Anglicans to Rome - Thread 2

[Fr_Ambrose]

Traditional Ang:

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

I have to say that I doubt this muchly. Only two or three months ago the Synod of the Greek Church refused to allow its First Hierarch Archbishop Christodoulos to accept the Pope’s invitation to visit Rome. Prior to that, when the Pope visited Greece for one day, the whole city of Athens was rocked by protest marches!

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

You are very kind. But it is three years ago that the cardiologist told me to stop serving Liturgy! Hurrumph! What does he know…?

…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!

In this country many Catholic priests give communion to Anglicans and there seems to be no negative reaction from the hierarchy. Is this not happening in the States?

 

[Traditional_Ang]

GLC:

Maybe he’s realizing those people on the other side of the Tiber aren’t so happy to see us, judging from the last two threads on this…

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

…Because, I’m beginning to hear of some difficulties from a different source.

I understand that when the East and the West tried to reunify at the Council of Florence that the project didn’t work because the LAITY of both churches just weren’t ready for it and just weren’t “buying the deal”.

I’ve spent the last 30 hours wondering if I was purposely given the information I was given to see if that would be the case here. If that’s the case, then someone was definitely seriously considering it…

Blessings to you and your family.

In Christ, Michael

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Traditional Ang:

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…

Michael, thanks for telling us your story. Wonderful.

What about the story of Archbp John Hepworth?

It is not often that a priest leaves the Roman Catholic Church and then wants to return a couple of decades later with half a million souls in tow!

---

Thus saith the Lord: “Stand at the crossroads, and see and ask for the ancient paths which is the good way, and walk therein, and you shall find rest for your souls.” -Jeremiah 6:16

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Traditional Ang:

Maybe he’s realizing those people on the other side of the Tiber aren’t so happy to see us, judging from the last two threads on this…

Michael, I had the impression on the first thread that there were people quite keen to see the TAC come into submission to the Pope. It seemed to be based on the principle of ignorantia invincibilis (which I didn’t find complimentary to Anglicans) but at least you were welcome.

---

Holy Father Patrick, pray for us.
Holy Mother Brigid, pray for us.
Holy Father Colmcille, pray for us.

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Steve B - Referring to your # 110:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=467059&postcount=110

As I said in my post #1:

*So, with that in mind, as of two weeks ago, I was informed by my source, who happens to be my Pastor, that an offer had been made to Archbishop John Hepworth, the Primate of the Traditional Anglican Communion by Pope John Paul II for FULL COMMUNION with the Catholic Church and His Holiness, Pope Paul II.

The details were no less astounding to me than they were to many of the other poster of the forum, because they included that the TAC would NOT be required to accept the Infallibility of the Pope or the two Marion doctrines (The Assumption of the BVM & the Immaculate Conception of the BVM).*

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

This is the extent of what I have. The only thing that caused me to post was the INTEGRITY and the PLACEMENT of my source. As Fr. Ambrose has posted, there has been an information lockdown for the last month, and I can tell you that these people are very good at keeping a secret when they want to.

For the life of me, I don’t know why they allowed me to post the information.

Regarding Catholic politicians and others who are defying the Church on various issues - my point is that these people aren’t denied the comfort of the Church and its Sacraments. Right or wrong, they’re given the Sacraments and every chance of repentance! That’s what you would deny to the TAC members who are NOT defiant, but who are (according to my source) only guilty of being allowed to not voice assent to doctrines many Catholics don’t believe in!

I understand that after death there’s a judgement, and that many of us will not fare so well. That’s why I “Work out my own salvation in fear and trembling” and why I plead the case for the Traditional Anglicans who can’t come to places like this board and plead it for themselves.

Regarding Thomas - Did our Lord handle Thomas’ doubts by sending apostles at him to argue the correctness of the Resurrection while Thomas waited outside the door being refused admittence? or, Did Our Lord come to Thomas while the Eleven were GATHERED TOGETHER in the upper room?

Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side. Do not disbelieve, but believe.”
John 20:27

If you were in the TAC and I were a Catholic on the Board, what would you want to hear?

Blessings and peace.

Goodnight, Michael

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Fr Ambrose:

Michael, I had the impression on the first thread that there were people quite keen to see the TAC come into submission to the Pope. It seemed to be based on the principle of ignorantia invincibilis (which I didn’t find complimentary to Anglicans) but at least you were welcome.

