Anglicans to Rome - Thread 2

[Fr_Ambrose]

steve b:

You got that exactly backwards

Again, you got that exactly backwards

Ecumenical dialogue can be so difficult. The rules of the game are that you are at least supposed to pretend that you are listening to your dialogue partner’s viewpoint

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

steve b:

Pretender Pope? Cool your jets.

But when you come home, you will still have a Pope in Rome. Why not? The bishop of Rome was known as “Pope” even before the Great Divide. It’s a legitimate title and there’s another Pope in Alexandria.

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…

No, to be fully orthodox is to hold the faith of Peter and the Apostles. Nothing to do with chairs or cities. Anyway, I suppose that the Orthodox could adopt that argument - after all, we are in communion with Peter’s first chair in Antioch.

We’re starting to take Trad Ang’s thread off into unrelated matters… sorry!

 

[mark_a]

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

Hello GKC,

Is there any offer at all?

 

[steve_b]

Fr Ambrose:

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.

Like what?
fr ambrose:

The Church (i.e., the Orthodox) lives by the tradition which it has received from the Apostles and our Holy Fathers.

Not so. The apostles didn’t seperate from Peter, and the ECF’s didn’t seperate from Peter’s successor, in Rome.
fr ambrose:

Most of it has NOT been defined, certainly not in the limited sense of modern Roman Catholicism.

I don’t like the way you use modern. I realize you don’t have systematic theology on your side of the isle. We on the other hand continue to have ecumenical councils and continue to grow in knowledge as the HS was promised us.
fr ambrose:

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.

The point is, you can’t call someone into heresy until the article of faith is known and taught as an article of faith by the Church and therefore, is expected to be believed…
fr ambrose:

A great portion of the apostolic tradition had never needed to come under the purview of any Council.

There is (t)radition and (T)radition. What we’re talking about is both Tradition that is oral, and written, AND the ongoing workings of the HS in the Church.You underplay the seriousness of all the heresies that were present. If the Tradition was SOOOOOOO clear, why were councils even needed?
fr ambrose:

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.

You’re being selective with what you want to agree on.
fr ambrose:

He would ask: what does the tradition teach?

And who decides this for you such that all the different Orthodox churches agree?
fr ambrose:

And in this sense the 1826 Irish declaration against papal infallibility was an authentic expression of the tradition of the Church.

Wrong! It might have been what a few believed. But it was obviously not what the entire Church believed. Or the doctrine never would have been defined as an article of faith.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Fr Ambrose
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

steve b:

Like what?

According to you - The Trinity !!! You wrote:

Prior to the doctrine of the Trinity in 325 being defined, it was not heretical to not believe in the Trinity…

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Matt:

Do you understand that to make the offer, the Pope had to determine that the members of the TAC suffered from “INVOLUNTARILY DOUBT” as defined by your own CCC?

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=465878&postcount=88

And that he had to believe that he was looking at a 300,000-500,000 cases of “INVINCIBLE IGNORANCE”.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=447833&postcount=198

And that, therefore, these people aren’t in Mortal Sin, because they do not have the INTENT to be heretics or NOT to DO AS the Pope asks!..

Matt16_18:

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 isnÕt 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.

…I understand that the missalettes are supposed to say that. Many just have the instruction about “All Baptised Catholics…”

But, if “Communion presupposes Union,” ** Why are the Eastern Orthodox allowed to receive Communion** when there is neither UNION nor AGREEMENT? Esp. when one considers the fact that the disgreements are over MORE areas of Doctrine!

Matt, could part of the problem be that you KNOW “The Doubting Thomases” (or even the Heretic) in the parishes near you, but you just don’t know any of the people I’m talking about?

Would it help if I put a human face on this so you could see who it is the Pope is trying to bring in out of the cold?..

Blessings and peace.

In Christ, Michael

 

[steve_b]

Fr Ambrose:

According to you - The Trinity !!! You wrote:

We still disagree about the procession of the HS. Therefore we disagree about the Trinity.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

steve b:

We still disagree about the procession of the HS. Therefore we disagree about the Trinity.

Ah, you’re wriggling!

You wrote that according to the Roman Catholic Church, nobody is obliged to believe something which has not been defined and that is why the Irish bishops in 1826 were able to deny Papal Infallibility.

You also wrote that this allowed Catholics prior to 325 AD to deny the Holy Trinity !!!

