Anglicans to Rome?

[mtr01]

Fr Ambrose:

It would be interesting to take this to the Catholic members of the forum and ask for their reactions.

How do they feel that there will soon be 500,000 new Catholics who will deny, and with Rome’s permission, Papal Infallibility, the Assumption and the Immaculate Conception?

Michael, this boggles the mind!!

Catholics, how do you feel about this?

Micheal,

I have to say, I’m with Father A on this one. While I also do not doubt your integrity, I find the agreement very hard to believe. Like Father, I am all for unity, but not at the expense of Truth (even though our ideas of what constitutes Truth may be a little different). I just can’t see how the Vatican could approve any agreement that would allow soon-to-be Catholics to deny any dogmas of the faith.

Perhaps the terms of the agreement were incorrectly reported to you (or to whomever gave you the information)?

 

[GAssisi]

Dear Father,

You obviously misunderstand what invincible ignorance is all about. The reason that invincible ignorance can apply to the TAC is because they were a separate communion when those doctrines were dogmatized. Thus, their members would not have grown up with that teaching, and perhaps even taught that those teachings were wrong – hence, invincible ignorance.

Now, Anglicans who deny the Real Presence or the divinity of Christ are simply heretics because they grew up in a community that officially taught them those truths, yet they rejected them anyway.

Are you beginning to understand?

In any case, time has a way of dulling the sharp edge of contrast or new experience. About sixty years ago, married Catholic priests were unheard of in the West; now, its pretty common. When Constantinople first usurped the canonical place of Alexandria, Rome, true to her station and calling, was up in arms to defend Alexandria; now, for the sake of peace, Rome has accepted the new tradition. When Moscow first declared itself the third Rome, Constantinople was up in arms; now, for the sake of peace, Constantinople has accepted the new tradition. The examples can be multiplied.

I don’t see how this current situation with the TAC will be any different. For a while, one group will be living as brothers/sisters with another group who don’t believe everything in common. The theological key is invincible ignorance; the moral key is humility; the practical key is understanding. Group A will have to accept that Group B, by virtue of invincible ignorance, is in all respects equal. Group B will need to be willing to try to understand the new family into which they have been adopted, and be willing to pass on that understanding to their children. Eventually, with the spiritual gift of humility, Groups A and B will truly live together “of one mind,” in the words of St. Paul.

God bless,

Greg

 

[GAssisi]

Dear Michael,

My concern was not whether or not members of the TAC will NOT be taught those eternal Truths to which all Catholics adhere. My concern is exactly as you have expressed it: that the way the terms of reunion are currently presented might ostracize those Anglicans who DO believe in papal infallibility, the Immaculate Conception, and the Assumption. My post #177 was meant to suggest a middle ground that would be acceptable to everyone without compromising anything.

God bless,

Greg

 

[hlgomez]

Huh!! There can be no union while Rome holds heretical doctrines. We will always object to them.

Fr. AMbrose,

The Lord rejects arogant people. He gives grace to the humble. We are not forcing you to go back to Rome. But thank God, others, and a great many of them, have come home to the universal family of God. But let’s see how your bishops will do in the future. I guess you are obidient to your bishops and will follow their lead if they ever decide to be grafted into the bark of Peter.

Pio

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Now, Anglicans who deny the Real Presence or the divinity of Christ are simply heretics because they grew up in a community that officially taught them those truths, yet they rejected them anyway.

We have different experiences of Anglicanism.

In this country which was missionised by the Church Missionary Society and where Anglicanism is the dominant form of Christianity, the huge majority do NOT believe in the Real Presence. In fact their bishops do not allow tabernacles in the churches so as to discourage idolatry (artolatry.) There are four Anglo-Catholic churches in total and they simply defy the bishops and have tabernacles or aumbries anyway.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

GAssisi: When Constantinople first usurped the canonical place of Alexandria, Rome, true to her station and calling, was up in arms to defend Alexandria; now, for the sake of peace, Rome has accepted the new tradition.

Wrong. The Catholic Coptic Patriarchate of Alexandria ranks in second position after the Pope of Rome

When Moscow first declared itself the third Rome, Constantinople was up in arms; now, for the sake of peace, Constantinople has accepted the new tradition.

Wrong. The Patriarch of Constantinople holds the position of primacy of honour among the Orthodox Churches. This is enshrined in the sacred canons and is still accepted as being in force.

The examples can be multiplied.

Not doing too well here, Greg. You have given two examples and both of them are wrong. Want to try again?

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

hlgomez:

The Lord rejects arogant people. He gives grace to the humble.
Pio

Yes, I see your point. You are right and eventually the Traditional Anglican Communion may be rejected for that reason. It is kind of arrogant to say: “Holy Father, we wish to be in subjection to you but we will not accept the dogma of your infalliblity, and we also reject the two dogmas you infallibly defined about the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption.”

