]

Traditional Ang:

What I’ve said all along is that Pope John Paul II has offerred to ACCEPT people into the Church who, for whatever reason, aren’t able to accept these truths. I’ve been very clear about this.

I understand what you are saying, and what you are saying simply cannot happen. The pope has no authority to tell Anglicans that they are free to reject solemnly defined dogmas of the Catholic Church and then allow them to receive the Sacraments of Initiation!

To receive the Sacraments of Initiation, the Anglican candidates would have to accept every infallible teaching of the Catholic Church. It is impossible to receive Anglicans into the Catholic Church that reject solemnly defined dogmas of the Catholic Church.

Anglicans that reject solemnly defined dogmas of the faith do not possess the unity of the faith. Such people can receive neither Confirmation nor Communion since reception of both these Sacraments of Initiation presupposes that the candidates accept the whole faith and not just parts of the faith.

 

[Matt16_18]

Traditional Ang:

We both know of theologians, Biships and priests who act as if they don’t believe these, and of some who just don’t, and many Catholics who don’t follow the Pope’s teachings on a nyumber of issues.

Any Catholic that obstinately refuses to accept the infallible teachings of the Catholic Church is a heretic. Heresy is a mortal sin that entails the loss of membership in the Catholic Church (excommunication and apostasy also cause the loss of membership in the Church).Catechism of the Catholic Church
2089 … "Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same …What you are suggesting is that formal heretics can become members of the Catholic Church! This is not possible because the rejection of any solemnly defined dogma causes one to lose their membership in the Church.

 

[Irenicist]

Matt16_18,

Isn’t the eucharist one of the sacraments of initiation? Are not our Orthodox brethren, who reject the solemnly defined doctrine of Papal infallibility, allowed in extremis to partake in it? Who decided to allow this if not the Pope?

Clearly you feel the Pope “should not…”, but “has no authority to…” strikes me as overstating the point.

Irenicist

 

[Irenicist]

2088 and 2089 read together specifically distinguish “involuntary doubt” from “obstinate doubt”.

“Involuntary doubt refers to hesitation in believing, difficulty in overcoming objections connected with the faith, or also anxiety aroused by its obscurity.”

As involuntary doubt is not he same as obstinate doubt, it is not heresy and so not an inherent bar to communion.

That said, it would appear somewhat inexpedient to admit the TAC as a whole if the bulk of its members cannot bring themselves to submit to these truths. But is this really the case?

Irenicist

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Matt:

I must beg to differ at this stage…

Matt16_18:

I understand what you are saying, and what you are saying simply cannot happen. The pope has no authority to tell Anglicans that they are free to reject solemnly defined dogmas of the Catholic Church and then allow them to receive the Sacraments of Initiation!

To receive the Sacraments of Initiation, the Anglican candidates would have to accept every infallible teaching of the Catholic Church. It is impossible to receive Anglicans into the Catholic Church that reject solemnly defined dogmas of the Catholic Church.

Anglicans that reject solemnly defined dogmas of the faith do not possess the unity of the faith. Such people can receive neither Confirmation nor Communion since reception of both these Sacraments of Initiation presupposes that the candidates accept the whole faith and not just parts of the faith.

Numerous Catholic politicians publicly support a woman’s right to an Abortion, up to and including the day of birth. One was just recently granted an annulment so he could marry his mistress! Only 20% of all Catholics follow the Church’s clear teaching on Contraception, and many priests refuse to teach it from the pulpit. There is an organization that supports Gay marraige that wears a decal declaring their support for it and even of the sin of homosexual activity. There are still others who teach that the Church is WRONG about the Male Only Priesthood, and declare that the Pope must allow the ordination of Women to the Priesthood, in spite of 2,000 years of Tradition and Sacred Scripture. All of these people are acting contrary to the explicit teaching of the Church on these issues. How many of the people above have been refused communion or told not to come forward?

Matt, if you would not refuse the Grace of God and Union to these people, why would you deny the Grace of God and Union to those who are simply not being made to accept the very doctrines these people so obviously reject?

