Anglicans to Rome - Thread 3

  • Thread starter Thread starter Gottle_of_Geer
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
GKC:

The guy who sent it to me was under the misapprehension that Joe was a Catholic Priest - Obviously, he’s a thoughtful Layperson.

I’m glad you were able to procide him with the revised words and objects From a Bible to a Chalice and Patin) - That’s important. It changes the nature of the office.
40.png
GKC:
Greetings, Michael,

The Angelfire site you posted is Joe’s. And he is the author of the article ("*Apostolicae Curae * and the ‘Spirit’ of St. Louis") that you quoted from. Who is the RC priest you are referring to? Joe is a (remarkably knowledgeable) RC layman. He does indeed know what he’s talking about. And on much, he and I are in agreement. Some of his research library, and one of the traditional Anglican ordination rites he lists on his site came from me, during our friendly discussions.
I must admit that I was trying to find a SCHOLASTIC/THOMISTIC word to describe the underlying reality that produces something that we see (“Substancia” is the usual word, the New Agers use “Ground of Being”) and that’s what I was trying to say regarding the EDWARDINE ORDINAL. Pope Leo understood “FORM” in just that manner, and that’s what your friend is trying to say. Pope Leo’s problems weren’t so much with the actual words as with the underlying attitudes, beliefs and rebellion against Rome that produced them. That all goes into the word “FORM” as far as your friend is concerned.

You see, Pope Leo’s argument was far more nuanced than even his defenders made it out to be.
40.png
GKC:
And yes, I’m moderately well versed in the details of the *AC * issue; history, persons involved, doctrine (form, substance, matter, intent and subject), political background, discussion. Lots of it comes from arm wrestling with Joe, over several years. And from reading the original documents and some of the major discussions: Clark, Hughes, Dix, Lowndes, Lula, Tavard, Lacey. The “zeitgeist” as you say, is the reason most discussion today centers on the defect of intention, rather than that of form.

GKC
“Zeitgeist”, given what I was trying to say, was actually a poor choice of words. I hope the above clears at least some of it up.

Of course, one of those names attands St. Mary’s. Maybe I should spend some more time with him.

Blessings and Peace, Michael
 
Matt:

POST #5:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=513680&postcount=5

This post descrbes one wheel designed to deal with taking a SINGLE Parish of 200 or so souls into the Catholic Church.

The TAC is a Church of 500,000 souls, 265,000 of whom will bbe making the trip to Rome. On top of that, Pope John Paul II seems to be hoping to use that structure to bring other disaffected Anglicans out the Anglican Church and out from the various splinter groups who left ECUSA during the 1970’s & 80’s.

The wheel for that was designed in the 15th and 16th Centuries when Rome brought in the various Eastern Catholic Churches…

POSTS # 13 & 14
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=515907&postcount=13
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=515915&postcount=14

The various splinter groups spoken about in the first post are NOT the TAC which is NOT a grouping of 2 or 3 congregations but an INTERNATIONAL CHURCH of 500,000 members.

The second posts refers to Forward in Faith, a group of relatively orthodox Anglicans struggling to remain IN the Anglican Communion (++Canterbury). It must be noted that their position on DEACONESSES is the same as the Eastern Orthodox, Women who do what Deacons do in situations where MALE Deacons could NOT go.

They are also NOT in the TAC with exception of those who have REJECTED the PROVISIONAL position on Deaconesses.

The question is, what do any of these 3 POSTS have to do with Rome’s attempts to create an Anglican Catholic Church out of the Traditional Anglican Church??! What do they have to do with the ongoing negotions between my people and the Vatican?!?

Blessings and peace, Michael
 
Michael:

We both know that I’m no so naive as to believe that everyone who was quoting APISTOLOCAE CURAE hadn’t read any of the many papers on it, but I am saying that at least one or two were simply using the Bull as an excuse to say that union between Rome aned any type of Anglican group was impossible.

