Anglicans to Rome - Thread 2

  • Thread starter Thread starter Traditional_Ang
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
GKC:
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.
Click to expand...
Well, I read that with great interest and have been hoping that others in the know or with unimpeachable sources will make a contribution.
 
Traditional Ang:
Remember, this isn’t just a Theological Debate.
Click to expand...
We know! My nerves are still all jangled since you revealed that the Vatican strategy with the TAC is a trial run for a greater plan to unite the Orthodox to Rome. :eek:
 
**
40.png
Matt16_18:
That is correct. Millions of Catholics know what the Church teaches and they obstinately refuse to accept at least a some of that teaching.
Click to expand...
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. **
**## POI: **
**Rejecting a dogma or dogmas does not make a Catholic a Protestant, unless the rejecter engages in the positive act of accepting those entities which constitute the “Protestant-ness” of Protestantism. **
**It’s unhelpful because misleading to discuss either of the two Christianities as a form of the other, because they are two species within a genus from which both derive - not two species which are related as affirmation to negation or as black to white: a binary model is insufficient as a means of understanding them Each has features which have no counterpart in the other’s character. ##
Obviously, all Anglicans are Protestants in need of conversion, since no Anglican accepts everything that the Catholic Church teaches.
Click to expand...
**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”. **
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. **
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. ;)**
 
40.png
Irenicist:
In the same way as the baptised infant is brought into the Church while in a state of invincible ignorance, so too can adults.
Click to expand...
Only adults that suffer from some form of arrested brain development can be assumed to possess an invincible ignorance that cannot be overcome by proper catechesis. All other adults are assumed to be able to receive the instruction that they need to make the Profession of Faith.

The Church used to be clear about what was expected from adult converts:The Roman Ritual
Reception of Converts

Profession of Faith (short form, pp. 35.)

I., N. N., having before me the holy Gospels, which I touch with my hand and knowing that no one can be saved without that faith which the Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Roman Church holds, believes, and teaches, against which I grieve that I have greatly erred, inasmuch as I have held and believed doctrines opposed to her teaching –

I now, with sorrow and contrition for my past errors, profess that I believe the Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Roman Church to be the only and true Church established on earth by Jesus Christ, to which I submit myself with my whole soul. I believe all the articles of Faith that she proposes to my belief, and I reject and condemn all that she rejects and condemns, and I am ready to observe all that she commands me. And I make the following profession of Faith:

I believe in only one God in three divine Persons, distinct from, and equal to, each other – that is to say, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.

I believe in the Catholic doctrine of the Incarnation, Passion, Death, and Resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ; and the personal union of the two Natures, the divine and the human; the divine Maternity of the most holy Mary, together with her most spotless Virginity.

I believe in the true, real and substantial presence of the Body and Blood, together with the Soul and Divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ, in the most holy Sacrament of the Eucharist.

I believe in the seven Sacraments instituted by Jesus Christ for the salvation of mankind – that is to say, Baptism, Confirmation, Eucharist, Penance, Extreme Unction, Order, Matrimony.

I believe in Purgatory, the Resurrection of the Dead, Everlasting Life.

I believe in the Primacy, not only of honor, but of jurisdiction, of the Roman Pontiff successor of St. Peter, Prince of the Apostles, Vicar of Jesus Christ.

I believe in the veneration of Saints and of their images.

I believe in the authority of the Apostolic and Ecclesial Traditions, and of the Holy Scriptures, which we must interpret and understand only in the sense which our holy mother the Catholic Church has held and does hold.

And I believe in everything else that has been defined and declared by the sacred Canons and by the General Councils, and particularly by the holy Council of Trent, and delivered, defined, and declared by the General Council of the Vatican, especially concerning the Primacy of the Roman Pontiff, and his infallible teaching authority.

With sincere heart, therefore, and with unfeigned faith, I detest and abjure every error, heresy, and sect opposed to the said holy, Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church. So help me God, and these His holy Gospels, which I touch with my hand.
 
Fr Ambrose:
Well, I read that with great interest and have been hoping that others in the know or with unimpeachable sources will make a contribution.
Click to expand...
All I can say is that the gentleman whom I quoted is known to me to be an honorable man, and well connected on this sort of thing…

GKC
 
**
40.png
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.
Click to expand...
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.**

