Anglicans to Rome - Thread 2

[Matt16_18]

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.

Back off from what? Formal heresy is a mortal sin. Catholics in a state of mortal sin are NOT allowed to receive communion. I am not saying anything that isn’t written in the Catechism.

Open up the Missalette in a Catholic Church and read the flyleaf. It explains why Anglicans cannot receive Communion - they can’t receive Communion because they do not believe what the Catholic Church teaches, and because of their disbelief, they have no unity with the Catholic Church. Communion presupposes union.

 

[Matt16_18]

rjs1:

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.

The pope would never do this. Do you really think that the pope is going to tell Anglicans that they are free to reject the doctrine of papal infallibity? This is ludicrous.

 

[SteveG]

Traditional Ang,

You are missing a distinction here. You are equating dissent from within the Church, with ALLOWING dissent to enter the church.

There is vast difference between not formally excommunicating a current member of a Catholic community who may well be in dissent, and ALLOWING a community already in dissent to join.

The first evidences a prudential decision to refrain from taking action against a particular individual (presumably for pastoral reason) in the hopes they will come to obedience. It does not imply permission or endorsement of the dissnting belief, only toleration of the individual. The latter is giving express permission for someone to enter the church while not accepting the whole faith. It implies that permission for dissent is being given.

As the old saying goes, you are comparing apples and oranges.

 

[SteveG]

Matt16_18:

The pope would never do this. Do you really think that the pope is going to tell Anglicans that they are free to reject the doctrine of papal infallibity? This is ludicrous.

I agree. Frankly I believe this is either false, or a misunderstanding on the part of Traditional Ang. It’s simply an impossibility.

 

[oat_soda]

Back off from what? Formal heresy is a mortal sin. Catholics in a state of mortal sin are NOT allowed to receive communion. I am not saying anything that isn’t written in the Catechism.
…they can’t receive Communion because they do not believe what the Catholic Church teaches, and because of their disbelief, they have no unity with the Catholic Church. Communion presupposes union.

for a sin to be mortal or for one to be cut off from the grace of God requires: full consent, full knowledge, and grave matter. an anglican or any christian for that matter is not in mortal sin if they seek God with a sincere heart and are moved by grace into the catholic church. they may not understand the fullness of the teachings initially but those objectively necissary as determined by the pope to recieve communion.

any convert from protestantism will tell you that it takes time to understand and accept all of the teachings of the church. ultimately, you have to trust the pope and cardinal ratzinger on this one. it’s one thing to reject the teachings of the church out of pride, it’s another to reject teachings of the church out of ignorance.

**“Outside the Church there is no salvation” ****847 ** This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church: Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337

 

[SteveG]

oat soda:

any convert from protestantism will tell you that it takes time to understand and accept all of the teachings of the church. ultimately, you have to trust the pope and cardinal ratzinger on this one. it’s one thing to reject the teachings of the church out of pride, it’s another to reject teachings of the church out of ignorance.

As a convert from protestanism, I can say that this is only part of the story. Certainly it takes time to UNDERSTAND all the teachings and become comfortable with them. But, a prerequisite for joining the Church is that despite any discomfort one may have, one must obediently accept all the teachings.

Frankly, the whole idea being suggested is scandalous if true and is a nothing short of a slap in the face to any convert who had to pour themselves out like water, humble themselves and submit to the Church and Her teachings in order to come home. It makes a mockery of the struggles many of us had over these same issues to simply give a whole community a pass for the sake of ecumanism.

 

[GKC]

Trad Ang,

On another board, I have read a statement from an individual who was present at the (interesting) recent consecrations of +Moyers and +Chislett, in Pennsylvania. This individual said that he personally heard ++Hepworth, at the accompanying press conference, state that the rumor that the TAC had an offer to go under Rome, and without accepting certain dogmas, was false.

I offer this only for your information. I have no dog in this fight.

GKC

 

[oat_soda]

Frankly, the whole idea being suggested is scandalous if true and is a nothing short of a slap in the face to any convert who had to pour themselves out like water, humble themselves and submit to the Church and Her teachings in order to come home.

your right. this whole argument is based on a rumor. if the church were to allow its members to not accept certain teachings, the liberal factions would use this as fuel to reject any of the church’s teachings by saying they are “trying” to do what they think God wants them to do. your concience must be in harmony with the moral teachings of the church. part of that is accepting its teachings as true. otherwise, what’s the point. it gets totally relativistic.

but, i could see where the pope would not require a confession where anglican converts must assert they accept papal infallibility… etc. they just can’t deny it.

