Anglicans to Rome?

  • Thread starter Thread starter HagiaSophia
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Traditional Ang:
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
Depneds on what Orthodox you talk to the Greeks and Russians tend to be very anti-catholic. Some of the Oriental Orthodox are far more friendly and searching for reunion with Rome. Just depends on who you talk to. The Orthodox body is divided on this issue as they are on other issues. They have no one person to speak for the whole of Orthodoxy thus a possiblity for some Orthodox to reunie with Rome and others to remain apart from Rome.
 
Dear Father,

So please tell me how exactly you have refuted my example of the acceptance of the second place of Constantinople by Rome over time? Did you not know that Rome and Constantinople are no longer in Communion? Thus, wouldn’t it make sense, even to you, that Alexandria would, within the Catholic Communion, become second after Rome, since Constantinople is no longer in the picture? You’re not making much sense. What point are you trying to make exactly?

As far as Russia being the third Rome, I’m certainly glad you finally admit that the ROC formerly had delusions of grandeur. I am also glad to hear you admit, as I already stated, that the ROC no longer has this attitude.

As far as invincible ignorance is concerned, it’s funny that you would call it hogwash now, but when I gave you a multitude of biblical and patristic quotes in a past post to prove that invincible ignorance has been an underlying principle of Church soteriology throughout the Church’s existence, even to the OT church, you were all of a sudden so willing to bring up a quote from Florovsky (I think that was his name) to pretend that the ROC has indeed been amenable to the principle of invincible ignorance. Now you are backtracking again. You are certainly very wishy-washy on this issue, Father. Better you get your stance straightened up before you go criticizing the principle of invincible ignorance again – you only make yourself look silly.

No, father, invincible ignorance is not hogwash. How funny that you would dare to quote Jesus to try to prove your un-Christian stance – a quote which does not even have anything remotely to do with our topic - when it was Jesus himself who explicitly stated, “if you were blind, you would have no guilt; but since you say “we see,” you are guilty.”

As I have mentioned very often, Father, you really don’t have a clue when it comes to Catholic matters. Best to keep yourself to what you know. Ignorance that is invincible IS NOT WILLFUL. Thus, IT IS NOT SINFUL. Are you with us so far, Father? Thus, any member of the TAC who finds it uncommonly hard to accept the three dogmas mentioned because of invincible ignorance are not going to be forced to accept them to become Catholic. It does not mean that these people are WILLFULLY REJECTING those truths. It is not as if they had grown up with these teachings as part of their faith and THEN rejected them. Thus, they are not heretics even if they become Catholic. Is there any part of that explanation you do not understand?

And you certainly are a master of sensationalist drivel. Show us your stats. How many members of the TAC reject the three dogmas mentioned? I would rather think that MOST traditional Anglicans like Michael have seen the absolute need for a centralizing authority such as provided by the papacy – otherwise, they would not be crossing the Tiber. It is more likely that MOST traditional Anglicans know what union with Rome means, and they are nevertheless willing to have that union. It is tabloid sensationalism for you to suggest that there will be this huge body of Christians crossing the Tiber that do not believe in those three dogmas. More likely, a majority of those Christians in the TAC DO believe in those dogmas; the statement in question is only meant for those others who may otherwise feel ostracized about coming into communion with Rome if they do not, by virtue of invincible ignorance, believe in them.

God bless,

Greg
 
Traditional Ang:
I believe the Pope is using the TAC (that includes yours truly) as a trial run for unity with the Eastern Orthodox.
OK, I hope that it will be seen as in order for me to comment on this since it concerns me.

A “trial run” with the TAC which involves accepting beliefs considered as heretical by the Catholics would simply alarm the Orthodox. It would be seen as something very unserious and very destabilising.
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.
It does not put the Orthodox on the spot at all. It simply gives them cause for great alarm.

It is not a question of the Pope magnanimously saying to the Orthodox: “You may keep your archaic beliefs. You do not have accept me as infallible, etc…” It is question of the Orthodox not being able to enter into communion with any other ecclesisatical body, including the Roman Catholic, which does not hold the orthodox faith.

Now I am sorry if that sounds like all the supercilious things of which Boethius accused me, but it is the bottom line. The Orthodox are unable to accept into communion individuals and church bodies which hold heretical beliefs. Doctrinal unity must come first, and only then intercommunion.
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.
Michael, again I feel obliged to say that I do not believe that Rome will accept you into its communion while you do not conform to its doctrines and dogmas.
 