**## Not “Britain” - England. **
The CC in the Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is made up of, or overlaps with, three RC hierarchies:
  • England and Wales
  • Scotland
  • Ireland (the island is ecclesiastically one, from an RC POV; politically, it includes the 26 Counties of Eire, and the 6 Counties of Northern Ireland, which is under the British Crown).
**It is not clear that British rule in the North of Ireland is any more objectionable than the fact that the Orkneys, which became Scottish in 1263 after the Battle of Largs, are still British and no longer under Norwegian rule. **
**Anyway: **
**England’s Reformation settlement was - as events were to show - finalised in 1559; Henry VIII’s breach with Rome in 1534 was not final, but introduced a period in which England’s religious identity was unsettled. Elizabeth’s intention was to return to the status quo as it had been when her father died. This proved not to be possible. **
**For legal purposes, the bishops charged with getting rid of heresy in Mary’s reign reckoned Henry VIII as being Catholic until his death in 1547. **
**Scotland got rid of Catholicism in 1560; the Presbyterian Church of Scotland was finally established as the national Church only in 1689/90. **
**Ireland, of which Henry VIII was crowned King in 1537, was a bit like Poland; religiously divided, but it stayed Catholic thanks largely to the peasants. **
Any corrections welcomed ##
 
40.png
GKC:
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.
Click to expand...
We spent many a sleepless night feeding our insomnia ridden evenings with historical, or was that histerical jawboning. It was good
40.png
GKC:
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.
Click to expand...
I was cruising the thread, and at the bottom of all the posts, I think I asked for the source of this idea, because I didn’t see where anyone gave a specific reference. Rumors and rumors of rumors, can develop lives of their own. And they can be totally false.
40.png
GKC:
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.
Click to expand...
Maybe some evening when the coffee is strong and the lids aren’t heavy. PM is a good way to do it.
 
40.png
GKC:
All I can say is that the gentleman whom I quoted is known to me to be an honorable man, and well connected on this sort of thing…

GKC
Click to expand...
I was not demeaning your source. Sorry for having given that impression. Have sent you an e-mail.
 
Gottle of Geer:
Rejecting a dogma or dogmas does not make a Catholic a Protestant, unless the rejecter engages in the positive act of accepting those entities which constitute the “Protestant-ness” of Protestantism.
Click to expand...
There are doctrines that faithful Catholics must accept. When a Christian makes the choice to reject a doctrine of the Catholic Church, that person has made the choice to become a Protestant (or a non-Christian).

Protestants come into existence by disbelief in the infallible doctrines of the Catholic Church.

There is no necessity for a Protestant to formally join an ecclesial community and make a profession of faith. Millions of Protestants believe that they are “non-denominational” Protestants.
 
**
oat soda:
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.
Click to expand...
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.**
**## All of that is so - but one is not required to understand, in order to be received as a Catholic. One is, however, very definitely required to believe. **
If the Pope and the Cardinal are privy to measures which undermine the faith and unity of the CC, the worse for them. Wrong is not made right when done by those in high office, or of respected character. If anything, those who do such things merely cover themselves in disgrace. Christian morality is undermined if good and evil depend on the person doing a thing, rather than on the act done. The reasoning that excuses the Pope, also excuses pro-abortion politicians. ##
 
**
40.png
Matt16_18:
There are doctrines that faithful Catholics must accept. When a Christian makes the choice to reject a doctrine of the Catholic Church, that person has made the choice to become a Protestant (or a non-Christian).
Click to expand...
**Protestants come into existence by disbelief in the infallible doctrines of the Catholic Church. **
There is no necessity for a Protestant to formally join an ecclesial community and make a profession of faith. Millions of Protestants believe that they are “non-denominational” Protestants.**
## It’s your notion of Protestantism I don’t accept - as for the rest, I entirely agree with you. This policy is in the strict sense hopeless 😦 . ##
 
40.png
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.
Click to expand...
Greetings, rjs1,

I missed this post earlier, until I saw it in Gottle reply.

Henry’s search for an annulment was a very complicated bit of history, and certainly supperficial conclusions are well, superficial. I can’t stop to discuss the story right now, I’m out the door. But while there were a number of points one might make and argue about it, one point that is certainly arguable is that Henry was denied the decree of nullity primarily because of Charles opposition, What Henry asked for, in terms of how dynastic marriages were made and unmade, under the canonical law of the day, was totally commonplace. And Henry’s case for an inadequate dispensation in 1506 was a strong one, with regard to the impediment of the justice of public honesty. Honest. And that is without regard to whether Hank was a blackguard or no. And his true goal, when he submitted his causa, was to secure a shaky dynastic claim, and bed the Boleyn. A twofer.

Encourage me slightly and I will relate the story of his sister Margaret’s annulments, also originally sought in 1525. Instructive as to how the system worked.

Nice to meet you.

GKC
 
40.png
Matt16_18:
Only adults that suffer from some from arrested brain development can be assumed to possess an invincible ignorance that cannot be overcome by proper catechesis.

Granted, but the object would be to subject them to proper catechesis, no just label them as invincibly ignorant and forget about them.