 

[SteveG]

oat soda:

but, i could see where the pope would not require a confession where anglican converts must assert they accept papal infallibility… etc. they just can’t deny it.

I see where your going with this, and it ‘sounds’ good, but it’s just not workable. Let’s play it out with a doctrine a little closer to home for many faithful catholics, and a little more practical in it’s implications.

What if this issue of a ‘pass’ on a doctrine was applied as you suggest to contraception (this was formally defined even later than the doctrines being discussed here)? Would you accept a situation where the Church admitted to communion a formerly protestant denomination if the only difference was on that issue as long as they didn’t deny it when they entered the church? Well, it would be a little more difficult, no? Because the folks coming in would either explicity accept (and not use contraception), or reject (and use) the teaching by their actions once inside the Church. I hope it’s obvious why such a situation would be unnacceptable.

Now, explain why we couldn’t make an exception with this, but would in the dogmas surrounding the VM? Is it simply becuase those doctrines are not ‘practical’ and are only affect the heart and head? But Christ tells us does he not that it’s our hearts he’s after. I just don’t see why these doctrines are any different so that they can be ‘cheated’ around as is being suggested.

I admire the motivation behind this thinking and can see how it is appealing to get a ‘victory’ here. But down that path lies destruction. Don’t ask, don’t tell may be acceptable in the U.S. Military, but it’s not for the Bride of Christ.

 

[oat_soda]

Don’t ask, don’t tell may be acceptable in the U.S. Military, but it’s not for the Bride of Christ.

i agree. it’s a slippery slope and our church has enough problems as it is. if they allow anglicans to reject or not accept any doctrine of the faith yet still be in union, then any catholic could reject or not accept any doctrine weather it be morals or faith that they want and claim ignorance. i tried to argue for it but it doesn’t work. i was wrong.

 

[steve_b]

Traditional Ang:

Matthew:

I never said that!…

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.

Traditional,

I’ve been skimming the conversation up to this point. If you gave the source for the above idea, I missed it. Could you give the source again? Thanks
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. And, We both know that Catholics aren’t asked if they believe these every time they approach to receive Communion.

Unfortunately what you’ve said is true. But this is not merely a case of reasonable people reasoning to disagree. Some matters are open to disagreement, while others are not.

There are many examples I can provide but here’s one specific example to show what I mean. From the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC)

**2272 **Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. “A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae,” “by the very commission of the offense,” and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law. The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.

This goes for “Catholic” politicians like Sen Kennedy et al too who cooperate to write laws making it lawful for a woman to choose abortion. Can they (politicians) claim to be innocent of the blood of lambs? In a pigs eye. If they write the laws and vote to keep abortion at all stages legal, they participate and are guilty of ALL abortions just as if they walked each women into the abortion clinic themselves and delivered them to the abortionist. Notice the word “Latae sententiae”? It means automatically after the act. No formal pronouncement is required from the Church. No Church fan fair, no formal letter, no parading the sinner or firing a canon in a public square. Is this up for discussion? No! Do people argue about this? Yes. Who do you think will be right when we all stand in front of Jesus? Dissidents who continued in there dissinence, did not fair well in scripture.
Traditional Ang:

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

But Thomas didn’t persist in his unbelief.

 

[SteveG]

oat soda:

i agree. it’s a slippery slope and our church has enough problems as it is. if they allow anglicans to reject or not accept any doctrine of the faith yet still be in union, then any catholic could reject or not accept any doctrine weather it be morals or faith that they want and claim ignorance. i tried to argue for it but it doesn’t work. i was wrong.

That was too easy! Seriously, such humility is rare and commendable.

 

[steve_b]

SteveG:

As a convert from protestanism, I can say that this is only part of the story. Certainly it takes time to UNDERSTAND all the teachings and become comfortable with them. But, a prerequisite for joining the Church is that despite any discomfort one may have, one must obediently accept all the teachings.

Frankly, the whole idea being suggested is scandalous if true and is a nothing short of a slap in the face to any convert who had to pour themselves out like water, humble themselves and submit to the Church and Her teachings in order to come home. It makes a mockery of the struggles many of us had over these same issues to simply give a whole community a pass for the sake of ecumanism.

You are correct. One can’t claim to be lead into the Catholic Church and in the same breath say, I don’t believe or I can’t accept key elements of the faith. What exactly then is the motive for coming into the Church?

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

**
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?**

**## And because these things happen, the pope is justified in acting in a similarly lawless way ? **

---

Absolutely not !

