T
Traditional_Ang
Guest
Maggie:
Well said. Thank you.
Blessing and peace, Michael
- Status
Well said. Thank you.
Blessing and peace, Michael
F
Fr_Ambrose
Guest
Traditional Ang:
You can see in this example the practical outworking of the Canon law which I posted - the Pope’s power is absolutely supreme and unchallengeable for ALL Catholics, whether they are Western or Eastern.
Didn’t the Pope interfere in the election of the new Chaldean Patriarch last year. He thought that the Chaldean bishops were taking too long about it and he threatened to take the matter into his own hands and to name a Patriarch for them.
You can see in this example the practical outworking of the Canon law which I posted - the Pope’s power is absolutely supreme and unchallengeable for ALL Catholics, whether they are Western or Eastern.
M
MaggieOH
Guest
Matt,
Michael has not made any ad hominem attacks against you and I most certainly have not done so.
It seems that you are another who does not know what ad hominem means, but you do know how to make such attacks against others, veiled or otherwise.
There has been a definite lack of charity in the way that you have expressed yourself and that is what is getting in the way of having proper conversation and giving encouragement to someone who needs to be shown love and encouragement.
Maggie OH
M
MaggieOH
Guest
Fr Ambrose:
Maggie
Can you find a link on the subject? I personally did not hear anything like what you are saying.
Maggie
T
Traditional_Ang
Guest
Fr.:
How long would an autonomous Church, or an Autocephalus one, function without its titular head before it began to run into problems?
How long do you think the Catholic Church could run without runing into difficulties without a Pope in today’s fast paced world?
How long do you think your Church could do the same without your Patriarch IN TODAY’S world?..
Fr Ambrose:
Blessings, Michael
How long would an autonomous Church, or an Autocephalus one, function without its titular head before it began to run into problems?
How long do you think the Catholic Church could run without runing into difficulties without a Pope in today’s fast paced world?
How long do you think your Church could do the same without your Patriarch IN TODAY’S world?..
Fr Ambrose:
…And the only meddling Pope John Paul II did was to tell them they needed to choose a Patriarch to head their Church when he felt that having none was beginning to HARM their Church. Once he felt that, he was responsible before God to deal with it per the RESPONSIBILITIES of his OFFICE.
Blessings, Michael
M
Matt16_18
Guest
But Rome does not acknowledge what you are asserting as a “fact”. There is huge chasm between what the TAC believes and what the Catholic Church believes.
For example, the TAC subscribes to The Affirmation of St. Louis (1977) which says this: “We affirm that fundamental principles (doctrinal, moral, and constitutional) are necessary for the present, and that a Constitution (redressing the defects and abuses of our former governments) should be adopted, whereby the Church may be soundly continued.” … The continuing Anglicans remain in full communion with the See of Canterbury …
We … bear witness to these essential principles of evangelical Truth and apostolic Order: The received Tradition of the Church and its teachings as set forth by “the ancient catholic bishops and doctors,” and especially as defined by the Seven Ecumenical Councils of the undivided Church …
If the TAC is going come back into union with the Catholic Church, the TAC will have to to accept ALL of the dogmatic truths defined by twenty one Ecumenical Councils, not just seven. The TAC acknowledges that it needs a Constitution, but are they prepared to accept the DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON THE CHURCH?
F
Fr_Ambrose
Guest
Traditional Ang:
Take the OCA as an example. It is an autocephalous Church headed by Metropolitan Herman. It would make no difference to that Church and the Synod of Bishops if he weren’t around.
Take the Church of Russia. Peter the Great abolished the Patriarchate and for 200 years the Russian Church was run by the Holy Synod.
No Patriarch can do more than 1) run his own local diocese, and 2) convene the annual or bi-annual meetings of the bishops of the particular Church for which he is Patriarch.
Take the OCA as an example. It is an autocephalous Church headed by Metropolitan Herman. It would make no difference to that Church and the Synod of Bishops if he weren’t around.
Take the Church of Russia. Peter the Great abolished the Patriarchate and for 200 years the Russian Church was run by the Holy Synod.
T
Traditional_Ang
Guest
Matt:
For the life of me, I don’t know why you insist on using the term chasm to describe the divide between the TAC and the Roman pontiff.
To hear you tell it, the Roman Pontiff and Archbishop Hepworth have been wasting their time for the past twelve years! And, worse, they’ve been deluding themselves and each other in the process!..
Matt16_18:
The problem, for those used to the speed of today’s world, is that Rome has never and will never operate at that speed, because Rome has to deal with the eternal realities and the eternal implications of each moves that’s made.