I think that this is sufficient proof that the Catholic theory that “no belief is required prior to definition” is a modern dogma which won’t fly

steve b:

Prior to the doctrine of the Trinity in 325 being defined, it was not heretical to not believe in the Trinity…

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Fr. Ambrose:

That could be accomplished pretty much by stating what it is the TAC is doing and by stating that those coming would have to agree to ALL of the Catholic Doctines save the ones supposedly excluded by the offer…
Fr Ambrose:

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

…The original Affirmation of St. Louis (1977) was supposed to have done that, but it seems to have been the case:

Affirmation of St. Louis (1977)
acahome.org/tac/library/docs/affirm.htm

So, there will either be some very “interesting” Synodal meetings, or some people will have to realize what it is they signed and buckle down and learn. And, sadly, some won’t make it.

In a way, it’s like when the Jews left Egypt. Because they kept on forgetting how bad Egypt was, they kept on thinking about turning back…Luckily, ECUSA and the Anglican Communion seen quite intent on REMINDING US just how bad it was!

So, unless I get clobbered with friendly fire, that will make my job easier.

Blessings to you and your congregation.

In Christ, Michael

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Fr. Ambrose and Steve:

This is a DOCTRINAL DISCUSSION! I seem to recall that I specifically requested that to be excluded from this Thread because of the fact that’s how the last Thread ended!

Anglicans to Rome - Thread 2 - #1

Per Therese Martin’s instructions, we aren’t discussing the doctrines, or even if the TAC should be forced to accept them (BTW, I do accept them). At least not for now.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=460243&postcount=1
Fr Ambrose:

Ah, you’re wriggling!

You wrote that according to the Roman Catholic Church, nobody is obliged to believe something which has not been defined and that is why the Irish bishops in 1826 were able to deny Papal Infallibility.

You also wrote that this allowed Catholics prior to 325 AD to deny the Holy Trinity !!!

I think that this is sufficient proof that the Catholic theory that “no belief is required prior to definition” is a modern dogma which won’t fly

So, please, can we stop the Doctrinal dispute BEFORE it results in another FURBALL!

Fr. Ambrose, Orthodoxy defends itself quite well enough, and we both know that you have a cardiologist and a congregation…So, please…

May God bless you with health.

In Christ, Michael

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Steve:

NO. We disagree about about the nature of the Procession of the Holy Ghost, NOT about the essential nature of the Trinity…
steve b:

We still disagree about the procession of the HS. Therefore we disagree about the Trinity.

…Now, I seem to recall that these disputes were labelled "off-limits in this thread because of the rather nasty furball on the last one…

Since several have made such a wonderful case for the EXCLUSION of the TAC from the Catholic Church at this time, I was wondering if someone would want the task of trying to make the case for the INCLUSION of the TAC into the Catholic Church?

The reason I’m asking is simple - The Council of Florence was an attempt at Reconciliation between East and West that failed because the LAITY weren’t prepared, or “weren’t buying it.”

Maybe someone wanted to know if this attempt at union would run into the same problems.

Blessings and peace.

Michael

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Traditional Ang:

This is a DOCTRINAL DISCUSSION! I seem to recall that I specifically requested that to be excluded from this Thread because of the fact that’s how the last Thread ended!

Fair enough. No more doctrinal discussions.

So, can you share with us what made you write that the TAC agreement with Rome which allows its members not to believe, if they so choose, RC dogma (basically all those post-1869) is a trial run for the way in which Rome will tackle its union with the Orthodox?

In effect the TAC believers will be back in the same position and with the same freedom of denial as the Irish bishops of 1826, while contemporary RCs are bound de fide by the dogma defined in 1870.

This is NOT a question of dogma which I am raising but a question of dogmatic methodology.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Traditional Ang:

if “Communion presupposes Union,” ** Why are the Eastern Orthodox allowed to receive Communion** when there is neither UNION nor AGREEMENT?

Esp. when one considers the fact that the disgreements are over MORE areas of Doctrine!

Michael, I am wondering if you are moving into a verboten area of doctrine but the Orthodox are NOT allowed to receive RC communion.

Yes, the RCs will offer it to Orthodox, but then the Anglicans will offer it to RCs. Same difference.

To my knowledge no Orthodox Church allows its faithful to receive communion outside the Orthodox Church, not even in extremis.

 

[steve_b]

Fr Ambrose:

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."