---

Holy Father Patrick, pray for us.
Holy Mother Brigid, pray for us.
Holy Father Colmcille, pray for us.

Thank you for both of your kind posts Fr., but I’m absolutely dead.

I’ll tell you what I know about Abp. Hepworth later tonight, after I’ve had some sleep.

• Guide us waking, Oh Lord,
  and guard us sleeping…
  So that awake we may watch with Christ,
  And asleep, we may rest in peace.*

Goodnight, Fr. Ambrose.

 

[mtr01]

Fr Ambrose:

Michael, I had the impression on the first thread that there were people quite keen to see the TAC come into submission to the Pope. It seemed to be based on the principle of ignorantia invincibilis (which I didn’t find complimentary to Anglicans) but at least you were welcome.

---

Holy Father Patrick, pray for us.
Holy Mother Brigid, pray for us.
Holy Father Colmcille, pray for us.

For what it’s worth, I would greatly rejoice at the TAC coming home to Rome (don’t think I’d call it “submission to the Pope”, though ).

For as much as I would like to see this, I just can’t get around this suggestion that they would be able to not accept certain dogmas. As Matt 16_18 (I believe) has pointed out, a public profession of assent to all the doctrine of the Church is required before any catechumen is received.

Now I do understand that there are some differences between individuals and an entire body being received into the Church. I am a little unclear about the end result of such a “union” (perhaps I didn’t pay enough attention). Is the proposal for the TAC to be considered a “Church” in communion with Rome, as the Eastern Catholic Churches, or would the TAC become “absorbed” (for lack of a better word) into the Western Church?

I certainly see different issues with each of the above scenarios. If the former is correct, then perhaps there is a little more “wiggle room” as far as dogma, and the timetable for full acceptance. However, I would expect these doctrines to be accepted by the hierarchy, and to be taught to the laity before such a union could occur. If it is the latter (which makes more sense to me since the Anglican Church has its roots in the Latin Rite of the Western Church), then I would not accept anything less than full acceptance of all dogma before communion.

Bottom line for me is that the governing body of the TAC needs to make clear the dogmas of the Catholic Church, and if anyone is not comfortable with them, they are free to not accept the union and leave, or hopefully enter a period of catechism before reception in the Church.

 

[GKC]

mark a:

Hello GKC,

Is there any offer at all?

I don’t know. In a column on +Moyers and Chislett’s consecrations, written by David Virtue, an orthodox Anglican columnist who follows this sort of thing, I read that Hepworth said at the press conference accompanying the ceremony that the TAC was in conversation with Rome. “We met with their Council of Christian Unity which we see as a path to communion. We are in the process of forming friendships with local RC groups and both of us are facilitating those friendships.”

Also

“We met with Cardinal Rigali in Philadelphia where we had simple conversations. He said that he was anxious that relationships should flourish with TAC members.”

Furher deponent sayeth not.

GKC

 

[GKC]

steve b:

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.

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.

You’re reading from the wrong sources.

It was the Catholic Emancipation Act ot 1829. It was based largely on situations in Ireland, made RCs eligible to hold most public offices, and was (surprise) part of a complicated story.

GKC

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

mtr01:

For what it’s worth, I would greatly rejoice at the TAC coming home to Rome (don’t think I’d call it “submission to the Pope”, though ).

I used the phrase because it is one which Michael has been hitting constantly.

These phrases are from what he wrote in messages in the original thread:

At the present time, I’m going to have to agree with my Primate who has stated that Union with and submission to the See of Peter is essential

I understand that if things could be worked ourked, we’d all be in union with and submitted to His Holiness, the Pope.

people ALL submit DIRECTLY TO THE POPE, not to their Local Ordinaries.

Please remember, we would all be Catholics, and we all submit to the leadership of the Pope.

Depending on the Source, The TAC is bringing over 400,000-500,000 Catholics, along with a full compliment of Deacons, Priests and Bishops, **who will obey and submit to His Holiness on all matters touching faith and morals, ** just like the various Uniate Catholics do NOW.

The last one is curious since there is a stated intention to withhold assent on three de fide dogmas.