 

[GAssisi]

Dear Father,

Forgive the terseness of the following question: where in the world have you learned your history? First of all, the Pope, for the sake of peace, accepted the second place of Constantinople at the so-called eighth ecumenical Council. This state of the Church was re-affirmed at the Council of Lyons.

Secondly, everyone knows that the Constantinopolitan Patriarch was practically forced to grant Moscow independence and Patriarchal status. There was a definite rivalry between Constantinople and Rome in the early stages of Muscovite independence. And it is a fact that Moscow styled herself “Third Rome” for the very reason of trying to usurp Constantinople’s place in the East. TODAY, however, the attitudes have changed. Moscow STILL retains its historical status as the “Third Rome,” but no longer in rivalry with Constantinople. And Constantinople and the rest of the EO accept that attitude. It seems rather disingenuous for you to try to deny your own history just to be able to pretend that you “got me” on a single point.

Third, since you asked, I will give you another of the many examples that can be taken from Church history. When Constantinople first made the very late claim that St. Andrew founded the Church of Constantinople, the West looked at that story with a very jaundiced eye as nothing more than a fabrication. Now, for the sake of peace, even the Pope is willing to honor Constantinople’s claim.

God bless,

Greg

 

[GAssisi]

Oh, by the way Father, it is impossible that the Catholic Church would even consider full communion with Anglicans who deny the divinity of Christ or the Real Presence, much less if the local churches to which they belong do not teach such basic long-standing eternal truths. I certainly have not heard any talks of full communion with Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, Iglesia Ni Kristo, etc. Have you? So your argument really boils down to another example of sensationalism.

God bless,

Greg

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

GAssisi: Forgive the terseness of the following question: where in the world have you learned your history? First of all, the Pope, for the sake of peace, accepted the second place of Constantinople at the so-called eighth ecumenical Council. This state of the Church was re-affirmed at the Council of Lyons.

Who does the Pope accept in February 2005 as the Church occupying the SECOND place of honour after Rome?

The answer is the Patriarchate of Alexandria.

Do you not remember that Irish Melikite explained this very fully?

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

GAssisi: Secondly, everyone knows that the Constantinopolitan Patriarch was practically forced to grant Moscow independence and Patriarchal status. There was a definite rivalry between Constantinople and Rome in the early stages of Muscovite independence. And it is a fact that Moscow styled herself “Third Rome” for the very reason of trying to usurp Constantinople’s place in the East. TODAY, however, the attitudes have changed. Moscow STILL retains its historical status as the “Third Rome,” but no longer in rivalry with Constantinople. And Constantinople and the rest of the EO accept that attitude. It seems rather disingenuous for you to try to deny your own history just to be able to pretend that you “got me” on a single point

The concept of Moscow-the Third Rome is not taken seriously in the Orthodox world. Not even Moscow takes it seriously. Figuratively at the most. The Church of Russia has never styled herself the Third Rome nor the Second Jerusalem, although some have played with such a dream.

The order and relationships among the Churches is decided at Ecumenical Councils.

The idea of the Third Rome first comes along in the writings of a monk called Philotheus in the 15th century - at the time when the Turks had conquered Constantinople and the major political power still strong and active in the Orthodox commonwealth was the state of Russia.

“The Apollinarian heresy caused the downfall of old Rome. The Turks used their axes to shatter the doors of all churches of the Second Rome, the city of Constantinople. Now [in Moscow], the new Third Rome, the Holy Ecumenical Apostolic Church of your sovereign state shines brighter than the sun in the universal Orthodox Christian faith throughout the world. Pious Tsar! Let your state know that all states of the Orthodox faith have now merged into one, your state. You are the only true Christian ruler under the sky”

It was never officially approved by the Church, but from time to time it catches the popular imagination.

And Constantinople and the rest of the EO accept that attitude.

:nope: :nope:

 

[Maccabees]

Fr Ambrose:

Yes, I see your point. You are right and eventually the Traditional Anglican Communion may be rejected for that reason. It is kind of arrogant to say: “Holy Father, we wish to be in subjection to you but we will not accept the dogma of your infalliblity, and we also reject the two dogmas you infallibly defined about the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption.”

Actually Fr Ambrose you pointed out to me that some Eastern Catholics don’t beleive in the Immaculate Conception the same way the Pope defined it. And somehow they are in communion with Rome.
Are you reversing this opinion?

 

[pgoings]

You listed the indult and T.A.C. congregation as options if Clementines relocate. Do you think indult groups would welcome Anglicans (though the Tridentine is clearly much closer in spirit and ceremony to the mass at St. Clement’s)? You did not mention the Orthodox churches. Would one of those churches be an option?

boethius,

I suppose that the indult groups would welcome anyone who wished to become a Roman Catholic, and worship at an indult Mass. Is there any reason to suppose that this wouldn’t be true? (I’m talking about individual submissions, of course; even though there might be several at one time.)