I found his arguments regarding APISTOLOCAE CURAE to be more nuanced than may I’ve heard.
Gottle of Geer:
FWIW, not all who quote the Bull have read that and nothing else - and how do Anglican clergy fit in, who are not in the least interested in finding that they are validly ordained priests with the “power to offer sacrifices for the living and the dead” ?

Not all Anglican clergy want that - yet that won’t stop them, or their yet more anti-Roman fellow clergyman, being equally validly ordained by the standards of Anglican theology on the matter. Not all validly Anglican ministers want to be validly Roman priests. Some would probably regard being a Roman priest as a form of leprosy - they at least will give no thanks to their fellow Anglicans who insist that those who abhor Rome, are as truly sacrificing priests as RCs priests are.
Michael, Since I’ve only known the Anglican Priests and Bishops that I know and have known (some 18 in all), and only 2 from a very long time ago (one a Protestant who’s now deceased, the other a Gay man still in ECUSA) fit anythink like your description, could you introduce me to an ANGLICAN CATHOLIC PRIEST or BISHOP who doesn’t believes that he’s up there to offer SACRIFICE and that his office isn’t SACERDOTAL? I don’t mean someone still in ECUSA - I mean an Anglican or Anglo-Catholic who follows the same type of Missal that GKC or I use in our respective parishes!

I was NOT calling the arguments in APISTOLOCAE CURAE “Tripe” - Far from from. Once I understood the article and what Pope Leo was saying when he used the word “FORM” SUBSTANCIA (It’s NOT what most of us think). I was actually defending it…
Gottle of Geer:
Incidentally, the Bull, if infallible, is so, even if the arguments are tripe. The decisive part of the Bull, is the decision at the end - not the arguments for the decision.
The below is a complete misrepresentation of what I said!

Gottle of Geer said:
## As a description of the Pope who promulgated “Aeterni Patris” in 1879, almost as the first act of his Pontificate, this is absurd.

All dogmas - including the Incarnation - can be undermined if one appeals to the Zeitgeist as to an explanation of them. ##

I was trying to describe what Pope leo MEANT when he used the word we translate as “FORM”, because it isn’t what we think; it’s FAR more nuanced.

It’s just that it’s difficult to explain SCHOLASTIC or THOMISTIC thinking to people who’ve never had the basics of his philosophy, or read of any of his writings, esp. when your own last contact with St. Thomas’ writings was ove 25 years ago.

If you can explain what St. Thomas meant by the word SUBSTANCE (FORM), and therefore what Pope Leo meant by the same word, and just how much that would go beyond the mere words on the page to the thinking of the people who were writing them any better than my feeble attempt, then please be my guest, but please don’t use it as an opportunity to express such open hostility as you did!

Pope Leo knew that what he was writing would never touch any of the other Ordinarals people have referred to, because he deliberately used a word that dealt with the thinking behind the words and not just the words!

He just never knew that we’d get so dumb as to forget what he meant when he said the words he said.

to be con. Michael
 
Con. from Previous:

Michael, I don’t know what would cause you to subscribe this to me or to any other Anglican who with a heavy heart has found himself compelled to leave the Anglican Communion (or ECUSA) for the Salvation of his or her soul!

Almost any “Some” statement is true of just about ANY group on this planet, why do you insist on TARRING TAC Anglicans, who have stated their desire to become Catholics, and who believe in their hearts that they are Catholics, with such a broad irrifutable brush? I can understand if you really don’t want this Union to take place, but on a previous post, you claimed that you did. Have you changed your mind? If so, Why?

Gottle of Geer said:
## Rome is less triumphalistically anti-Cantuarian than some Anglicans (so-called). It’s not enough to enter the CC (on one’s own terms, natch) - one must also kick out at Anglicans. Even when bishops in communion with Canterbury ordain members of the TAC.

Some “Anglicans” aren’t pro-Rome, but anti-Cantuarian. These are not the same things.
Bashing Anglicanism is not logically entailed in being RC - the Pope is RC, but he doesn’t rejoice and make merry and exult over the difficulties and troubles of Anglicanism.