 

[LourdesladyN]

Good Morning Gentlemen,

I feel as if I am intruding but I have found this thread very interesting. If I may, I would like to clarify some points for my own understanding.

GKC:

It was the Catholic Emancipation Act ot 1829. It was based largely on situations in Ireland, made RCs eligible to hold most public offices, and was (surprise) part of a complicated story.

GKC

Just looking to the reference above I am wondering how this is understood in light of Lumen Gentium. *Lumen Gentium * clearly states that the Bishops are only infallible when in communion with the Bishop of Rome. Therefore, anything similar to the Catholic Emancipation Act ot 1829 has been specifically ruled out as a possibility for future standards.

In making that statement, I am not confirming that the denial of the Papacy ever held any validity in terms of communion ------ I am simply stating that it clearly would hold none at this time.

This obeservation makes the conundrum of the supposssed “communion of the TAC without communion of Bishop of Rome,” clear to me. You see if the TAC were to fall under the alleged terms of not accepting the Papacy, then there is really no communion whatsoever. If that is the case, then what is the benefit to the Body of Anglicans? The Anglican church is already suffering from the upheaval of illegitimate doctrine. A plan such as is formed without specificity of Legitimate Papal authority contiunues the threat of future ambiguity.

Mother church is many things, ambiguous is not one of them. Ut unim sint.

In the Peace of Christ,

 

[Irish_Melkite]

This thread is not one in which I have participated, nor was its predecessor. I have, however, watched it and want to offer an opinion - for what it is worth.

Is there anyone here, Catholic or otherwise (other than Michael), who seriously believes that a Church of 300-500K members is in conversation/negotiation with Rome regarding the potential corporate reception of it into the Catholic Church despite its members eschewing a number of presently defined Catholic doctrines?

Wait, if you do believe that, let me ask another question.

Is there anyone here (again excluding Michael) who believes that while these obviously extremely sensitive negotiations were ongoing, they were being revealed only to the mere 300-500K persons who are members of the Church in question, who were entrusted not to discuss them publically until the time is right, and these obedient Christians - man, woman, child - maintained that silence?

Wait, another question.

Is there anyone (same exclusion) who believes that, while negotiations continue and draw toward their final conclusion, a young man is delegated to go forth onto a huge RC board and test the waters to see how Catholics will relate to this idea?

This, my brothers and sisters, offers the opportunity for a combo sitcom and quiz show on the idea of “To Tell the Truth”. If ever this comes to pass with anything like the gameplan that has been addressed here, I guarantee you that I will personally ban myself from posting in this forum - on the basis that I was too ignorant to see the Will of God in the scenario being presented.

I’m sorry, but this is the stuff of which fairy tales are made.

Many years,

Neil

 

[steve_b]

GKC:

It was the Catholic Emancipation Act ot 1829. It was based largely on situations in Ireland, made RCs eligible to hold most public offices, and was (surprise) part of a complicated story.

GKC

For Ireland, I’m not surprised

 

[mtr01]

Fr Ambrose:

I used the phrase because it is one which Michael has been hitting constantly.

The last one is curious since there is a stated intention to withhold assent on three de fide dogmas.

Ok, gotcha. It just brought back that “lording it over the people” mire I got bogged down in with Nina (by the way, I wonder if she’ll be back here) a few months ago.

 

[GKC]

steve b:

For Ireland, I’m not surprised

No, no. For all Great Britain. It was actions in Ireland, particularly involving Daniel O’Connell, that precipitated the passing of the bill, but it was a Parlimentary bill opening almost all public offices to RCs throughout Great Britain.

It is a complex story.

GKC

 

[GKC]

LourdesladyN:

Good Morning Gentlemen,

I feel as if I am intruding but I have found this thread very interesting. If I may, I would like to clarify some points for my own understanding.

Just looking to the reference above I am wondering how this is understood in light of Lumen Gentium. *Lumen Gentium * clearly states that the Bishops are only infallible when in communion with the Bishop of Rome. Therefore, anything similar to the Catholic Emancipation Act ot 1829 has been specifically ruled out as a possibility for future standards.

In making that statement, I am not confirming that the denial of the Papacy ever held any validity in terms of communion ------ I am simply stating that it clearly would hold none at this time.