In this case, it means that this bridge will take a few more years to build…
Matt16_18:
I do know, because I asked, that Bishop Chislett believes in the Infallibility of the Pope as defined by Vatican I.
So, Matt, I would advise you to stop talking about “chasms”.
Blessings, Michael
For the life of me, I don’t know why you insist on using the term chasm to describe the divide between the TAC and the Roman pontiff.
To hear you tell it, the Roman Pontiff and Archbishop Hepworth have been wasting their time for the past twelve years! And, worse, they’ve been deluding themselves and each other in the process!..
…Since I know that to be not the case, I know that what you refer to as a CHASM is in fact, not a Chasm. but more of the nature of a small river, one that is in fact, not only bridgeable, but in the process of being bridged.
The problem, for those used to the speed of today’s world, is that Rome has never and will never operate at that speed, because Rome has to deal with the eternal realities and the eternal implications of each moves that’s made.
In this case, it means that this bridge will take a few more years to build…
Archbishop Hepworth and the TAC have just handed the Vatican a raft a responses, among those is a response to The Gift of Authority. I don’t know what that paper says, and it’s not available on the web.
I do know, because I asked, that Bishop Chislett believes in the Infallibility of the Pope as defined by Vatican I.
So, Matt, I would advise you to stop talking about “chasms”.
Blessings, Michael
G
GKC
Guest
Michael,
“Archbishop Hepworth and the TAC have just handed the Vatican a raft a responses, among those is a response to The Gift of Authority. I don’t know what that paper says, and it’s not available on the web.”
lf you mean “The Gift of Authority”, just google it. Put ARCIC in the search line, too.
GKC
“Archbishop Hepworth and the TAC have just handed the Vatican a raft a responses, among those is a response to The Gift of Authority. I don’t know what that paper says, and it’s not available on the web.”
lf you mean “The Gift of Authority”, just google it. Put ARCIC in the search line, too.
GKC
M
MaggieOH
Guest
Now here’s the problem, the TAC, whilst they are continuing Anglicans are not aligning themselves with Canterbury.
Deal with it.
MaggieOH
M
MaggieOH
Guest
Here is an online version of the article that I quoted from regarding Bishop Chislett:
ntnews.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,7034,12317597%255E421,00.html
Please note the part that says that the TAC are not in communion with the Anglican Church of Australia.
MaggieOH
ntnews.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,7034,12317597%255E421,00.html
Please note the part that says that the TAC are not in communion with the Anglican Church of Australia.
MaggieOH
M
MaggieOH
Guest
Matt,
you are not addressing the real facts regarding the position of the TAC. From what I am seeing, they are not the same as continuing Anglicans. That means they do not necessarily uphold that document, which seems to relate more to ECUSA than it does to the TAC.
There is a real hangup about what are dogmatic truths. First you accuse the TAC of being in heresy, and now you are back to what you call dogmatic truths.
There are Catholics who are members of the Catholic Church that do not hold to all of those dogmatic truths, and there are other Catholics who have not gotten beyond St Pius V in their theology. So they have not accepted the First and Second Ecumenical Councils. There are those who claim to be catholic but are in schism because they belong to those who went into schism at Utrecht.
This is not the only period in Church history where there has been delicate negotiations to bring people back into the fold of the Catholic Church. It happened with the remnants of the Donatists and Novatians. These were two early schisms and they caused grief within the Church, yet eventually they did return and the rules were laid down for their return in harmony. The precedent for such action was set back in the fifth century.
I believe that we should be supportive about these endeavours and we should be supporting Michael as he is continues his journey to the Catholic Church. This is not happening here. All I see are remarks that hurt another person.
Protestants are still our brothers and sisters in Christ. Did you not understand that Jesus said that: “who do the will of my Father are my mother, my brothers and sisters”? (paraphrase) That means that those who lead a righteous life in Christ remain my brothers and sisters in Christ.
MaggieOH
G
GKC
Guest
The TAC are Continuing Anglicans, though not all Continuing Anglicans subscribe to the Affirmation of St. Louis. But the real problem is a failure here to relate the document to dates. The Affirmation of St. Louis dates from 1977. At that time it was an attempt to distance orthodox Episcopalians from ECUSA, not from the Anglican Communion, or Canterbury, who were yet to put collars on ladies, or such things. Later, the issue of remaining in communion with Canterbury became null and void, as the Mother Church went the way of ECUSA. No Continuing Anglican Church is in communion with Canterbury any more. But the Affirmation reflects the *staus quo * at a point in time, not a point of principle, with regard to Canterbury.