Why do (aspiring) converts behave in this horrible fashion ? ##

What you misinterpret is the fact that most of us are heartbroken at what we’re watching, but that, at the same time, we realize that the salvation of people’s souls is at stake. That requires us to be honest about the situation so that people can do what is necessary to SAVE THEIR SOULS!

If you don’t like that, I’m sorry! If I’ve done anything to cause offense, I beg pardon and forgiveness.

This is the second time in this post where you gave the worst possible motive and interpretation to something I said. I don’t think I’ve ever done anything like that to you, and I don’t think any Anglican has done anything to merit this. Can I ask why you’re insisting on doing this? and, What the source of your hostility is?

Blessings and Peace, Michael
 
Traditional Ang:
St. Mary’s was among the first parishes (if not the first) to apply for the Anglican Use Providion. The Archbishop here made it very clear that he didn’t want St. Mary’s or any other Anglican Use Parish at the time. I’m not allowed to discuss that in any more detail than that.
That is truly sad to hear. 😦 I will pray that Bishop Mahoney comes to his senses.
 
40.png
Maccabees:
Since the Anglican church is close to ordaining women as bishops soon (not just as priests as they falsely hinted at in the 1970;s) and the problems with allowing openly practicing homosexual clergy in the American and Candian Anglican communion I think more conservative Anglicans will join Rome soon. The heresy and departure from apostolic tradition is just to obvious now.
Maccabbees:

Talks have been ongoing between the TAC (the largest of the worldwide Anglican Groups that have left the Anglican Communion since 1977) and the Vatican since 1994. They’re in the “Pilgrimage Phase” now, which means that TAC Bishops have been asked to attend the Retreats and Meettings of the House of Bishops beginning this summer.

They’re NOT taking the ARCIC route, which means the Pope has been involved in the discussions since pretty near the beginning.

The Pope seems to to wish provide a softer landing than is presently provided for those Anglicans who (I hope) will feel compelled to leave the Anglican Communion. I do fear for them if they don’t.

Blessings and Peace, Michael
 
Traditional Ang:
The question is, what do any of these 3 POSTS have to do with Rome’s attempts to create an Anglican Catholic Church out of the Traditional Anglican Church?
The question is this: does Rome see the TAC as a Protestant ecclesial community or as a true church with valid orders? Can you show me any evidence at all that Rome sees the TAC any differently than they have historically viewed other Anglicans? Can you explain how it came about that a Protestant denomination suddenly become a local particular church with Apostolic succession?

I understand that the occasional member of the Anglican clergy has orders that the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith will recognize as valid. But if the TAC as a whole is seen by Rome as generally not possessing valid orders, then the TAC is not a church in the proper sense of the word, and you simply cannot compare the TAC to the EO or the OO.
 
40.png
Matt16_18:
That is truly sad to hear. 😦 I will pray that Bishop Mahoney comes to his senses.
Consider Cardinal Mahoney’s rejection a blessing for Trad Anglican conisidering he encourages liturgical abuse and is inept as a spiritual and moral leader it would be better off if TAC is given rite status and they are given their own bishops which will be more faithfull to traditional liturgy and traditional moral and spiritual values. The Eastern rites in the Los Angeles are have it better off than the latins and I don’t think any of them would trade their bishops in for Mahoney.
 
Traditional Ang:
The TAC is a Church of 500,000 souls, 265,000 of whom will bbe making the trip to Rome.
What Pope John Paul II would be dealing with is 265,000 Protestants that need to receive at least two of the Sacraments of Initiation.

The members of the Eastern Catholic Churches that reconciled with Rome already had received valid Sacraments of Initiation. It is wrong to compare the invalid sacraments of the TAC with the valid sacraments of the local particular churches of the EO or OO. This is the crux of the matter, and no amount of dancing around the issue is going to make it go away.
 
