Anglicans to Rome?

[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. ##

 

[GKC]

GoG,

"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. ##"

---

Ott identifies the first and the last as de fide, with the in partu being further defined as de fide on the ground of the general promulgation of doctrine.

GKC

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Traditional Ang: 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?

Actually I think you will find that the Roman Catholic Church has made quite serious changes in some of its teaching. Until comparatively recently it allowed abortion.

Someone has put together the evidence in another section of the Forum.

It is of interest that the Eastern (Orthodox) Fathers did not subscribe to the pro-abortion (Western Roman) Catholic teaching which was based on the belief that a foetus “quickened” and became alive roughly 17 weeks after conception… The Eastern Fathers knew of this Western argumentation but they dismissed it and insisted that a foetus was human and “quickened” from the first moment of conception.

St. Augustine (AD 354-430) said, “There cannot yet be said to be a live soul in a body that lacks sensation”, and held that abortion required penance only for the sexual aspect of the sin.

He and other early Christian theologians believed, as had Aristotle centuries before, that “animation”, or the coming alive of the fetus, occurred forty days after conception for a boy and eighty days after conception for a girl. The conclusion that early abortion is not homicide is contained in the first authoritative collection of canon law accepted by the [Catholic] church in 1140. As this collection was used as an instruction manual for priests until the new Code of Canon Law of 1917, its view of abortion has had great influence.

At the beginning of the 13th century, Pope Innocent III wrote that “quickening” “the time when a woman first feels the fetus move within her” was the moment at which abortion became homicide; prior to quickening, abortion was a less serious sin.

Pope Gregory XIV agreed, designating quickening as occurring after a period of 116 days (about 17 weeks). His declaration in 1591 that early abortion was not grounds for excommunication continued to be the abortion policy of the Catholic Church until 1869.

The tolerant approach to abortion which had prevailed in the Roman Catholic Church for centuries ended at the end of the nineteenth century. In 1869, Pope Pius IX officially eliminated the Catholic distinction between an animated and a nonanimated fetus and required excommunication for abortions at any stage of pregnancy.
cbctrust.com/abortion.html#3

The Orthodox Churches of the East never went through any period when abortion was considered less than a very grave sin, right from the moment of conception.

The Catholic Church, on the other hand, used to allow abortion in the early states of pregnancy, up until 1869.

So yes, I agree with you. Things have changed, in the Roman Catholic Church.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

"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. ##

Dear GKC, The perpetual virginity of the Mother of God is depicted on icons by the three stars (looking more like crosses in this example) on her shoulders and forehead.

They teach us that she was a virgin before, during, and after childbirth.

http://www.iconsexplained.com/iec/pics/343_vierge_orante_large.jpg

 

[Maccabees]

Fr Ambrose:

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.

Of course they can’t claim to be an Eastern Church following Eastern Tradition however here we have a predent of churchs in communion with Rome disagreeing with her on the finer points of what is supposed to be Papal Dogma infalliably defined. Since there are exceptions to the rule their are loopholes here. How and Anglican would find one I have no idea but perhaps on another point of theology let’s say purgatory there is room for difference.
Many High Church Anglicans hold to a view of purgatory albeit slightly different than Rome’s there could be room for a looser agreed upon defintion. Many of the the earliest Anglicans subsribed to the Marian Dogma of the Immaculate Conception and so they have history of accepting it at one time by some people unlike the east which has had problems with agreeing to the dogma due to disagreement on original sin. I don’t see this as a breaking point but hey I am not in neotiations rather the Papal relationship to other churches will be the main point of contention in my opinion.

 

[boethius]

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.)
–Paul

Hi Paul,

I don’t think there would be any reason that you (and other Clementines) would not be welcome at an indult Mass. Though I only discovered Anglo-Catholicism five years ago, during these years I have followed the activities of the indult “movement” (along with the SSPX and the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter) rather closely. (I was interested in the Tridentine Mass, and in particular its incarnation at St. Clements). I attended an indult mass last year (the music was awful!) and was disappointed in terms of the ceremony but pleased with the reverential attitude of all involved (there were lines outside the confessionals fifteen minutes before mass). Unfortunately, the indult movement is also a refuge for Catholic fundamentalists and those who generally know nothing and/or care nothing about other traditions within Christianity. One also finds some aspects of popular piety that border on superstition (I’m thinking of Newman’s particular taste for English Catholicism over Italian Catholicism). This leads some indult-folks to assume that a former Anglican can know absolutely nothing about Roman Catholicism. This makes for a few awkward (and condescending but well intentioned) moments initially. It was my impression (while I lived in New Jersey) that there was a strong indult community in the Philadelphia area. You might be interested in (or already know about): oriensjournal.com/index.html

Cheers,
Boethius

 

[Traditional_Ang]

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 donêt 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 donêt 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

Greg:

Fr. said we’d get to defend Catholicism at the Diocesan Synods. He just forgort that we’d also get to try to teach Catholicism to whatever “Low-Church” Protestant/Evangelicals joined the “Swim team”!