As to the Orthodox churches, most of us consider ourselves to be irredeemably western, and have no particular desire to Byzantine-ize ourselves, if there was any other option.

–Paul

 

[pgoings]

I was informed this morning that an offer has been made by Pope John Paul II and preliminarily accepted by Archbishop Hepworth for the following: Full Communion…The Traditional Anglican Communion, hereinafter to be called the Anglican Catholic Church would NOT have to accept Papal Infallibility, the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

Michael,

Any idea when we might see a public announcement of this?

–Paul Goings

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

**
Traditional Ang:

GKC AND ALL OTHER ANGLICANS:

I’ve been asked to keep you appraised of any DEVELOPMENTS in the negotiations between Pope John Paul II and Archibishop Hepworth of the Traditional Anglican Communion.

This may turn out to be a real shocker, and may cause those Anglicans who’ve rejected Re-Union with Rome to reconsider their position…

**…I was informed this morning that an offer has been made by Pope John Paul II and preliminarily accepted by Archbishop Hepworth for the following: Full Communion…The Traditional Anglican Communion, hereinafter to be called the Anglican Catholic Church would NOT have to accept Papal Infallibility, the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary. ******## Really ? **

**Then why do other Catholics have to ? **

**I would love to know the answer to this - I have asked several other Catholics, of different Rites, and have never yet had an answer. **

**Can it be, that there isn’t one ? **

**To say that Divine Revelation varies according to Use or Rite, is an absurdity - it’s like saying that the week varies in the order of its days according to the language one speaks. Yet it is an absurdity of the greatest possible relevance. **

**Apparently, the “two truths” idea was more valid than Friar Thomas supposed. There can be two equally true propositions in matter of faith which collide head-on. You of the Anglican Use, can deny all those propositions without blame - but be a Roman-Rite Catholic, deny any one of them, and you “make shipwreck of the Faith” (and go to Hell). **

**This is what is known as “unity of faith” - for apparently relativism is only relativism, and is only a Bad Thing, if it is not patented in Rome. Roman-made or Rome-sanctioned varieties are entirely kosher. **

"The words of this [church] stand on their heads." ** **

Or as Charles Kingsley said, “Truth, for its own sake, ha never been a virtue with the Roman clergy. Father Newman informs us that it need not, and on the whole ought not to be’; that cunning is the weapon which Heaven has given to the saints wherewith to withstand the brute male force of the wicked world which marries and is given in marriage. Whether his notion is doctrinally correct or not, it is at least historically so.” No wonder Newman was so sensitive to this remark, because Kingsley was right ; far more so than he could have guessed. ##

**

If the Bishops are going to Rome this summer as has been rumored, it would be for ORDINATION SUB CONDITIONE and NOT "Re-Ordination, as Cardinal Ratzinger has already verified the validity of the Orders. Order and Discipline for Bishops, Priests and Deacons would be as per Anglican Useage under Archbishop Hepworth’s authority in submission to Pope John Paul II.

The deal in practice will look a lot like those used to bring the Eastern Catholic Churches into union with the See of Peter.

I would strongly advise All members of the TAC to enthusiastically accept this offer. I would also advise All believing Anglicans who have left or who are leaving the Anglican Communion (C of E), and their parishes, to consider this offer.

I also think the Orthodox need to reevaluate some of their opinions about Rome. I understand that’s 3 out of the 5 objections, and the 33 Articles of Brest say how Rome would handle at least one other.

Blessings and peace.

In Christ, Michael**

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Maccabees:

Actually Fr Ambrose you pointed out to me that some Eastern Catholics don’t beleive in the Immaculate Conception the same way the Pope defined it. And somehow they are in communion with Rome.
Are you reversing this opinion?

The Eastern Catholics have carefully explained that they do not believe in the Immaculate Conception because they follow the Orthodox teaching on Original Sin and this is at variance with the Roman Catholic teaching.

I doubt very much that any Anglicans can seriously claim to be following the Orthodox teaching about this. So their denial of the Immaculate Conception stems from another source -probably Protestantism.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

pgoings:

As to the Orthodox churches, most of us consider ourselves to be irredeemably western, and have no particular desire to Byzantine-ize ourselves, if there was any other option.

There is the Western Rite Vicariate of the Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese in America which comprises ex-Episcopalian congregations. Not many - probably 30 parishes at the most.