40.png
Maccabees:
Consider Cardinal Mahoney’s rejection a blessing …
There are always two sides to a story, and we have heard neither side. I regret the comment that I made about Cardinal Mahoney.

Mea culpa.
😦
 
40.png
Matt16_18:
What Pope John Paul II would be dealing with is 265,000 Protestants that need to receive at least two of the Sacraments of Initiation.

The members of the Eastern Catholic Churches that reconciled with Rome already had received valid Sacraments of Initiation. It is wrong to compare the invalid sacraments of the TAC with the valid sacraments of the local particular churches of the EO or OO. This is the crux of the matter, and no amount of dancing around the issue is going to make it go away.
Just out of curiosity, what exactly would you do, hypothetically, **if **the curia were to determine that AC applied to the state of the Anglican Church as it was then and that 1) the circumstances relating to the ordinal used by the TAC were sufficiently different from the Edwardian original and 2) that TAC ordinaries were in a valid line of succession as a result of ordinations by validly ordained schismatics, and if the Pope were to accept the curia’s recommendation? Would you defect to the SSPX or the Orthodox Church?

Irenicist
 
Irenicist:

Thank you for your comments. I also thank Maccabbees for his charitable comments and prayers
40.png
Irenicist:
Just out of curiosity, what exactly would you do, hypothetically, **if **the curia were to determine that AC applied to the state of the Anglican Church as it was then and that 1) the circumstances relating to the ordinal used by the TAC were sufficiently different from the Edwardian original and 2) that TAC ordinaries were in a valid line of succession as a result of ordinations by validly ordained schismatics, and if the Pope were to accept the curia’s recommendation? Would you defect to the SSPX or the Orthodox Church?

Irenicist
I’m sorry that I didn’t post this next thought earlier - Say on Sunday…

**There is an innocent woman, Terri Schiavo, who is starving to death in Florida, right now. This is as a result of an unjust decision by a Florida Circuit Court Judge, Judge George Greer, which was upheld today by a Federal Court Judge, Judge Whittemore.

The conditions under which Terri are starving to death are little different than those that those that the people who starved to death in Josef Mengele’s starvation chamber in Awschwitz.

Please, take a break from this Thread, and from all the other polemic threads to pray for the life of this INNOCENT WOMAN who is dying so that her husband can throw her away like some old rag or like an old used up slave in the Old South!

And, please, pray that the 11th circuit overturns the train of unjust decisions that have brought us to where we are!

Thank You.**

Blessings and Peace, Michael
 
Irenicist:

Thank you for your comments. I also thank Maccabbees for his charitable comments and prayers
40.png
Irenicist:
Just out of curiosity, what exactly would you do, hypothetically, **if **the curia were to determine that AC applied to the state of the Anglican Church as it was then and that 1) the circumstances relating to the ordinal used by the TAC were sufficiently different from the Edwardian original and 2) that TAC ordinaries were in a valid line of succession as a result of ordinations by validly ordained schismatics, and if the Pope were to accept the curia’s recommendation? Would you defect to the SSPX or the Orthodox Church?

Irenicist
I’m sorry that I didn’t post this next thought earlier - Say on Sunday…

**There is an innocent woman, Terri Schiavo, who is starving to death in Florida, right now. This is as a result of an unjust decision by a Florida Circuit Court Judge, Judge George Greer, which was upheld today by a Federal Court Judge, Judge Whittemore.

The conditions under which Terri are starving to death are little different than those that those of the people who starved to death in Josef Mengele’s starvation chamber in Auschwitz.

Please, take a break from this Thread, and from all the other polemic threads to pray for the life of this INNOCENT WOMAN who is dying so that her husband can throw her away like some old rag or like an old used up slave in the Old South!

And, please, pray that the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals overturns the train of unjust decisions that have brought us to where we are!