GKC
S
SyroMalankara
Guest
Subaho Labo Lebaro Vala Rooho † Kadisso. Ameen.
[Glory be to the Father, Son, and † Holy Spirit. Amen.]
Fr Ambrose:
[Glory be to the Father, Son, and † Holy Spirit. Amen.]
Fr Ambrose:
Fr., I am not Byzantine, nor was my Church reunited from Eastern Orthodoxy.Do I detect a whiff of that infamous ByzCatholic dissent?You are speaking out of memories retained from the time when your Churches were Orthodox, but what you are saying, while widely -and mistakenly- believed by the Eastern Catholics, is contrary to Catholic teachings. You may even have fallen under a papal anathema -see the last sentence of my message.
These are all well and good but you failed to quote any of the documents and declarations made when my Church and every other Church reunited with Rome. Also, we Easterners have our own Code of Canons.
M
MaggieOH
Guest
GKC
thank you for the clarification. What was obvious for me is that the document would have been out of touch with the current situation.
MaggieOH
F
Fr_Ambrose
Guest
Michael_Thoma:
CCEO - Canon 43
The bishop of the Church of Rome, in whom resides the office
(munus) given in special way by the Lord to Peter, first of the
Apostles and to be transmitted to his successors, is head of the
college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ and Pastor of the entire
Church on earth; therefore, in virtue of his office (munus) he
enjoys supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in
the Church which he can always freely exercise.
Canon 45
A patriarch is a bishop who enjoys power over all bishops including metropolitans and other Christian faithful of the Church over which he presides according to the norm of law approved by the supreme authority of the Church the Supreme Pontiff}.
Canon 72
I did not bother so much with the CCEO since it is identical with respect to the power and authority given to the Pope of Rome
CCEO - Canon 43
The bishop of the Church of Rome, in whom resides the office
(munus) given in special way by the Lord to Peter, first of the
Apostles and to be transmitted to his successors, is head of the
college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ and Pastor of the entire
Church on earth; therefore, in virtue of his office (munus) he
enjoys supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in
the Church which he can always freely exercise.
Canon 45
- The Roman Pontiff, by virtue of his office (munus), not only
has power over the entire Church but also possesses a primacy of
ordinary power over all the eparchies and groupings of them by
which the proper, ordinary and immediate power which bishops
possess in the eparchy entrusted to their care is both strengthened and safeguarded. - The Roman Pontiff, in fulfilling the office (munus) of the supreme pastor of the Church is always united in communion with the other bishops and with the entire Church; however, he has the right, according to the needs of the Church, to determine the manner, either personal or collegial, of exercising this function.
- There is neither appeal nor recourse against a sentence or decree of the Roman Pontiff.
A patriarch is a bishop who enjoys power over all bishops including metropolitans and other Christian faithful of the Church over which he presides according to the norm of law approved by the supreme authority of the Church the Supreme Pontiff}.
Canon 72
- He is elected who obtains two-thirds of the votes, unless
particular law establishes that after an appropriate number of
ballots, at least three, an absolute majority of the votes suffices, and the election is to be conducted according the norms of can. 183, 3-4. 2. If an election is not successful within fifteen days from the opening of the synod of bishops of the patriarchal Church, the matter devolves to the Roman Pontiff.
R
rjs1
Guest
I am puzzled that in this whole thread (unless I have missed it) there has been no mention of the group of Anglicans (Episcopalians) that HAVE come across to the Catholic Church and have their own liturgy. The members of the Anglican Usage are ex Episcopalians who, after a long period of negotaition and discussion with Rome, were received into the Catholic Church. They have their own liturgical book with the Mass retaining many of the more beautiful parts of the Book of Common Prayer but being thoroughly Catholic throughout.
Why has this not been discussed in this thread? Is it because these Anglican Use Catholics have fully accepted ALL the teachings of the Catholic Church? Also it was made very clear on their reception that already married Episcopal priests could be received and re ordained or conditionally re ordained (but not remarry if their wife died), but under no circumstances would any married bishop be accepted as a bishop. He would have to accept ordination as a priest.
Th wonderful Anglican bishop of London, Graham Leonard, when he converted to the Catholic Church, was reordained as a priest, not a bishop, because he was married. Why has this fact not been mentioned in connection with the leader of the Traditional Anglicans, Bishop Hepworth, who, I gather, is married?
The Traditional Anglicans should be looking to the Anglican Use Catholics as the pioneers who have led the way. There are several web sites that give details of their liturgy etc.