GASsisi: And you certainly are a master of sensationalist drivel. Show us your stats. How many members of the TAC reject the three dogmas mentioned?
Next thing you will be accusing Michael of sensationalist drivel also. Look at the sensationalist manner in which he made the announcement.

If the TAC members who reject these dogmas are of only inconsequential numbers, why did Michael present it in this hyped up way as if it were of some significance? Why the emphasis on “would NOT have to accept…”
Traditional Ang:
…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.
 
Fr Ambrose:
Michael, again I feel obliged to say that I do not believe that Rome will accept you into its communion while you do not conform to its doctrines and dogmas.
Father A, I have to say I’m in complete agreement with this statement. I can’t see the Catholic Church compromising dogma for the sake of unity, as it would really be a false unity. That said, before we all get bent out of shape over this issue, we should probably wait for an official proclamation of the terms before we engage in further speculation.

Greg, I understand your point about invincible ignorance, but I am really uncomfortable in using it to facilitate communion between the Catholic Church and the TAC, even in the case of a few reluctants. After all, all adult converts are required to assent to the dogmas of the Church before their conversion. I see this as a potentially dangerous precedent which could result in “Joe Baptist” or “Jane Presbyterian” wanting to convert and claim invincible ignorance as a justification for not accepting papal infallibilty or the Marian Dogmas.
 
Fr. Ambrose:

So am I - That may be why Fr. Fessio nearly got me on the one pass all those years ago…
Fr Ambrose:
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.
…It might not have been such a wise thing to have had a body made up of people who believed in Two Sacraments (that’s what I was taught), others in 7, and still others in just the social club (“Broad Church”) which means nothing at all.

That’s why it splintered into the alphabet soup I’ve given after the 1960s’s and 70’s. And that’s why we’ll have to require the minimums as a starting point (I know you’re maximalist) - 7 Sacraments, The First 7 Councils, the Creeds, the Authority of Scripture and the Primacy of the Pope - and then those of us who are more Catholic will have to go to work!

FR., I do believe that Orthodoxy has allowed for the Devlopment, or at least the refinement of Doctrine…
Fr Ambrose:
I have, although it is not a principle accepted by the Orthodox Churches.
Almost every FIRST answer to Heresy was some sort of a refinement or a development of Doctrine - at Least linguistically, correct?

Also, didn’t Orthodoxy develop a LOT of the Doctrine and Practice related to INNER Prayer & MEDITATION (Hesychasm)?
Fr Ambrose:
I have. I was finishing university when Vatican II ended and I took a strong interest in it.
One of the first books my father bought me after my Confirmation was The Documents of Vatican II. I was precocious and curious, and he was more High Church.

The “Low-Church” Parish was our local parish. The “High Church” parish I go to now was an hour’s drive.

It became a LOT easier for him when that parish had a “MIssion Church”. They still talk to the "Vicar"they sent down who became the pastor of the first Western Rite Antiochan Orthodox Church…That’s how he died Orthodox.

Meanwhile, I’m still waiting for a date for the “Swim Meet”. After this last offer, it shouldn’t be far off.
Fr Ambrose:
If it is restricted to Anglican and Roman Catholic participants, then of course I shall bow out.
No, Fr, I don’t think you need to do that. But I do think you need to resist that lower angel of your nature who can’t resist making a “Dennis the Menace” jab when that wouldn’t be an edifying thing to do or all that would do is maybe make a point at someone’s expense. Otherwise, you’re going to have one heck of a Great Lent in terms of penance…

Fr., I know the Pope’s offer automatically puts every other Christian who believes in the sacraments and in the Apostolic succession and the male only Priesthood but who isn’t in Union with the See of Peter for whatever reason on the spot.

It has to do that with an aweful lot of “High-Church” Anglicans who aren’t in the TAC! In fact, I hope it does, and I hope they grab the lifeline before it’s too late! I’d love to see 2 or 3 million Anglo-Catholics suit up and join us for the swim or come and join us on the other side of the Tiber before they get too many 2nd thoughts to have a chance to do it!

If they join us, I won’t be so heartbroken about the “Low-Church” Protestant/Evanglicals who flat out refuse to come along.

Regarding your fix, talk to me or someone else about it privately. I can only imagine that you must feel as if the rug got pulled out from under your feet, and that’s probably true for most of the Orthodox who aren’t in the Fr. Chrysostom/Metropolitan John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon camp.