Yep! And this “tradition” comes from oral & written testimony of the apostles, and the ongoing workings of the HS through the magisterium of the Church.
fr ambrose:

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.”

You mentioned this before. As far as what I could find,

1826 Thirty Roman Catholic bishops and archbishops in Ireland signed a declaration that “The Catholics of Ireland declare on oath their belief that it is not an article of the Catholic faith, neither are they required to believe that the pope is infallible.” They presented testimony before a committee of the English Parliament that they and their congregations rejected both papal infallibility and the notion that the bishop of Rome could relieve subjects from their civil allegiance. As a result, the Roman Catholic Emancipation Act of 1827 was enacted.

1. I couldn’t find “Roman Catholic Emancipation Act of 1827”,
2. 30 bishops hardly express what the Church had always believed. If that was the case, the doctrine would have never become an article of faith.
3. These were most likely “old catholic” bishops. There’s probably not more than 20,000 “old catholics” in all of Europe.

fr ambrose:

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.

You’re reading from the wrong sources.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

steve b:

These were most likely “old catholic” bishops. There’s probably not more than 20,000 “old catholics” in all of Europe.

The Old Catholics did not yet exist when the Roman Catholic Bishops of Ireland issued their statement against infallibility in 1826.

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Fr. Ambrose:

Maybe I should be grateful, because I was getting the stuufings kicked out of me, and this gives me a chance to present a different angle…
Fr Ambrose:

But when you come home, you will still have a Pope in Rome. Why not? The bishop of Rome was known as “Pope” even before the Great Divide. It’s a legitimate title and there’s another Pope in Alexandria.

No, to be fully orthodox is to hold the faith of Peter and the Apostles. Nothing to do with chairs or cities. Anyway, I suppose that the Orthodox could adopt that argument - after all, we are in communion with Peter’s first chair in Antioch.

We’re starting to take Trad Ang’s thread off into unrelated matters… sorry!

…You see, we’ve been talking about numbers and dogmatic theology, but we haven’t been talking about what this is really about - Pope John Paul’s determination that 300,000 persecuted brothers and sisters in Christ need to be brought in from the cold.

So, to maybe help the cause, I’ll try to put a human face on those 300,000 brothers and sisters.

I’ll start with my own story…

I was born and raised in a Low-Church “Evangelical” parish by a father who really wanted to be a High Church “Anglo-Catholic”. He thought it was an improvement when the parish’s new Rector started doing Weekly Mass and using incense, until he realized the man was “Broad Church”. We left that in 1977 because of the Ordination of Women “Priests”.

In 1984, my father died, and by 1985, I had left the Church. Except for a couple of “visits” and some involvement with the Unitarian Church for a while, I didn’t attend any Church unil 16 months ago. By that time, I was a MESS.

In 1994, I found out that I had an an Acustic Tumor (that’s a Tumor centered on the 8th Cranial Nerve) that had been growing in my brain for 8 years. After struggling with a very reluctant HMO, I had the surgery in Nov., 1994. I was in the hospital 11 days; the first 5, I could barely lift my head because of “Spinal Headaches”. Did you know you can scream (name removed by moderator)ain even while unconscious? The nurses said that I did it.

During that time, I got a Bible from someone who had known me before then. She wrote inside that I needed to turn to Jesus and read the Bible instead of my horoscopes.

NOT even that could bring me to repentance!

I got a job at a place where the air caused me to cough uncontrollably. I once had a Christian who, after witnessing this for over a year and never expressing any concern, had the gall to tell me about an evangelistic meeting.

Nope!

One day, one of my girlfriend’s clients was deathly ill. At this time, I was posting on a Secular ME Forum with posters all over the world. I did the only thing I knew how to do… I asked the forum members to pray, giving as much information as I legally could.

One of the posters, an Orthodox Rabbi, printed out the request and jumped on a bus line the Palestinians had just bombed to the Kotel (where the Palestinians were stoning worshippers). When the Rabbi was finished risking his life for an absolute stranger at the request of another absolute stranger, the client was OK.

2-1/2 months later, this same Rabbi announced he was living the group to move to his new home and congregation in Yesha (what the West Bank was originally called). He then said, “Michael (there was ONLY ONE Michael on the board) what are you doing about your spiritual life? Why did you stop attending your church? and, when are you going to start?”

This was a SECULAR BOARD! The man had risked his life at my request!

That week, I dragged myself through the doors of St. Mary’s and thanked God they didn’t throw me back out!