---

**Justifying one’s own sins by pointing to those of others is the unmanly excuse tried by Adam. To defend the Pope in this way merely emphasises how indefensible his behaviour is. **

---

**“Thou shalt not follow a multitude to evil” - even if one is the Pope; popes should lead - not follow. The Pope’s offer does not internalise dissent; it internalises heresy, and, inconsistency - which is even worse. **

---

**The Pope is undermining his own moral authority; because every one Catholic who thinks that dogma X - which might be any dogma at all - is a load of hooey, will now be able to say that the Pope can hardly insist that theologian A or Father B or Sister C must believe in dogma X, Y, or Z, if other Catholics are allowed by Rome to become Catholics without believing all dogmas. **

---

**He is making the Church’s discipline and dogma completely unprincipled. And our acts and decisions have consequences - so this will have consequences; if not now, then later. Even a Pope cannot change that. **

---

I think he should retire, ASAP if not sooner. ##

**

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?

**

---

## God’s grace is not confined to the CC. This is RC doctrine. God is sovereign - not any Church. ##

**

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

 

[Irenicist]

I can’t help but supect that the difficulties here are essentially terminological. Are we all using words in the same sense?

Is “accepting” a doctrinal statement the same as believing that it is true?

For example, can one “accept” that the Church infallibly teaches a certain doctrine without being convinced of the certainty of the teaching in question? If one “accepts” a teaching as “probably true” one cannot be logically described as “believing” it to be so.

Is “not believing” that a doctrinal statement is certainly true, and merely considering it probably or possibly true, the same as denying it?

This is why the catechism distinguishes between “involuntary” and “obstinate” doubt. You can’t just shut down your critical faculties and believe something that makes no sense to you just because you are told to by authority or even just because you might want to. If you remain open to correction and understanding, and genuinely strive to overcome your difficulties with the formulations in question, then your doubt is involuntary – sinful certainly, but not heretical.

While an individual can be invited to defer partaking in the Lord’s supper until he has resolved his difficulties, the issue takes on a different complexion when one is dealing with a whole community. The TAC has High Church members (who presumably would have few problems with these doctrines) and Low Church members (for whom these beliefs do not form part of the background of their Christian education).

So long as these Low Church members are not brought into communion with Rome, they will not as a group have a realistic opportunity to internalize the truths of these doctrines. But if they are brought in with their High Church bretheren and the requirement of an open mind, and worship with their old and new brothers in Christ, their education becomes not only possible but likely. In the same way as the baptised infant is brought into the Church while in a state of invincible ignorance, so too can adults. Indeed, this was the invariable practice of the early Church. Wanting to believe should be sufficient. If, in the end, they become convinced that the doctrines they have earnestly strived to understand and internalize are false, or if they obstinantly persist in denying them, then they will simply leave.

Access to the eucharist is a disciplinary issue, not a fundamental one of faith or morals. It is determined by the local ordinary according to rules set by the Holy Father. You can argue with the expediency of extending communion to the TAC en bloc, but the Pope most certainly has the authority to welcome its members individually or collectivley to the Lord’s table. Let’s suspend judgement until specific terms of union are published.

Irenicist

 

[SteveG]

Gottle of Geer:

   **## And because these things happen, the pope is justified in acting in a similarly lawless way ? **
 **...**
 **The Pope is undermining his own moral authority;

…
****He is making the Church’s discipline and dogma completely unprincipled,
…
** I think he should retire, ASAP if not sooner. ##
GofG,
I think you need to slow/calm down here. So far this is simply a rumor on a discussion forum. The Church has officially made no such offer, and for my part I don’t believe the rumor to be true at all. In fact we have already seen one post here…
#106
…indicating that the rumor is not true.

We need not start bashing the holy father based only on the musings on this thread. If such a ludicrous offer is ever made (and it will not be), then we can start worrying. Until then, I think your judgements are extremely premature.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

**
Traditional Ang:

Gottle:

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

**## I beg to differ - there is nothing pastoral in having one rule of faith for one part of the flock, and another, for another. **

**Either the Pope is - in sense X - infallible; or the Pope is - in sense X - not infallible. The Pope can no more teach both or require both, than the there can be both one moon and two moons as satellites of earth. **

**Either Christ has endowed His Church with infallibility (Pastor Aeternus 1870) - or He has not. **

**Either that dogma reflects how the universe actually is - or it does not. God has either revealed it to the Church - or He has not. **

**Both propositions cannot be true. **

So, the Pope’s offer does amount to creating a new Catholicism ##

**

…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?**

**## Understood - and this completely torpedoes Ratzinger’s position on Ecumenism. For he rejects this. So why should we bother with the SCDF, if the Pope ignores it ? **

**Your model would be valid if the people being taken as they are - that is indeed the only way one can take people - were not RCs. What is so atrocious, is the notion that those who are known not to accept all dogmas, are, even so, received into the CC. It’s not truly analogous to denying dogmas later on that one was well aware had to be believed, and had believed at one’s reception. **
**Leo XIII - I think it was he - emphatically denies that there can be communion where there is no communion of faith. It seems Rome junks its beliefs when this impedes its policies - either Leo was right, or he was mistaken; it now appears he was the latter. IOW - he taught error then; or, a true teaching is now being denied. In either case, the CC lacks doctrinal stability. **

I know this thread is about much weightier things than debate - that is why this matter so bothersome. ##

**

Remember, this isn’t just a Theological Debate.