Let’s just assume for the sake of argument that the TAC has 300,000 members of which 100,000 are Low Church and as such have not been exposed to the Catholic faith in its fullness. We could insist that the TAC break up first, expell its Low Church members and then enter the Catholic Church as a body. In the unlikely event this was agreed to, what message would this be sending to the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox or, for that matter, any other Church with whom we might consider reunion talks. We wouldn’t be offering reunion, just dismemberment and predation. Those members of the TAC who are happy to join the Church as individuals have already done so. Presumably the “orthodox” in the TAC would like the opportunity to bring their Low Church bretheren into the fullness of the faith. They can either do this by bringing them into the Church and helping us complete the process of evangelization, or they can stay outside the Church and try to do it without our help.

I can’t imagine there would be any question of permanently dispensing Low Church TACers from subscribing to the fullness of the faith. To that extent I agree with you, and I suspect Trad Anglican does as well. The real issue is can the TAC as a whole be granted communion prior to the completion of this process of evangelization which might well take a generation. New Catholics have been brought into the Church in groups on far easier terms than this in the past, and they and their descendents have become rocks of orthodoxy.

When extending communion to a whole sister Church one cannot use the same standards that one would apply to individuals. It just isn’t practical and it would defeat the whole purpose of reunion talks.

We can, and I am sure the Holy Father would, insist that all members of the TAC passing over know what the Church teaches, recognize her authority to teach infallibly and agree to endeavour in good faith to bring their consciences into conformity with the fullness of the faith.

If, over the years, they fail and choose to dissent, they would be free to leave. If they fail and choose to disrupt the peace of the Church, they would be subject to the same penalties as cradle Catholics who stubbornly dissent. If they fail, yet submit in respectful silence to the magisterium’s authority, then they would fulfill the minimal requirements expected of those already in the Church.

This is what was done with and for all the Eastern Churches brought back into communion with Rome. It strikes me as churlish and mean spirited to offer the TAC less. The truths of the faith are not self-evident, the language in which they are formulated is not self-explanatory, and the inessential assumptions that help us believe them are not necessarily shared. Each adult convert reaches the fullness of the faith in his own way, and the process can take years, even decades, as anyone involved in the process will testify. There is no cookie cutter approach to conversion. If you have a whole Church that comes to you, most of whose members tell you they already believe and the rest tell you in good conscience that they don’t yet with respect to a few minor points (rmember: the Church teaches that there is a hierarchy of truths) but are willing to learn, are you really going to tell the latter to buzz off, sign up for classes on their own and come back only when they can meet a standard of orthodoxy which is in practice not applied to the rest of the faithful?

Irenicist
Click to expand...
 
**
40.png
SteveG:
GofG,
Click to expand...
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 (http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=466751&postcount=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.**
**## I hope very much to be wrong. **
Seeing that, even at present, Byzantine Catholics seem to be allowed:
  • a different OT canon
**and also **
  • **to deny certain dogmas we are not allowed to deny **
**- ****it is not at all obvious that this rumour is baseless 😦 **
An official denial from the TAC would be welcome. ##
 
40.png
Irenicist:
40.png
Matt16_18:
Let’s just assume for the sake of argument that the TAC has 300,000 members of which 100,000 are Low Church and as such have not been exposed to the Catholic faith in its fullness. We could insist that the TAC break up first, expell its Low Church members and then enter the Catholic Church as a body. In the unlikely event this was agreed to, what message would this be sending to the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox or, for that matter, any other Church with whom we might consider reunion talks. We wouldn’t be offering reunion, just dismemberment and predation
Click to expand...
The Orthodox Church is happy to offer union to the Church of Rome. All we would insist on is that you divest yourselves of doctrines which were added after the first millennium.

This would, unfortunately, result in some dismemberment of the Roman Catholic Church since there will be some who are unwilling to let go of these recent doctrines and the Orthodox would be unable to accept these into the Church.

The result of Rome’s return to Orthodoxy would probably be 1) a Church of Rome in communion with all the Orthodox and 2) a Continuing Roman Church in schism and with a pretender Pope.
Click to expand...
 
. We could insist that the TAC break up first, expell its Low Church members and then enter the Catholic Church as a body. In the unlikely event this was agreed to, what message would this be sending to the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox
Click to expand...
Have no fear! The message which it would send to the Orthodox is that you take the integrity of your faith seriously. That is something the Orthodox would expect and admire.

The alternative, which you seem to be proposing - a (temporary) accommodation with heresy- would fill the Orthodox with horror.
“Never, O man, is that which relates to the Church corrected through compromises: there is no middle way between the Truth and the lie… and although one can say that there is a mean between light and darkness which is called the morning and evening twilight, nevertheless between the Truth and the lie, however hard you try, you will never find a mean.”
-St. Mark of Ephesus
 
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.
Click to expand...
An article of faith isn’t a must for Catholics to believe until it is defined and made an article of faith. That means prior to an article being defined as an article of faith, , it is okay to not believe it. You should know this. From Adam forward, Prior to the doctrine of the Trinity in 325 being defined, it was not heretical to not believe in the Trinity, But once it is defined, one must believe.
 