This obeservation makes the conundrum of the supposssed “communion of the TAC without communion of Bishop of Rome,” clear to me. You see if the TAC were to fall under the alleged terms of not accepting the Papacy, then there is really no communion whatsoever. If that is the case, then what is the benefit to the Body of Anglicans? The Anglican church is already suffering from the upheaval of illegitimate doctrine. A plan such as is formed without specificity of Legitimate Papal authority contiunues the threat of future ambiguity.

Mother church is many things, ambiguous is not one of them. Ut unim sint.

In the Peace of Christ,

I’m confused. The Catholic Emanciaption Act of 1829 was a British Parlimentary act removing certain civil limititations on British RCs, in Great Britain. Not sure what the comment means, in that light.

GKC

 

[Matt16_18]

Irenicist:

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 …

There is a big difference between the Eastern Churches that reunited with the Catholic Church and the Anglicans. The Eastern Churches were essentially in schism only. The espousal of heresy was not a major impediment for reunion.

The Anglicans are a Protestant ecclesial organization that is a composed of a very loose confederation of bodies that espouse a large variety of different heresies. And unlike the members of the Eastern Churches, the Anglicans do not believe that their bishops can speak with authority for the whole church.

The Profession of Faith that I quoted from the Roman Ritual shows that the Catholic Church’s doctrines concerning infallibility are hardly considered a “minor point”. The majority of the *Profession of Faith * concerns the affirmation of the Church’s teaching authority. It is really rather silly to think that the Pope has offered a “deal” where Protestants can refuse affirmation to the most important dogma that separates Protestants from Catholics. If the Pope offered such a deal, he would offering to transform the Catholic Church into an Protestant denomination.

 

[LourdesladyN]

GKC:

I’m confused. The Catholic Emanciaption Act of 1829 was a British Parlimentary act removing certain civil limititations on British RCs, in Great Britain. Not sure what the comment means, in that light.

GKC

I am sorry that I didn’t reference the post. I was speaking directly to post #155 and its previous posts where the contents were using the **Catholic Emancipation of 1829 ** as historical proof that Bishops have before denied the Papacy. The posts include the inference that “these Bishops remained in communion” with the church, so why can’t we?

As I stated- my comment was not to the validity of the position of the **Catholic Emancipation of 1829 ** showing tradition of the ability of Bishops to deny Papal Infallibility-------I was commenting on the fact that Lumen Gentium specifically reads that Bishops are only infallible when in Communion with the Pope. If it was a valid position in 1829, it is not a valid point now.

I believe this shows poignently how inadequate a pronouncement of communion is when it comes from a group denying the Infallibility of the Papacy.

You see, if the Anglicans are going to deny Infallibility then they have no need to produce an historic exemption of any Church teaching. So, in essence their communion remains as it is. Why go through the paperwork to stay where you are?

In Peace,

 

[Matt16_18]

Traditional Ang:

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 Anglicans are more than welcome to become Catholics. That requires that the Anglicans renounce all heresy.

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.”

Ahh yes, the Orthodox doctrine of the Primacy of the Laity. Of course, the Orthodox deny that they have such a doctrine.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

**
steve b:

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.

**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”, ****

## It’s probably a blunder for “1829” ##

**

** 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.**

**## There were no Old Catholics in 1826. These bishops were all in union with Rome. If they had not been, they could not have been in a position to give assurances to the Crown that the Pope was not infallible; for there were fears that the Pope would use the infallibility claimed for him in some parts of the CC for his political advantage, and against the safety of Great Britain and Ireland; as, by releasing Catholics from their civil allegiance. This was still an issue in 1875 when Newman was debating with Gladstone on this very point. Pius V had used his authority to depose Elizabeth I, and Rome had meddled in English affairs since then, by raising an army to fight in Ireland in the 1640s, for example. So these fears of the possible political effects of Papal action were not unfounded. **

---

And, bishops who are not part of a Communion, are not competent to give assurances for those who are in it. Why would the Government ask non-Catholic bishops for assurances about the behaviour of Catholics ? Yet that is what it had done - that is why Dr. Doyle and his fellow-bishops responded. ##

**

You’re reading from the wrong sources.

**

## AKA: sources that do not tell the facts with a Roman spin ? ##