 

[mtr01]

Or as Charles Kingsley said, “Truth, for its own sake, ha
never been a virtue with the Roman clergy. Father Newman informs us that it need not, and on the whole ought not to be’; that cunning is the weapon which Heaven has given to the saints wherewith to withstand the brute male force of the wicked world which marries and is given in marriage. Whether his notion is doctrinally correct or not, it is at least historically so.” No wonder Newman was so sensitive to this remark, because Kingsley was right ; far more so than he could have guessed. ##

Perhaps, since there is no official declaration concerning this union (from either the TAC or the Vatican), we should wait to see what exactly the terms are before jumping to conclusions…

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

**

mtr01:

Perhaps, since there is no official declaration concerning this union (from either the TAC or the Vatican), we should wait to see what exactly the terms are before jumping to conclusions…

**

## Fair enough.

---

**However: can the Roman policy of requiring certain dogmas to be believed by some, but not by others, be defended ? **

---

**Has God made one revelation to Roman Rite Catholics, and another to Catholics of a different Rite or Use ? **

---

**Either all Catholics must believe all of Rome’s dogmas - or, some of those dogmas are not dogmas at all; in which case, Roman Catholics cannot be required to believe them any more than Byzantine-Rite Catholics (and, it seems, Anglican Use Catholics) can be required to. **

---

**Or can Anglican Use Catholics & Byzantine Rite Catholics legitimately be starved of some of the revealed truths are RCs are required to believe ? **

---

If all are divinely revealed, then Rome is disobeying God, by changing God’s own revelation according as Rome is addressing Catholics of this or that Rite or Use.

---

Either Rome:

• takes unity of faith-as-manifested-in-a-unity-of dogmas
• **seriously, **
• **believing unity of that sort, at least, to be required; **

or

---

**in all seriousness, Rome does not require unity of such a sort - in which case, one has to wonder why it has done so in the past; **

---

or

---

**Rome does not take such a mode of manifesting the unity of the Church seriously, but requires it anyway; in which case, it is being unspeakably frivolous with men’s souls. And if it is being frivolous, it will have to face the fury and hatred of a infinite & omnipotent God; **

---

or

---

****it does not take such a mode of manifesting the unity of the Church seriously, & not require it anyway; which is not what is professes to think. **
**##

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

---

Traditional Ang:

Fr. Ambrose:

**

Most of the objections voiced on this board by Orthodox members of the forum (including you) have objected to Unity with Rome on the Basis that you would be forced to espouse doctrines you believe to be heretical.

Between the various Articles of Unity between the various Eastern Catholic Churches and the Roman Catholic Church, and this latest offer from the Vatican to the Traditional Anglican Communion, that has been shown to be false.

So, now you come up with this, which was probably the real reason for preventing Unity. You want us to teach what you teach, because you believe that the Orthodox can’t make a mistake, or teach a heresy, no matter what it teaches.

Fr., we have documented here several times in the past where the Eastern Church was forced to appeal to the Western Church, and specifically to the Pope, to deal with various Christological heresies. How can the Church that was forced to do that all of the sudden become Free From Error?

Fr. What grace are you claiming for the Orthodox Church, which has changed its teaching on at least one issue in the 20th Century, that you are saying it didn’t have then?

Think carefully. I believe that there’s a nasty persecution coming, and that it will go far worse for us if we’re apart than if we’re together.

And, how can you compare the Infallibility of the Pope to the Divinity and Resurrection of Jesus, which is necessary for our salvation? Or, the two Marion doctrines with the Real Presence which is necessary to “Discern the Lord’s Body and Blood in the Eucharist”?

Remember, I believe in both, but I can’t see how both are essential to Salvation in the ways the other Doctrines I pointed out are.

Blessings to you and your congregation.

Michael**## According to Rome, all those things are dogmas. To deny even one, is to “make shipwreck of the Faith”; so **

Transubstantiation not** “the Real Presence”, which is too general a term for what Rome requires RCs to believe]**

Papal Infallibility

The Resurrection of Jesus Christ

The Divinity of Jesus Christ

The Immaculate Conception of Mary

**The Perpetuity of her Virginity **

The Assumption of Mary

- are all alike in being dogmas. Theologically, they are of unequal importance; and some, are dependent on others, whether as facts or as the subjects of propositions in logic; but, considered as credenda, as things to be believed, they are all dogmas, and it is as much heresy to deny any one, as to deny all together. To deny one, is to cease to be Catholic.

IMO, one had better not become Catholic if one does not know these things; for it is accounted a sin to leave the CC, seeing that “Outside the Church there is No Salvation” - depending on whom one asks; a further evidence of Rome’s unity of Faith**** **

Whether this is all according to the mind of Christ, is another matter.

I think Fr. Ambrose wins - on point at least.

---

BTW: the Perpetual Virginity covers:

---

virginity ante partum, in partu, and post partum. I’m not sure that all three are dogmas - one at least is, but I forget which. ##