Matt, from everything I’ve been told, the Pope’s offer is the Pope’s offer. I’m sorry if you don’t like it.

It seems as if someone wanted to know if the members of the TAC would be accepted as Catholics under these conditions. I must very sadly assume that they have their answer.

May God bless your Lentin fast.

In Christ, Michael

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

I am not sure if you are doing the TAC any favours by pointing out all that it has in common with the rebellious attitudes of existing Catholic dissidents. I imagine that the bishops want to rein these people in and not legitimise nor increase their impact on the Catholic Church by offering a home to an additional 500,000 dissidents in the TAC.
Traditional Ang:

Matt:

I must beg to differ at this stage…

Numerous Catholic politicians publicly support a woman’s right to an Abortion, up to and including the day of birth. One was just recently granted an annulment so he could marry his mistress! Only 20% of all Catholics follow the Church’s clear teaching on Contraception, and many priests refuse to teach it from the pulpit. There is an organization that supports Gay marraige that wears a decal declaring their support for it and even of the sin of homosexual activity. There are still others who teach that the Church is WRONG about the Male Only Priesthood, and declare that the Pope must allow the ordination of Women to the Priesthood, in spite of 2,000 years of Tradition and Sacred Scripture. All of these people are acting contrary to the explicit teaching of the Church on these issues. How many of the people above have been refused communion or told not to come forward?

Matt, if you would not refuse the Grace of God and Union to these people, why would you deny the Grace of God and Union to those who are simply not being made to accept the very doctrines these people so obviously reject?

Matt, from everything I’ve been told, the Pope’s offer is the Pope’s offer. I’m sorry if you don’t like it.

It seems as if someone wanted to know if the members of the TAC would be accepted as Catholics under these conditions. I must very sadly assume that they have their answer.

May God bless your Lentin fast.

In Christ, Michael

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Matt16_18:

Any Catholic that obstinately refuses to accept the infallible teachings of the Catholic Church is a heretic. Heresy is a mortal sin that entails the loss of membership in the Catholic Church (excommunication and apostasy also cause the loss of membership in the Church).Catechism of the Catholic Church
2089 É "Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same ÉWhat you are suggesting is that formal heretics can become members of the Catholic Church! This is not possible because the rejection of any solemnly defined dogma causes one to lose their membership in the Church.

Matt:

According to the standard you’ve just applied to the TAC, significant portions of the Catholic Church in the USA and the EU must be considered to be in heresy.

Are you prepared to make that declaration, or does this only apply to this rather eccentric and quarrelsome group of anglophiles that I’ve been representing here?

If you think about some of what the Liberals and those who object to His Holiness have been saying here and elsewhere, you’ll see that I have a point.

I think Pope John Paul II believes the Grace of the God and the Holy Spirit (and the decidely “Anglo-Catholics”) will be able to deal with the INVINCIBLE IGNORANCE of many of my “Lower Church” comrades once he’s managed to get them IN HIS CARE! But, that can’t happen as long as the TAC is OUT HERE!

Thanks to your posts, as well as those of some of the others, I’ve begun to question whether the Anglicans brought in under this deal would be welcomed as Catholics by people such as yourself.

Peace be with you.

In Christ, Michael

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Irenucust:

Thank you for your efforts. I really do appreciate that you tried to explain the difference. I recently bought a CCC in expectation that this deal would happen, but I haven’t really read it…

2088 and 2089 read together specifically distinguish “involuntary doubt” from “obstinate doubt”.

“Involuntary doubt refers to hesitation in believing, difficulty in overcoming objections connected with the faith, or also anxiety aroused by its obscurity.”

As involuntary doubt is not he same as obstinate doubt, it is not heresy and so not an inherent bar to communion.

That said, it would appear somewhat inexpedient to admit the TAC as a whole if the bulk of its members cannot bring themselves to submit to these truths. But is this really the case?

Irenicist

…I just think that there are those who forget that it’s God’s job to judge motivations or intentions, and not ours. I think the difference between “Obstinent” and “Involuntary” is a matter of intention.