The next week, I witnessed an ordination where the man who was ordained priest had taken care of AIDS patients when the disease was called GRID! Over 20 of his patients attended his ordination, including one who must be considered a medical miracle. The Bishop who ordained him won a MOH by flying a crippled aircraft on to a carrier after the plane was damaged and he and this REO were wounded over N. Vietnam.

Fr. Ambrose talked about how the Church was a hospital. He didn’t know how right he was…What he forgot is that God has rather strange ways of getting us into His hospital.

Thank you for the opportunity,

Blessings in Christ.

Michael

 

[steve_b]

Fr Ambrose:

Ah, you’re wriggling!

You wrote that according to the Roman Catholic Church, nobody is obliged to believe something which has not been defined and that is why the Irish bishops in 1826 were able to deny Papal Infallibility.

If something is not identified as an article of faith, Catholics don’t have to believe it. If those bishops were Roman Catholics, papal infallibility was not defined yet as an article of faith. If they were “old catholics” then they are dissidents anyway.
fr ambrose:

You also wrote that this allowed Catholics prior to 325 AD to deny the Holy Trinity !!!

I should have been clearer. I meant to say, one can with hold assent to undefined doctrine. I was actually trying to give the East a break with regards to Trinitarian understanding…

"The second half of the century is illustrated by an illustrious triad in Cappadocia, St. Basil, his friend St. Gregory Nazianzen, and his brother St. Gregory of Nyssa. They were the main workers in the return of the East to orthodoxy. Their doctrine of the Trinity is an advance even upon that of Didymus, and is very near indeed to the Roman doctrine which was later embodied in the Athanasian creed. But it had taken a long while for the East to assimilate the entire meaning of the orthodox view. St. Basil showed great patience with those who had advanced less far on the right road than himself, and he even tempered his language so as to conciliate them. "

Call it what you will, when a doctrine is developing, as the understanding of the Trinity was, one is only required to believe what has been defined as articles of faith. All else is not a requirement to believe…
fr ambrose:

.

I think that this is sufficient proof that the Catholic theory that “no belief is required prior to definition” is a modern dogma which won’t fly

Until a doctrine is defined as an article of faith, it is not mandatory that a Catholic give their assent to it. That is just common sense.

I’m thinking of the Immaculate conception as an example. Prior to the Church defining this as an article of faith, one was free to accept it or not.

 

[steve_b]

Traditional Ang:

Fr. Ambrose and Steve:

This is a DOCTRINAL DISCUSSION! I seem to recall that I specifically requested that to be excluded from this Thread because of the fact that’s how the last Thread ended!

Anglicans to Rome - Thread 2 - #1

Per Therese Martin’s instructions, we aren’t discussing the doctrines, or even if the TAC should be forced to accept them (BTW, I do accept them). At least not for now.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=460243&postcount=1

So, please, can we stop the Doctrinal dispute BEFORE it results in another FURBALL!

Fr. Ambrose, Orthodoxy defends itself quite well enough, and we both know that you have a cardiologist and a congregation…So, please…

May God bless you with health.

In Christ, Michael

Michael,

OOOps!! I wish I had read your post first before responding to Fr A.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

steve b:

Michael,

OOOps!! I wish I had read your post first before responding to Fr A.

I would say that discussing the methodology of doctrinal development is not the same as discussing doctrine. I understand that it is the latter which is not allowed?

Discussing whether the TAC is able to reject RC doctrines (dogma in this case) or whether the Pope has the authority to permit this is not discussing doctrine per se but only whether or not some de fide dogma are optional.

Umpire, what is your ruling?

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Fr. Ambrose:

I believe the exception are the Greek Orthodox, and it is only In Extremis and definitely discouraged even then…
Fr Ambrose:

Michael, I am wondering if you are moving into a verboten area of doctrine but the Orthodox are NOT allowed to receive RC communion.

Yes, the RCs will offer it to Orthodox, but then the Anglicans will offer it to RCs. Same difference.

To my knowledge no Orthodox Church allows its faithful to receive communion outside the Orthodox Church, not even in extremis.

…My point was that the “Union before Communion” wasn’t necessarily true, because the Catholic Church had authorized their Priests to OFFER Communion to any Orthodox visitors! The important thing from my POV was the OFFER!

As we both know, there is definitely NO Union as of yet between the two Churches.

Blessings to you and your congregation.

Michael