Sounds like Bill (that’s the guy who can defend the dogmas in question from Scripture) and I are going to have our work cut out for us in the next few DECADES! Are they going to look forward to seeing us!

Well, I always wanted to do something useful. I thought I’d have to wait 'til Purgatory to do it, although it may feel like Purgatory working through their Invincible Ignorance! :banghead:

The Apostle Paul talked about working one’s “Salvation out in fear and trembling” - Now, we all get to see it in practice!

I’m still looking for those articles Fr. said were lurking out there…

Blessings to you all.

Michael

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

GAssisi: 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.

And the dominant key is complete and utter hogwash. I believe the Lord said: “You shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free” and not “you can ignore the truth so that heretics can live in unity under the petrine office”!!

Group A will have to accept that Group B, by virtue of invincible ignorance, is in all respects equal.

So for a couple of generations (40 years? 60 years?) you are willing to accept heretical beliefs in your Church, with the vague hope that somehow or other they will evaporate? What happens if they don’t? What happens if the Anglican Catholic Church says, “We’re quite happy the way we are. You’ve already accepted us. We belong here and we’re keeping the beliefs you let us in with.”

The probability is that the Catholic Church is going to end up with a sui juris Church (larger than many of its present sui juris Churches) in full-blown heresy. The Melkite disaffection as the EWTN site calls it will be seen as trivial in comparison. Are we seeing the commencement of the protestantisation of the Catholic Church? Will various sections begin to hold contrary doctrines? Will the unifying factor be not true doctrine but simply an outward form of submission to the system, to the Pope?

 

[boethius]

–Michael,

Yes, please give us more information from official sources when it becomes available. (I was so excited last night about the news that I couldn’t sleep.) I don’t live within 500 miles of a T.A.C. parish but nevertheless feel like celebrating. (I do wish the sniping from certain Orthodox members of this group could be put on hold for a moment and let us enjoy the grace of this reconciliation…) Congratulations!!

Cheers,
Boethius

 

[GKC]

Fr Ambrose:

Dear GKC, The perpetual virginity of the Mother of God is depicted on icons by the three stars (looking more like crosses in this example) on her shoulders and forehead.

They teach us that she was a virgin before, during, and after childbirth.

http://www.iconsexplained.com/iec/pics/343_vierge_orante_large.jpg

Greetings, Fr. Ambrose,

The quote you pasted isn’t me, it’s Gottle. I’m the one who replied to him with the citation from Ott.

Thanks for the information on the iconographical conventions on that subject. As an Anglican with almost zero knowledge of icons, I am always glad to learn what my fellow Catholics (Anglicans sometimes talk like that) believe and how it is expressed. For me as an Anglican , the issue of the perpetual virginity of the BVM is, of course, only *de fide * with respect to *ante partum *. The others are pious opinion. But not something I would argue against.

Nice to meet you. Unless we have met before, in which case the same sentiments apply.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus

GKC

 

[Maccabees]