I suggest that instead of making snide remarks, you let us know how you feel and ask for our prayers. I just did that to you about something that’s terrified me. Fr., which felt better, people’s snide remarks, or my request that you pray for me?

May God bless your congregations preparations for Great Lent.

Michael
 
Traditional Ang:
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.
Michael, the Orthodox are searching for true unity and that is the unity of a shared faith and not simply an administrative unity. This is the unity of the Apostle Paul: Be ye all of one mind and faith and of one accord!

You yourselves seem set to enjoy an impaired kind of unity with Rome; you will be free to reject some of Rome’s most cherished beliefs about the Mother of God and the dogmatic role of the Pope. That kind of unity does not interest the Orthodox. We want the maximalist amount - full and complete unity in the faith.

So the question revolves around: what kind of unity do we seek?
 
Traditional Ang:
Regarding your fix, talk to me or someone else about it privately
What fix? You have lost me.
I can only imagine that you must feel as if the rug got pulled out from under your feet
What rug? I don’t know what you have in mind?
and that’s probably true for most of the Orthodox who aren’t in the Fr. Chrysostom
Fr Chrysostomos discovered that he was not really Orthodox and he wanted to play for the other team, so he joined the Catholic Church
Metropolitan John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon camp
What is it in Metr. John Zizioulas that you see as being incompatible with Orthodoxy?
I suggest that instead of making snide remarks, you let us know how you feel and ask for our prayers. I just did that to you about something that’s terrified me. Fr., which felt better, people’s snide remarks, or my request that you pray for me?
Yes, since becoming involved with this Forum and getting to know people I suppose we have all offered up prayers for one another. It’s very good.
 
40.png
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## Thanks - you’re very well informed
**😃 🙂 **

**Although, I doubt very much whether the virginity in partu would be regarded as dogma, if it were not for a fair deal of ignorance of obstetric gynaecology on the part of the Fathers (and some dodgy exegesis of Isaiah 7.14, of course). **

I’m just glad there is no dogma founded on the unanimous consent of the Fathers, that the mustard seed is the smallest of all seeds. 🙂 ##
 
Dear Father and Mtr01,

I think part of the source of your opposition on this issue is a perception that the statement in question means these people will be permitted to stay Catholic while not believing (I use this terminology very purposefully, in contradistinction to Father’s preference for the term “denying”) the dogmas mentioned. I am looking at this very positively (best-case-scenario and benefit-of-the-doubt mentality). I believe the statement at issue is not meant to suggest that non-Catholics can freely come into the Catholic Church and claim invincible ignorance on anything they want in order to get away with not believing the Truth. Not at all. There are several things to consider:
  1. This provision will only apply to those three dogmas. No other de fide beliefs are or ever will be on the table as optional.
  2. This provision does NOT mean that those truths will not be taught to the incoming converts (with regards to the TAC, there will already be much help from the TAC themselves in educating their own members). In other words, these converts are not going to “get away” with anything very easily. At the very least, they will have to learn the faith of their new Church family very thoroughly for the sake of their children.
  3. This provision does NOT mean that the children of these incoming converts will not be taught the faith. Indeed, these children will grow up with nothing else but the FULL Truth.
  4. This provision does NOT mean that there will be no expectation by the proper authorities that these converts will EVENTUALLY accept the three dogmas. The provision is more like saying, “OK, we won’t deny you membership JUST because you are invincibly ignorant of these dogmas. But this membership means you will be expected to study and learn diligently the faith of your new family, and to constantly pray for the grace to accept these Truths. We shall be praying with you, as well.”
I find absolutely nothing wrong with this scenario. Of course, it is the best case scenario.

Here is the final, and perhaps the most powerful consideration, about this issue. When we are babies, we do not have an inkling about who or what our faith is about. Nevertheless, our parents love us enough to have us baptized to become MEMBERS OF THE CHURCH. It would be a sin of hypocrisy for us to deny membership to others who are spiritual babes in the faith, invincibly ignorant as it were, simply because they are invincibly ignorant.

God bless,

Greg
 
Ambrose are you jealous of the Anglicans and Oriental Orthodox that are seeking reunion with Rome you have some chip on your shoulder that doesn’t want us to reunite when this is the wish of Jesus.

Look if your happy with the Russian anti ecunemical stance on just about everything fine. But why crash the party of others exicted abut reuniting to the catholic church.

I find it intriguing that you care about something that is none of your church’s business.