Thank You.**

Blessings and Peace, Michael
 
**
40.png
GKC:
"All dogmas - including the Incarnation - can be undermined if one appeals to the Zeitgeist as to an explanation of them. ##"

I’m not optimistic about this thread.
**

## To be honest, me neither. I think it was rather odd to close thread 2 ##

**
But I’ll keep adding bits and pieces, at least for a while.
Unless I grossly misread Trad Ang’s comment, it isn’t the zeitgeist that produced Apostolicae Curae that is meant. It’s the zeitgeist that produced the Edwardine Ordinal.

## I took him to mean both. ##
**
The form in the Ordinal was judged as defective, not so much for itself, as for the context in which it was produced. It did differ from the then current Roman Pontifical, but other rites, then and now, differ in the same ways, and Rome finds such rites capable of conferring valid orders (See Lula, HOLY ORDERS, HOLY SACRAMENTS). It was the historical context in which those changes were made that caused that form, originated by those men, at that time, to be judged invalid, when others are not so judged. The point of the article Trad Ang was citing was that, given the existence of both Old Catholic and PNCC lines in the Anglican Episcopacy, and given the demonstrated intent of many of the Continuing Anglicans, with respect to the sacerdotal priesthood, as evidenced in the rites now used by many Traditional Anglican jurisdictions (you can find a line by line comparision of the current rites, both traditionalist Anglican and RC, as well as the 16th century Roman Pontifical, at that site. The comparision is interesting), a case can be made for reconsidering Continuing Anglicans as they are now
as a condition not covered by AC. And that is an important consideration for Trad Ang, since his Traditional Anglican Communion would be such a case. **

**## TY v. much - that clarifies things admirably. Whether it **
**gets the TAC off the hook, I have no idea. I’m not assuming so. **

Have you read Peter Anson BTW ? I never realised just how exotic some sorts of Catholic-type & Anglican-type Churches were, until I read about & . I wouldn’t be surprised if some Mariavite clergy are validly ordained - their valid orders would not make them Catholics. Another reason for being unimpressed if a Church, or an individual, has valid orders, is that valid orders are no guarantee of even remotely Christian morals or faith. So in some connections, validity is an irrelevance; ISTM that there is some danger of treating them as a cure-all for all ecclesiological infirmities. ##

**
BTW, I am quite familiar with the proper RC attitude toward AC
. If I find RCs not affirming it, I remind them they should. I also mention Joe’s site.

GKC**
 
40.png
Matt16_18:
That is truly sad to hear. 😦 I will pray that Bishop Mahoney comes to his senses.
Matt:

Thank You.

I can tell you that it tore apart the parish that was St. Mary’s. The former Rector is now a LIBERAL RC Priest who NEVER mentions Purgatory or SIN or any other “Uncomfortable Dogma” (Berkeley Theological Seminary - It would break your heart!) and serves in the Diocese of San Bernardino.

The Rebuff happened in the early 1980’s at the beginning of Mahonny’s Reign (St. Mary’s was one of the Parishes the Pope was trying to accommodate with the pastoral provision). St. Mary’s nearly fell after that. There was a period of time where the parish was kept alive partly by a group of converted Orthodox Jewish Anglo-Catholics!

It’s now a much larger and healthier congregration, one that’s been able to develop a few Priests and Deacons who are serving elsewhere (I don’t know the exact number). One of those Priests, Fr. Jones, died right before I came in. And, fairly rare in the American part of the Anglican part of the Continuium, WE HAVE CHILDREN, AND LOT’S OF THEM UNDERFOOT!

Blessings and Peace, Michael
 
40.png
Maccabees:
Consider Cardinal Mahoney’s rejection a blessing for Trad Anglican conisidering he encourages liturgical abuse and is inept as a spiritual and moral leader it would be better off if TAC is given rite status and they are given their own bishops which will be more faithfull to traditional liturgy and traditional moral and spiritual values. The Eastern rites in the Los Angeles are have it better off than the latins and I don’t think any of them would trade their bishops in for Mahoney.
Maccabees:

I don’t necessarily consider it a blessing that Abp Cardinal Mahony did what he did, but I do agree with you that I wouldn’t trade my present Bp or Abp, both of whom I’ve met, for Mahony.