Why has this not been discussed in this thread? Is it because these Anglican Use Catholics have fully accepted ALL the teachings of the Catholic Church? Also it was made very clear on their reception that already married Episcopal priests could be received and re ordained or conditionally re ordained (but not remarry if their wife died), but under no circumstances would any married bishop be accepted as a bishop. He would have to accept ordination as a priest.
Th wonderful Anglican bishop of London, Graham Leonard, when he converted to the Catholic Church, was reordained as a priest, not a bishop, because he was married. Why has this fact not been mentioned in connection with the leader of the Traditional Anglicans, Bishop Hepworth, who, I gather, is married?
The Traditional Anglicans should be looking to the Anglican Use Catholics as the pioneers who have led the way. There are several web sites that give details of their liturgy etc.
S
SteveG
Guest
- Originally Posted by SteveG*
- 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.*
Certainly not, and that’s only my subjective feelings on the matter (which you solicited in post 1), and not the reason why this shouldn’t happen. There are other objective reasons why this can not and will not happen despite my ‘feelings’ on the matter.
Traditional Ang:
I would not, nor do I have the power to either grant or deny them any such grace. The grace God offers can only be denied by those to whom it is offerred. But we must remember that it can indeed be denied. One of the ways is refusal to submit to Christ’s teachings. Read John 6 (discourse on the Eucharist) and ask yourself if it was ‘fair’ that Jesus allowed many of his disciples to ‘no longer go about with him.’ Why didn’t he just say…‘No, wait. I see, you are getting ‘most’ of what I am teaching, so let’s just ignore this little teaching here and I’ll help you work through it later.’ No, what he did was he allowed them to walk away. He offered them the truth and the grace that affords, and they freely rejected it. Explain to me how this is different?
I pray regularly for the unity of all Christians, but we can not lie, nor fudge, nor ignore the difference and hope they will go away once we are all one happy family. It makes me think of the Woman who married a man who didn’t have certain qualities she was looking for in a spouse. But she married him nonetheless in hopes that one day she could change him. I think we all know what kind of disaster this usually leads too.
In truth, the offer that you are laying out would be the door to which every kind of heresy would enter. If such a thing were too happen, how could the Church then draw a line as to what other teachings could be ignored in hopes of latter being cleared up? Why allow this for only Anglicans, and for only these few doctrines? Why not make an exception for the teaching on contraception? Or abortion? Do you see what kind of door this would open. It all sounds so hopeful. But it’s a recipe for disaster. It’s why am am absolutely confident that no such offer has been made, nor even could be made.
Traditional Ang:
If they want to enter the hospital, they need to fill out ALL the registration forms. Sorry, you know, red tape and all.
Traditional Ang:
I am sorry, but no this can’t work. The fundamental issue here is one of authority. Either they recognize the authority of the Church to teach on faith and morals and will be obedient to that, or the do not. If they don’t why bother coming in at all? They are still ‘Protestant’ at that point.
S
SteveG
Guest
Originally Posted by SteveG
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.
Traditional Ang:
Traditional Ang:
I pray regularly for the unity of all Christians, but we can not lie, nor fudge, nor ignore the difference and hope they will go away once we are all one happy family. It makes me think of the Woman who married a man who didn’t have certain qualities she was looking for in a spouse. But she married him nonetheless in hopes that one day she could change him. I think we all know what kind of disaster this usually leads too.
In truth, the offer that you are laying out would be the door to which every kind of heresy would enter. If such a thing were too happen, how could the Church then draw a line as to what other teachings could be ignored in hopes of latter being cleared up? Why allow this only for Anglicans, and for only these frew doctrines? Why not make an exception for the teaching on contraception? Or abortion? Do you see what kind of door this would open. It all sounds so hopeful. But it’s a recipe for disaster. It’s why am am absolutely confident that no such offer has been made, nor even could be made.
Traditional Ang:
Traditional Ang:
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.
Traditional Ang:
Certainly not, and that’s only my subjective feelings on the matter (which you solicited in post 1), and not the reason why this shouldn’t happen. There are other objective reasons why this can not and will not happen despite my ‘feelings’ on the matter.
Traditional Ang:
I would not, nor do I have the power to either grant or deny them any such grace. The grace God offers can only be denied by those to whom it is offerred. But we must remember that it can indeed be denied. One of the ways is refusal to submit to Christ’s teachings. Read John 6 (discourse on the Eucharist) and ask yourself if it was ‘fair’ that Jesus allowed many of his disciples to ‘no longer go about with him.’ Why didn’t he just say…‘No, wait. I see, you are getting ‘most’ of what I am teaching, so let’s just ignore this little teaching here and I’ll help you work through it later.’ No, what he did was he allowed them to walk away. He offered them the truth and the grace that affords, and they freely rejected it. Explain to me how this is different?