The catholic church isn’t that bad hey they were your churches best years and they were with us. SInce you left its been all downfill for you guys don’t you think Somebody is trying to tell you something?
 
Dearv GAssisi,

I notice that in your participation in this discussion you assert again and again that “invincible ignorance” is the reason that the Vatican is willing to take into the Catholic Church people with beliefs which would be heretical for normal Catholics and place their salvation at risk.

In fact you have built it into the foundation stone to justify this reception of the TAC.

Frankly I wonder why invincibly ignorant people would even want to enter a Church when they do not accept de fide dogmas. What is the attraction?

You write about invincible ignorance with such confidence that it seems you may have an inside line to the Vatican and are privy to their thinking on this. May we ask your reasons for promoting invincible ignorance so confidently as the rationale which permits this amazing event? Is there no other rationale you can think of?
 
FR. Ambrose:

I’m sure that you must realize that if Traditional Anglicans have brains in their heads, thry will jump at the Pope’s offer as I am advising.

The will leave the Eastern Orthodox as the only major Sacramental Churches who haven’t screwed up their Apostolic Succession who will not be in Communion with Rome.

I agree with both Fr. Chrysostom and the Metropolitan. They belong together like 2 lungs.

I didn’t know that Fr, Chrysostom had gone to Rome - I found him on an Orthodox website. I just found his approach to solving the problem of our division to be interesting and hopeful.
Fr Ambrose:
What fix? You have lost me.
What rug? I don’t know what you have in mind?

Fr Chrysostomos discovered that he was not really Orthodox and he wanted to play for the other team, so he joined the Catholic Church

What is it in Metr. John Zizioulas that you see as being incompatible with Orthodoxy?

Yes, since becoming involved with this Forum and getting to know people I suppose we have all offered up prayers for one another. It’s very good.
The same with the Metropolitan John of Pergamon, who seemed to embodied Orthodoxy’s best and most fervent hopes for union. I also found him on an Orthodox website.

St. John Chrysostom was my favorite non-Desert Father. He also seemed to keep coming back, and the bad-guys never were able to get the better of him for very long.

Last Easter, One of our Priests read his Easter Sermon (in Translation). It was moving and beautiful, although he had a hard time with the “Talk-back” congregational participation.

The more we pray for each other as Christians, the harder it is to score points at each other’s expense, and the more powerful our collective witness to our Savior’s Love.

I believe that applies to the Catholic-Orthodox Split. That’s why the “Holy Canons Related to Ecumenism” are wrong headed.

orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/ecum_canons.aspx

You see, when we pray with each other, we both receive the Charism of Agape, without which we are nothing, and without which, real unity is impossible.

May God bless you with health and many years.

Michael
 
40.png
Maccabees:
Ambrose are you jealous of the Anglicans and Oriental Orthodox that are seeking reunion with Rome you have some chip on your shoulder that doesn’t want us to reunite when this is the wish of Jesus.
Remaining faithful to all that we have received from our Holy Fathers, we ask only to continue in their teachings until Christ returns. Why should there be any jealousy about what Catholics and Anglicans are doing?
I find it intriguing that you care about something that is none of your church’s business.
I would have agreed with you, but now that Michael is stressing that this is the Vatican’s trial run for its method of uniting with the Orthodox, we can see that it involves our Churches as well and we have a definite interest in what is happening with the TAC.
The catholic church isn’t that bad hey they were your churches best years and they were with us. SInce you left its been all downfill for you guys don’t you think Somebody is trying to tell you something?
We are your past. Who knows what God has in mind for your future? 🙂
 
Frankly I wonder why invincibly ignorant people would even want to enter a Church when they do not accept de fide dogmas. What is the attraction?
i think the church is being realistic. if membership in the church today was based on adherence and belief on the church’s teachings, very few people would be left. does this mean we should kick them out? i don’t think so. the church, like the Lord, should be patient. God loves us despite our short comings.

the church acknowledges a hierarchy of truth. some things are more important to believe then others. clearly, knowing that Jesus is our God and savior is more important to our salvation then knowing that Mary was immaculately conceived. basically, the church is deciding when there is enough of a shared faith to be considered one body. it isn’t all or nothing, but a loving church opening its arms to separated bretheren and letting truth speak for itself.

this approach has great promise in bringing the eastern and western churches together again.
 