I think the Pope tried to create a Prefecture the last time (when the pastoral Provision was created) but the number of parishes involved was too small. A sui Iuris allows him to take in the TAC without having to worry about Archbishops such as Mahony.

It also allows him to create a stable structure with a reverent liturgy for those Anglicans and their parishes who elect to make the jump later.

Blessings and Peace, Michael
 
Gottle of Geer said:
** **

## To be honest, me neither. I think it was rather odd to close thread 2 ##

## I took him to mean both. ##

**## TY v. much - that clarifies things admirably. Whether it **
**gets the TAC off the hook, I have no idea. I’m not assuming so. **

Have you read Peter Anson BTW ? I never realised just how exotic some sorts of Catholic-type & Anglican-type Churches were, until I read about & . I wouldn’t be surprised if some Mariavite clergy are validly ordained - their valid orders would not make them Catholics. Another reason for being unimpressed if a Church, or an individual, has valid orders, is that valid orders are no guarantee of even remotely Christian morals or faith. So in some connections, validity is an irrelevance; ISTM that there is some danger of treating them as a cure-all for all ecclesiological infirmities. ##


You’re welcome.

No, I haven’t read Anson, though I would like to. I do own the standard work on the subject, Brandreth’s EPISCOPI VAGANTE AND THE ANGLICAN CHURCH. You are correct that there are some rare flowers in the garden out there, and, strictly from a “pipeline” theory of transmittal, a lot of them may possess valid, illicit orders. But such are not the issue with respect to the historical mainstream of Anglicanism, nor with respect to the “Continuers” who trace their lines to the mainline PNCC or other establishment Old Catholics. Certainly, valid orders (which we Anglo-Catholics hold the Anglican Communion, and, *a fortiori *, the Continuum, possesses, ignoring the issue of females in collars for a moment) are no guarantee of orthodoxy, just as apostasy does not render valid orders invalid. And that’s true in your side of Catholicism, as in mine. But AC addresses specific limited points on the issue of the validity of Anglican orders, and that is what I’m interested in. And have been for years. Those points aside, you’ll find us Anglo-Catholics plus catholique que le Pape. Mostly. What this might mean for the theoretical TAC issue, I couldn’t guess.

GKC
 
**
40.png
GKC:
You’re welcome.

**No, I haven’t read Anson, though I would like to. I do own the standard work on the subject, Brandreth’s EPISCOPI VAGANTE AND THE ANGLICAN CHURCH. You are correct that there are some rare flowers in the garden out there, and, strictly from a “pipeline” theory of transmittal, a lot of them may possess valid, illicit orders. But such are not the issue with respect to the historical mainstream of Anglicanism, nor with respect to the “Continuers” who trace their lines to the mainline PNCC or other establishment Old Catholics. Certainly, valid orders (which we Anglo-Catholics hold the Anglican Communion, and, *a fortiori ***, the Continuum, possesses, ignoring the issue of females in collars for a moment) are no guarantee of orthodoxy, just as apostasy does not render valid orders invalid. And that’s true in your side of Catholicism, as in mine. But AC addresses specific limited points on the issue of the validity of Anglican orders, and that is what I’m interested in. And have been for years. Those points aside, you’ll find us Anglo-Catholics plus catholique que le Pape. Mostly. What this might mean for the theoretical TAC issue, I couldn’t guess.

GKC**

**## I’ll have to get back to you on this - there’s a lot here to think about. **

And I also owe Michael an explanation - ASAP.

**I wish Contarini would post - I always look forward to what he has to say 🙂 ## **
 
GoG,

“I wish Contarini would post - I always look forward to what he has to say”.

Me too. Though he is a Protestant (just ask him).

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus
 
40.png
GKC:
GoG,

“I wish Contarini would post - I always look forward to what he has to say”.

Me too. Though he is a Protestant (just ask him).

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus

I know he is 🙂 - and none the worse for that​

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top