Blessings to you.

In Christ, Michael**

 

[steve_b]

GKC:

Oh dear. Here I am contributing to thread drift, after all. Sorry, Trad. Ang.

Clement was known for vacillating on many things beyond the issue of Henry’s quest for an annulment.

Julius’ dispensation was certainly theoretically within the Papal powers, as they were understood at the time. Though the question of whether such a dispensation was *ultra vires *for even the Pope (i.e., whether the Levitical prohibition was dispensable, or was of divine law), had been kicked around for several centuries, with differing results at differing times. Details available.

But the matter of the impediment and the adequacy of the dispensation in 1506 are far more complicated (history is like that) than is suggested here. It is probable that Catherine and Arthur had not consummated their marriage. Certainly that was her testimony, and that of her duenna, from the first. While that possibly eliminated the impediment of affinity in the first degree (specifically, the Levitical impediment), it raised the impediment of the justice of public honesty, which arises from an unconsummated marriage. Which Julius’ dispensation did not specifically address. This did not attack the dispensation as ultra vires, as in the Levitical arguement, but as faulty. That is, in the incredibly complex world of annulments, dispensations and impediments by which the sacrament of marriage was managed, and the world of statecraft was able routinely to make and break dynastic marriages as real-politick demanded, there was reasonable argument that the dispensation was incomplete, and the annulment a reasonable request. Certainly that is the way the system worked at the time, and Henry had no reason to suspect his* causa* would be rejected. Look, after all, at the result of his sister’s petition for an anulment, in March 1527, 2 months before Henry’s own case was presented.

The bottom line: history is complicated. The issue of dynastic marriage in the 16th century was equally complicated. Henry was playing by the rules of the day, and he had a case, even if he failed to see its true strength (Wolsey did). Charles was playing by another set of rules; those of *force majeure *. Charles won. No surprise.

This is a subject I am fond of discussing. More details available. Sorry again, Trad. Ang.

GKC

Hi Jim,

I knew you couldn’t resist this subject. As I recall, you and I had a few conversations about Hank many moons ago. Hope all is well for you around the old corral.

 

[GKC]

steve b:

Hi Jim,

I knew you couldn’t resist this subject. As I recall, you and I had a few conversations about Hank many moons ago. Hope all is well for you around the old corral.

Greetings, pard,

Yeah, I been posting here and there on it. And, of course, any mention of Henry and his annulment quest, and I react with a dissertation on the 16th century annulment/dispensation/impediment system, as it was structured to allow for the making and breaking of dynastic marriages, pre-Trent, as applied to Horny Hank’s particular problems. If it goes on long enough, I start discussing the Duke of Richmond. It’s all one of my favorite areas for discussion. And you’ll note my “history is complicated” trademark.

On the broader question of the thread, I am a little surprised that there has been no reaction to my post above, that an individual I know heard Archbishop Hepworth, speaking in person, say yesterday that the whole TAC thing was a rumor.

As to how things are, well, things are a little rugged around the old campfire right now. If we happen to get together down the trail, I’ll palaver a little.

GKC

 

[steve_b]

Fr Ambrose:

I think you did

If we go back to pre-Vatican I beliefs then we can find an expression of it in a statement issued by the Irish Episcopate in 1826. I think I have posted this statement before in another thread.

In 1826, in the time of the pontificate of Pope Leo XII, the Irish bishops signed the “Declaration of the Archbishops and Bishops of the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland” which affirmed:

“The Catholics of Ireland declare their belief that it is not an article of the Catholic faith, neither are they required to believe, that the Pope is infallible.”

**
**

Isn’t that a magnificent statement from the entire Irish episcopate?

So we see that the spark of Irish orthodoxy could blaze into life from time to time. Of course it was stamped out in 1870 when Vatican I declared the Pope to be infallible… but until 1870 nobody in Ireland, and certainly not the Irish bishops, believed that the Pope was infallible.

Show the source of that quote. I haven’t been able to find it anywhere except for here.