Father Ambrose I did not know that The Russian Orthodox took their interpretation of the early church fathers from Childbirth by Choice Trust which is essentially Planned Parenthood in Canada.
You have this before Ambrose using sources that are hostile toward Catholicism in order to provide commentary on what the catholic church believes. This is below the belt and you catholics an apology.
You know that all the church fathers in the west condemned abortion you know that western synods from the earliest age of Christianity condemned abortion. Heck the very people you mention as condoning abortion think contraception and sterilization are sinful how then can they think abortion is permitted?
This makes no sense and should sound an alarm.
You are to smart for this FR Ambrose to use commentary by an abortion mill to interpret RC teaching.
What is going here is theological speculation nowhere does any of the western church fathers approve of abortion at any time during pregnancy.
Need I remind you we are dealing with more ancient times and many things we take for granted in regard to how life begins was not known by these men thus some faulty speculation but that did not translate into them condoning abortion. These are two very different things.
Lets take St. Augustine for example he made the distinction between the “embryo inanimate” that was not endowed with a soul and an “embryo animates.” He expressed the view that human powers cannot determine the point during fetal development when this critical change occurs. So that being the case no abortion is condoned and one would repent not becasue of sex but because it is murder. Stop getting your theology from abortion mills! There is speculation on when the embryo was given a soul he gave his opinion but he also said we can’t determine this for sure thus he never permitted abortion. The same would apply to the other fathers speculation they never permitted abortion without they would admit the embryo inaminatus was life and to abort was sinful. What was speculated that was wrong was the stage that they attributed the embryo animates to be catholics today would say this would be at conception some catholics speculated abortion at a later stage was more sinful because this stage differed from embryo inanimate. Because now not only do you have physical life but a soul as well. This is the change not that abortion is not murder.
Stop pretending like these people gave the OK to abortion at even the earliest stages they did not.
And stop pretending that Orthodox has not changed even more than the RC in regards to sexual issues they have.
The Orthodox disagree among themselves on what was once agreed upon by all. Now many permit contraception and sterilization yet you do not mention this. The catholic church has been consistent on this manner even till modern times. The Orthodox don’t even talk about this they let each pastor decide for themselves such things hmm sounds very Protestant to me.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

–Michael,

Yes, please give us more information from official sources when it becomes available. (I was so excited last night about the news that I couldn’t sleep.) I don’t live within 500 miles of a T.A.C. parish but nevertheless feel like celebrating. (I do wish the sniping from certain Orthodox members of this group could be put on hold for a moment and let us enjoy the grace of this reconciliation…) Congratulations!!

Dear Boethius.

Well, it may look like sniping but it comes out of a sense of genuine alarm that the Roman Catholics are about to sell their faith down the river. If they have become so destabilised, to the extent which their proposals to the TAC indicate, then the ecumenical dialogue with the Orthodox is on very shaky ground.

You’re Anglican. You’re quite used to a comprehensiveness in doctrine which allows mutually exclusive beliefs to co-exist in peace among your members. Neither the Roman Catholics nor the Orthodox will touch such comprehensiveness with a barge pole. If the TAC reports are correct and they can enter the Catholic Church under such, then what we are seeing is a victory for Anglicanism. It has succeeded in getting Rome to acquiesce in the much vaunted Anglican principle of comprehensiveness.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Maccabees:

Father Ambrose I did not know that The Russian Orthodox took their interpretation of the early church fathers from Childbirth by Choice Trust which is essentially Planned Parenthood in Canada.
You have this before Ambrose using sources that are hostile toward Catholicism in order to provide commentary on what the catholic church believes. This is below the belt and you catholics an apology.

Hostility is not a factor if what they present are historical facts.

Prove that the Roman Catholic position on abortion was not as shown by them. Disprove the evidence they have given from the Popes, the theologians (Augustine) and canon law.

 

[Maccabees]

Fr Ambrose:

Hostility is not a factor if what they present are historical facts.

Prove that the Roman Catholic position on abortion was not as shown by them. Disprove the evidence they have given from the Popes, the theologians (Augustine) and canon law.

I have no qulams with the quotes but rather their interpretation of these quotes theri pro-abrotion commentaries run longer than what is said and in this case being misinterpretd by the abortion mill.
You yourself have to correct others on their misinterpretation of the early church fathers and their quotes taken out of context.
Quotes without a context prove nothing at all even the Jehovah’s witnesses use the church fathers are they right in their commentaries?
Fundamentilist use the Bible verses incessantly what good is it when it is entirely out of context.
Or would you agree that we should call no man father?
What should I address you as Ambrose since obviously I have a Bible verse to back up an assertion I shouldn’t call you father it’s in the Bible no less.
Or would you agree context is important?
Would you agree you owe catholics an apology for using hostile sources on quite a few occasions.
What next the early church fathers according to Jack Chick?
Get some class.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Maccabees:

IWould you agree you owe catholics an apology for using hostile sources on quite a few occasions.

I may have done, I don’t recall. But you may be confusing me with someone else.

But no, I am not going to apologise. Not unless you can prove they have distorted what the Popes used to teach about early term abortion

I suppose I should ask for an apology from Catholics when they post material from the internet Catholic Encyclopedia. That is one well known anti-Orthodox source.