I pray regularly for the unity of all Christians, but we can not lie, nor fudge, nor ignore the difference and hope they will go away once we are all one happy family. It makes me think of the Woman who married a man who didn’t have certain qualities she was looking for in a spouse. But she married him nonetheless in hopes that one day she could change him. I think we all know what kind of disaster this usually leads too.
In truth, the offer that you are laying out would be the door to which every kind of heresy would enter. If such a thing were too happen, how could the Church then draw a line as to what other teachings could be ignored in hopes of latter being cleared up? Why allow this only for Anglicans, and for only these frew doctrines? Why not make an exception for the teaching on contraception? Or abortion? Do you see what kind of door this would open. It all sounds so hopeful. But it’s a recipe for disaster. It’s why am am absolutely confident that no such offer has been made, nor even could be made.
Traditional Ang:
If they want to enter the hospital, they need to fill out ALL the registration forms. Sorry, you know, red tape and all.
Traditional Ang:
I am sorry, but no this can’t work. The fundamental issue here is one of authority. Either they recognize the authority of the Church to teach on faith and morals and will be obedient to that, or the do not. If they don’t why bother coming in at all. They are still ‘Protestant’ at the point.
S
SteveG
Guest
Traditional Ang:
Your sensitivity on this issue is a bit immature. Shall I be upset that in one post you confused me with Steve b? Of course we recognize your humanity, and I assume you recognize mine even if you DON’T put my name on the post. Of course you are a brother in Christ for whom I hope only the best. My experience on any forum is that you’d better have a pretty thick skin as things get hot and heavy very often. Don’t let this stuff get to you.
And you’ve been acting very hurt about your treatment on this thread, but let’s retrace the history and see if it was as bad as you think.
You posted a thread (a second time from what I gather) in which you claimed that an offer of unity under certain conditions was made by JPII to TAC.
Most faithful and educated Catholics (a predominant profile on these boards) said, 'No, no, no. you must be mistaken, or misunderstanding. Such an offer is simply not possible-and they/we tried to explain.
You protested and argued ‘Where’s the mercy.’
We repeated, despite issues of mercy, this offer is impossible. We argued law, and dogma for 5 days trying to show you why this couldn’t be.
rinse and repeat.
rinse and repeat.
…
You come back after a talk with one of the main TAC players and admit, ‘Yes, there was a misunderstanding.’ (as we tried to explain to you).
Now you are complaining that you were attacked and your name wasn’t used in responses to you.
Of course you were ‘attacked’. You were positing something clearly impossible (as many of us could see), and then continuing to defend it. And while I didn’t read EVERY post in the thread, I don’t recall that you were so badly treated at that. I don’t recall any name calling, or the like that I’ve seen on REALLY contentious threads. Just a little vigorous ‘taking to task’ for an issue that you turned out to be incorrect on. This is not intended to be an ‘I told you so’, but rather to put the entire thread in some perspective.
Micahel
Your sensitivity on this issue is a bit immature. Shall I be upset that in one post you confused me with Steve b? Of course we recognize your humanity, and I assume you recognize mine even if you DON’T put my name on the post. Of course you are a brother in Christ for whom I hope only the best. My experience on any forum is that you’d better have a pretty thick skin as things get hot and heavy very often. Don’t let this stuff get to you.
And you’ve been acting very hurt about your treatment on this thread, but let’s retrace the history and see if it was as bad as you think.
You posted a thread (a second time from what I gather) in which you claimed that an offer of unity under certain conditions was made by JPII to TAC.
Most faithful and educated Catholics (a predominant profile on these boards) said, 'No, no, no. you must be mistaken, or misunderstanding. Such an offer is simply not possible-and they/we tried to explain.
You protested and argued ‘Where’s the mercy.’
We repeated, despite issues of mercy, this offer is impossible. We argued law, and dogma for 5 days trying to show you why this couldn’t be.
rinse and repeat.
rinse and repeat.
…
You come back after a talk with one of the main TAC players and admit, ‘Yes, there was a misunderstanding.’ (as we tried to explain to you).
Now you are complaining that you were attacked and your name wasn’t used in responses to you.
Of course you were ‘attacked’. You were positing something clearly impossible (as many of us could see), and then continuing to defend it. And while I didn’t read EVERY post in the thread, I don’t recall that you were so badly treated at that. I don’t recall any name calling, or the like that I’ve seen on REALLY contentious threads. Just a little vigorous ‘taking to task’ for an issue that you turned out to be incorrect on. This is not intended to be an ‘I told you so’, but rather to put the entire thread in some perspective.
- Status