Fr Ambrose:
The Orthodox Church is happy to offer union to the Church of Rome. All we would insist on is that you divest yourselves of doctrines which were added after the first millennium.
Click to expand...
You got that exactly backwards
fr ambrose:
This would, unfortunately, result in some dismemberment of the Roman Catholic Church since there will be some who are unwilling to let go of these recent doctrines and the Orthodox would be unable to accept these into the Church.
Click to expand...
Again, you got that exactly backwards
fr ambrose:
The result of Rome’s return to Orthodoxy would probably be 1) a Church of Rome in communion with all the Orthodox and 2) a Continuing Roman Church in schism and with a pretender Pope.
Click to expand...
Pretender Pope? Cool your jets. Fact of the matter, let’s make this simple. To be fully orthodox is to be in communion with the chair of Peter, period the end. To be unorthodox is to be Orthodox, out of communion with the chair of Peter, and continuing in schism…
 
steve b:
An article of faith isn’t a must for Catholics to believe until it is defined and made an article of faith. That means prior to an article being defined as an article of faith, , it is okay to not believe it. You should know this. From Adam forward, Prior to the doctrine of the Trinity in 325 being defined, it was not heretical to not believe in the Trinity, But once it is defined, one must believe.
Click to expand...
I realise that this is the modern Catholic approach but we must remember that it is just that - something modern. If it were true we could progress back through the centuries and one by one we could discard or disbelieve Christianity’s basic beliefs.

The Church (i.e., the Orthodox) lives by the tradition which it has received from the Apostles and our Holy Fathers. Most of it has NOT been defined, certainly not in the limited sense of modern Roman Catholicism. Nevertheless to step outside the tradition is to fall into heresy, with or without a conciliar definition.

The Church calls Councils when it is necessary ro defend and clarify truths which are under attack. That does not mean that prior to a Council and a conciliar definition that the traditional teaching was either vague or optional. A great portion of the apostolic tradition had never needed to come under the purview of any Council. Take, as an example, the Assumption. It’s never been subjected to any Council in the East, but it is not possible to deny it because that overturns the tradition.

So the Orthodox would not say: we can avoid this belief because it has not been defined. He would ask: what does the tradition teach? And in this sense the 1826 Irish declaration against papal infallibility was an authentic expression of the tradition of the Church.
“Remove not the ancient landmarks which your fathers have set” -Proverbs 22.28
 
steve b:
An article of faith isn’t a must for Catholics to believe until it is defined and made an article of faith. That means prior to an article being defined as an article of faith, , it is okay to not believe it. You should know this.
Click to expand...
Just following through. Yes of course I know this but I know it is only Roman Catholic teaching too.

If we look at the beautiful words of one of the holy Fathers of the West, Saint Vincent of Lerins, we see that the modern RC attitude to doctrine and its obligatory de fide nature ONLY after definition has never been that of the Church.

But the Church of Christ, the careful and watchful guardian of the doctrines deposited in her charge, never changes anything in them, never diminishes, never adds, does not cut off what is necessary, does not add what is superfluous, does not lose her own, does not appropriate what is another’s, but while dealing faithfully and judiciously with ancient doctrine, keeps this one object carefully in view: – if there be anything which antiquity has left shapeless and rudimentary, to fashion and polish it, if anything already reduced to shape and developed, to consolidate and strengthen it, if any already ratified and defined to keep and guard it.

Finally, what other object have Councils ever aimed at in their decrees, than to provide that what was before believed in simplicity should in future be believed intelligently, that what was before preached coldly should in future be preached earnestly, that what was before practised negligently should thenceforward be practised with double solicitude? This, I say, is what the Catholic Church, roused by the novelties of heretics, has accomplished by the decrees of her Councils, - this, and nothing else, - she has thenceforward consigned to posterity in writing what she had received from those of olden times only by tradition, comprising a great amount of matter in a few words, and often, for the better understanding, designating an old article of the faith by the characteristic of a new name.

From his Commonitorium, written about 430.

Note the last paragraph especially. “What was believed in simplicity should in future be believed intelligently” and 'consigned to writing what she had received only by tradition."

The Irish bishops in 1826 were giving expression to what the Church had always believed “in simplicity” and they were giving expresion to what they “received by tradition.” It was not a question of their waiting for a definition which might come along in the 19th century or the 21st century or the 31st century. They already *knew * the teaching of the tradition. The definition, when it did come, in 1870, was contrary to the tradition which the Irish Church had always believed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top