I think the Pope is looking at a Church where many are questioning CORE DOGMAS that we all agree are necessary for salvation (The Virgin Birth, the Resurrection, The nature of Sin, The Deity of Christ, The nature of the Priesthood and of the Sacraments, etc.) and then at the TAC, where the overwhelming majority don’t have those problems, and he’s figuring that he can deal with the NON-Core Dogmas that many (not all) do not accept. He’s also looking at the fact that most of the people in the TAC have made sacrifices because of their faith. They’ve left comfortable parishes, jobs, pensions, etc. and suffered persecution at the hands of their former friends and comrades.

Pope John Paul II is seeing a picture that Matt and some of the others just arn’t seeing.

Once again, thank you for your efforts. I hope they don’t rebound against you.

Blessings to you and your household.

In Christ, Michael

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Fr. Ambrose:

Matt was acting the part of the “Older Brother”. I was tired of his harangue. He’s acting as if NO one can not accept certain Catholic teachings and still receive Communion. I was pointing out some situations where that was just the case. Hopefully, he’ll get the message and back off.

Just so you know, the first case is that of Sen. Ted Kennady and the Archdiocese of Boston. One of the brothers asked if I knew what we were getting ourselves into. Obviously, I do, at least in the USA…
Fr Ambrose:

I am not sure if you are doing the TAC any favours by pointing out all that it has in common with the rebellious attitudes of existing Catholic dissidents. I imagine that the bishops want to rein these people in and not legitimise nor increase their impact on the Catholic Church by offering a home to an additional 500,000 dissidents in the TAC.

…I seem to recall that you once said the Church is a Hospital where sick and wounded souls come for healing. I’m trying to point out that many of the people in the TAC are just such sick and wounded souls, and the Pope is trying to get them into the Hospital.

Please remember, the “dissidents” in the TAC are more conservative on most issures than many of the posters here, and the Pope won’t have to worry about them doing the things I listed in the post to Matt.

May God bless you and your congregation.

In Christ, Michael

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Gottle:

The Pope isn’t acting as a “Creator of Doctrine” - He’s acting as a PASTOR and a SHEPHERD OF SOULS!..

[continued, ended]

---

**Not even a Pope has jurisdiction to alter the principle of non-contradiction. To do so, has as an effect the undermining of all propositions which express dogmas. He is, in effect, acting as a Creator of doctrine, not as its custodian - and that is beyond his competence. **

---

**Something just does not make sense. ## **

---

------------

---

{Sorry about the poor formatting- this computer is being a crying nuisance. }

…Part of the problem of “Invincible” or “Involuntary” Ignorance is that, to overcome it, you have to get the person to the Teaching Authority. That’s not so hard when dealing with one person at a time. You just send people through RCIA.

But, you can’t do that with 500,000, esp. if you’re thinking of making all of England Catholic by something like this. YOu pretty much have to take the people where you find them, and rely on the Grace of God and instructors such as my friend (I’ve told you about the guy who can defend the doctrines in question through scripture alone) to do the work over a period of years.

Meanwhile, you have COMMUNION together because of your common beliefs and faith, so that you can bring MORE of the Grace of God to bear.

Does this make any sense to you?

Remember, this isn’t just a Theological Debate.

Blessings to you.

In Christ, Michael

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Gottle of Geer:

Sorry to hear that your computer’s having problems. From what’s been happeining tonight, it’s probably the CA Server again.

I hope that clears up for you.

Good night. I’m going to bed.

God bless.