 

[boethius]

Fr Ambrose:

You’re Anglican. You’re quite used to a comprehensiveness in doctrine which allows mutually exclusive beliefs to co-exist in peace among your members. Neither the Roman Catholics nor the Orthodox will touch such comprehensiveness with a barge pole. If the TAC reports are correct and they can enter the Catholic Church under such, then what we are seeing is a victory for Anglicanism. It has succeeded in getting Rome to acquiesce in the much vaunted Anglican principle of comprehensiveness.

Ambrose,
You do not know what I believe and I find your representations of both Anglicanism and Catholicism (not to mention ecumenicism) to be grossly simple-minded if not willfully dishonest (Have you ever heard of the development of doctrine? Have you read the Vatican II documents?). Your shrill tone, “gotcha” mannerisms and condescending approach ("let me teach you for I am a ‘real’ Christian…) is reminischent of my fundamentalist, southern baptist neighbors. What you (mis-)interpret as acquiescence on the part of Rome could be viewed as gracious magnanimity and a desire to heal the wounds of the Reformation. I thought this thread was originally a conversation between Anglicans and Roman Catholics about Anglicans becoming Catholic. Isn’t there another forum dedicated to Orthodox trashing (through gross generalization) of Roman Catholicism?

I’m sure that my comments will merely elicit more bile, but I thought I’d try.

Cheers,
Boethius

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Fr Ambrose:

Actually I think you will find that the Roman Catholic Church has made quite serious changes in some of its teaching. Until comparatively recently it allowed abortion.

Someone has put together the evidence in another section of the Forum.

It is of interest that the Eastern (Orthodox) Fathers did not subscribe to the pro-abortion (Western Roman) Catholic teaching which was based on the belief that a foetus “quickened” and became alive roughly 17 weeks after conception… The Eastern Fathers knew of this Western argumentation but they dismissed it and insisted that a foetus was human and “quickened” from the first moment of conception.

St. Augustine (AD 354-430) said, “There cannot yet be said to be a live soul in a body that lacks sensation”, and held that abortion required penance only for the sexual aspect of the sin.

He and other early Christian theologians believed, as had Aristotle centuries before, that “animation”, or the coming alive of the fetus, occurred forty days after conception for a boy and eighty days after conception for a girl. The conclusion that early abortion is not homicide is contained in the first authoritative collection of canon law accepted by the [Catholic] church in 1140. As this collection was used as an instruction manual for priests until the new Code of Canon Law of 1917, its view of abortion has had great influence.

At the beginning of the 13th century, Pope Innocent III wrote that “quickening” “the time when a woman first feels the fetus move within her” was the moment at which abortion became homicide; prior to quickening, abortion was a less serious sin.

Pope Gregory XIV agreed, designating quickening as occurring after a period of 116 days (about 17 weeks). His declaration in 1591 that early abortion was not grounds for excommunication continued to be the abortion policy of the Catholic Church until 1869.

The tolerant approach to abortion which had prevailed in the Roman Catholic Church for centuries ended at the end of the nineteenth century. In 1869, Pope Pius IX officially eliminated the Catholic distinction between an animated and a nonanimated fetus and required excommunication for abortions at any stage of pregnancy.
cbctrust.com/abortion.html#3

The Orthodox Churches of the East never went through any period when abortion was considered less than a very grave sin, right from the moment of conception.

The Catholic Church, on the other hand, used to allow abortion in the early states of pregnancy, up until 1869.

So yes, I agree with you. Things have changed, in the Roman Catholic Church.

Fr. Ambrose:

The teaching described was and is consistant with Jewish Rabinnical teaching at the time and to the present day.

Although discussed, the teaching of St. Augustine on Abortion never become the Teaching of the Church. I assume that’s one reason you reject him as a “Doctor of the church”.

I think you would agree there’s a long and wide zone between sins requiring excommunication as Pope Innocent II stated that Aborting an “Animated Fetus” required and accepting Abortion before then, Space that would include less serious but still grave sins that require demonstrated repentence and Private Confession of Sin.

Again calling something a grave sin requiring Personal confession and a stiff penance but not excommunication is hardly accepting it.

OTOH, you might have a case against the US Council of Catholic Bishops who could not bring themselves to forbid communion those politicians who publicly support “Abortion Rights” and can’t bring themselves to vote against “a Woman’s Right to Chose (to murder her pre-born baby)” no matter what the circumstances.

I’ve seen Ratzinger’s letter, and they were supposed to forbid the Eucharist to those politicians:

chiesa.espressonline.it/dettaglio.jsp?id=7055&eng=y

You actually have a stronger case there.