In Christ, Michael

 

[rjs1]

There are two parts to this whole thread that I find disturbing. Firstly, I converted from the Anglican Church - with its apalling smorgasboard of beliefs on offer, from an almost Calvinist low church through a ritualistic, often unfortunately homosexual high church, to a permit anything broad church. I found in the Catholic Church, Christ’s Church and accepted its teachings in full. I am astounded to think that the Pope would allow reception of a group, with the condition that they could choose to reject or at least not affirm, three de fide teachings of the Church.
Secondly I reject completely the superficial interpretation of the English Reformation, which is trying to argue that the Pope would not allow Henry’s divorce simply because of pressure from Emperor Charles. What a gross insult to the whole list of holy saints such as John Fisher, Thomas Moore, countless loyal nuns, monks, priests and lay who recognised the evil that Henry was enforcing upon them. Henry’s true goal was shown in his repeated desecration of the Sacrament of marriage and his destruction of the monastries throughout Britain. All this to enthrone his own power. Regardless of his superficial adherence to outward Catholic practices he was indeed a true Protestant at heart insofar as he made himself the supreme arbiter of faith in Britain.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

ANGLICAN PRIESTS CONSECRATED BISHOPS
[by Archbishop John Hepworth TAC]
FOR DUAL MINISTRY

ROSEMONT, PA (2/16/2005)–
virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=2090

BACKGROUND - PROMINENT FIF CLERICS TO BE CONSECRATED [by TAC]

By Auburn Faber Traycik
The Christian Challenge
February 16, 2005

virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/

 

[Matt16_18]

Traditional Ang:

According to the standard you’ve just applied to the TAC, significant portions of the Catholic Church in the USA and the EU must be considered to be in heresy.

That is correct. Millions of Catholics know what the Church teaches and they obstinately refuse to accept at least a some of that teaching.

Are you prepared to make that declaration, or does this only apply to this rather eccentric and quarrelsome group of anglophiles that I’ve been representing here?

I have no problem at all saying that millions of Catholics no longer embrace the faith in its entirety. That is only stating the obvious. As soon as a Catholic willfully rejects even one infallible teaching of the Catholic Church, he or she becomes a Protestant. The definition of a Protestant is a Christian that does not accept all the infallible teachings of the Catholic Church. Obviously, all Anglicans are Protestants in need of conversion, since no Anglican accepts everything that the Catholic Church teaches.

If you think about some of what the Liberals and those who object to His Holiness have been saying here and elsewhere, you’ll see that I have a point.

I see your point, and it needs to be expanded to include both the liberal dissenters and the conservative dissenters that have lost their membership in the Catholic Church. One would hardly call the followers of Archbishop Lefebvre “liberals”.

I think Pope John Paul II believes the Grace of the God and the Holy Spirit (and the decidely “Anglo-Catholics”) will be able to deal with the INVINCIBLE IGNORANCE of many of my “Lower Church” comrades once he’s managed to get them IN HIS CARE!

Whether a person is actually in a state of invincible ignorance is a judgment that only God can make. Such subjective judgements are not the concern of any Catholic. In fact, it would be a sin to presume to judge the heart of another man. The Pope is like any other catechist in this regard, he can only present the objective content of the faith to those interested in converting.

The Anglicans of the TAC would need to be instructed in the faith before they could receive the Sacraments of Initiation. Part of their catechesis would be instruction on any aspect of the faith that they do not understand. Only when the candidate gives the assent of their will to every infallible teaching of the Catholic Church, can the candidate be given the Sacraments of Initiation. Until they can make that step, they cannot receive the Sacrament of Communion because they are not in union with the Catholic Church - they would be men and women that are still struggling with whether they are willing to accept the teachings of the Catholic Church.

Open communion is an Anglican practice. The Catholic Church does not offer communion to those that do not accept the faith in its entirety.

Thanks to your posts, as well as those of some of the others, I’ve begun to question whether the Anglicans brought in under this deal would be welcomed as Catholics by people such as yourself.

I am quite sure that the “deal” that you believe has been offered has, in fact, never been offered. Anglicans are certainly welcome to attend RCIA classes to receive whatever catechesis they may need before they convert. BTW, the first book that we read in our RCIA class is Mere Christianity, a great book by a great Anglican author.

 

[Matt16_18]

Fr Ambrose:

I am not sure if you are doing the TAC any favours by pointing out all that it has in common with the rebellious attitudes of existing Catholic dissidents. I imagine that the bishops want to rein these people in and not legitimise nor increase their impact on the Catholic Church by offering a home to an additional 500,000 dissidents in the TAC.