May God Bless your preparations for Great Lent.

Michael

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

boethius:

Ambrose,
You do not know what I believe and I find your representations of both Anglicanism and Catholicism (not to mention ecumenicism) to be grossly simple-minded if not willfully dishonest

Well, if I am too simple-minded to grasp the Anglican principle of comprehensiveness, explain it or recommend a small website which I can look at.

(Have you ever heard of the development of doctrine?

I have, although it is not a principle accepted by the Orthodox Churches.

Have you read the Vatican II documents?)

I have. I was finishing university when Vatican II ended and I took a strong interest in it.

I thought this thread was originally a conversation between Anglicans and Roman Catholics about Anglicans becoming Catholic.

If it is restricted to Anglican and Roman catholic participants, then of course I shall bow out.

 

[Traditional_Ang]

boethius:

Ambrose,
You do not know what I believe and I find your representations of both Anglicanism and Catholicism (not to mention ecumenicism) to be grossly simple-minded if not willfully dishonest (Have you ever heard of the development of doctrine? Have you read the Vatican II documents?). Your shrill tone, “gotcha” mannerisms and condescending approach ("let me teach you for I am a ‘real’ Christian…) is reminischent of my fundamentalist, southern baptist neighbors. What you (mis-)interpret as acquiescence on the part of Rome could be viewed as gracious magnanimity and a desire to heal the wounds of the Reformation. I thought this thread was originally a conversation between Anglicans and Roman Catholics about Anglicans becoming Catholic. Isn’t there another forum dedicated to Orthodox trashing (through gross generalization) of Roman Catholicism?

I’m sure that my comments will merely elicit more bile, but I thought I’d try.

Cheers,
Boethius

Thank you, Boethius.

I believe the Pope is using the TAC (that includes yours truly) as a trial run for unity with the Eastern Orthodox.

What he’s done with us is a very magnanimous gesture that has clearly told the Orthodox and anyone who’ll listen what he and the rest of the Catholic Church are willing to do and how far he’s willing to go for the sake of Christian unity.

This move by Pope John Paul II has had the effect of putting our Orthodox brothers on the spot, because this Truly Righteous Man has answered in one offer all of their objections about “being forced to accept Western Catholicism” and its doctrines.

They are left with their own demands that everyone conform to their doctrines and dogma, and to their fears of what Unity and Change would mean.

I must admit that I had no idea the Orthodox were that unready for any kind of unity with their Brothers and Sisters in Christ.

Pray for them that that changes.

Peace to you and your household.

Michael

 

[Maccabees]

Fr Ambrose:

I may have done, I don’t recall. But you may be confusing me with someone else.

But no, I am not going to apologise. Not unless you can prove they have distorted what the Popes used to teach about early term abortion

I suppose I should ask for an apology from Catholics when they post material from the internet Catholic Encyclopedia. That is one well known anti-Orthodox source.

Father Ambrose I think I know who I am talking about there is no one else on this board who claims to be an Orthodox priests and gives me links to anti-catholic authors.
There is big difference of respectability between the catholic encyclopia which does its best to present history and the an abortion mill which attemtps to rewrite history in order to justify a mass holocost. The fact that you still insist they are viable source of information lets me question your ture motives you will stoop to any level even siding with the opinion of mass murderers to insult the name of the catholic church. I assert you still owe me an apoogy for this classless action.
And I gave a the catholic answer but you merely dismiss it in favor of abortionist. You have no agenda here Fr Ambrose?
And you never refuted my assertion that catholics have always deemed abortion as sin.

Pope Stephen V, “Epistle to Archbishop of Mainz,” Sept 14, 887 (SA
670): “If he who destroys what is conceived in the womb by abortion is a
murderer, how much more is he unable to excuse himself of murder who kills a child even one day old.”

St.Augustine, “De nuptiis et concupiscentia” 1:15: “At times their lustful
cruelty or cruel lust goes so far as to obtain poisons to cause sterility;
and if this does not work,to somehow extinguish and destroy the fetus
conceived within the womb, wishing the offspring to be killed before living,
or if it was living in the womb, to be killed before being born.” PL44:423-
24. (Written about 419 AD).

** The Real St.Ambrose**, “On the Hexaemeron” 5:18: “The rich women, to avoid dividing
the inheritance among many, kill their own fetus in the womb and with
murderous juices extinguish in the genital chamber their children.” PL
14:231. (Written about 386 AD).

We may not have known the status of the soul be we knew it was life that never changed.