Fr Ambrose:
I would have agreed with you, but now that Michael is stressing that this is the Vatican’s trial run for its method of uniting with the Orthodox, we can see that it involves our Churches as well and we have a definite interest in what is happening with the TAC.
🙂
The talks with the Orthodox have been far differnent and the cathechism points to this that the RC beleives the Orthodox to be far closer to us than protestants thus the way we would approach this.
We have brought churches that were once Orthodox back into the fold but we have not brought any of the protestant churches back into the fold the Traditional Anglicans would be the first and it would be historic thus the church approach would be different as the division is deeper.
For example there appears to be a problem here accepting Marian dogma while the ORthodox church wouldn’t have as big as problem with these dogmas Timothy Ware said the ORthodox churches are in agreement with catholic teaching on Mary except for the fact of origianal sin. The polemics of the differences have exagerrated the divide. The tradition of Mary being ever virgin, theotokos, Assumption, and Immmaculate (but not conceived) are all ancient truths that in many ways started in the East and while not be dogmatically pronounced were beleived without objection until Rome proclaimed them dogma which sometimes caused a backlash.
 
oat soda:
this approach has great promise in bringing the eastern and western churches together again.
Oat Soda,

This approach will horrify the Orthodox when it becomes widely known. It won’t be seen as an act of charity to propose allowing the tolerance of multiple truths.

I think that I am starting to realise, in a way I never have before, the failure of the West to understand how immutable, how totally uncompromising, the Orthodox are with matters of the faith.

“Never, O man, is that which relates to the Church corrected through compromises: there is no middle way between the Truth and the lie… and although one can say that there is a mean between light and darkness which is called the morning and evening twilight, nevertheless between the Truth and the lie, however hard you try, you will never find a mean.”
-St. Mark of Ephesus
 
Dear Father,

Don’t you recall that the Holy Spirit is my coach? Seriously. If you recall, I initially presented my case as a possibility. But as the conversation progressed, I was convicted powerfully more and more that this is indeed the case.

But I am not one to simply claim, “the Holy Spirit told me” (in fact, I would not even call myself a charismatic). It is really the most reasonable explanation. You will notice that such an offer has never been made to a Protestant church or ecclesial community. You may have heard of the adage that a “conversion” from one of the apostolic Churches to another is far easier than a conversion from Protestantism to one of the apostolic Churches. And I think you will agree that there is good reason for that adage. Such an offer will not be made to Protestant bodies because it would be disingenuous, illogical, and unfair to say, “you can convert without having to believe all these things that you are currently invincibly ignorant about,” when “all these things” just about includes ALL things. It would be more like telling an atheist, “you can be Catholic, but because of invincible ignorance, you can be baptized first without receiving any instruction and believing in God beforehand.” There are simply some very basic things that we as apostolic Churches share that we do not share with Protestants – our divinely instituted hierarchy, Mariology, belief in an intermediate state after death, soteriology, Sacred Tradition as a Rule of Faith, the Sacraments, etc. All these things, we share with the TAC as apostolic Churches.

With respect to Catholicism, there is not much at all, only those three dogmas mentioned, that stand in the way of the TAC becoming (or being) Catholics. It is certain that most already believe in the papal dogmas, since this is the main attraction for their desire for union, and a majority most likely already believe in the Marian dogmas.

To repeat, invincible ignorance is really the only logical explanation for this allowance. I think a better question would be why YOU believe it would be anything else? Certainly, you yourself have expressed the adamant stance the Catholic Church has, at least on the papal dogmas, to the point that you informed a non-Catholic on another thread that you don’t believe reunion will be possible since the Catholic Church cherishes the papal dogmas too much. If it is not the case that the Catholic Church is willing to let go of her Truths, as you admit, what other rationale can YOU propose behind this allowance?

God bless,

Greg
 
Dear Fr Ambrose,
I must admit I am rather staggered by your comment re the Catholic and Orthodox position regarding abortion.
Some years ago when I was an increasingly disillusioned Anglican considering alternatives, I investigated the Orthodox Church very carefully. I personally consulted a Greek Orthodox priest and asked him many questions. I was shocked by his admission that the Orthodox Church does not absolutely ban abortion. In fact his statement almost matched the “modernist” church position that it’s not a good idea but sometimes may be necessary. Secondly I was shocked by his admission that the Orthodox Church permits divorce and remarriage up to THREE times for a person. He admitted that this was NOT in keeping with Our Lord’s teaching in Scripture but he said, “Human beings are weak so the church had to allow for that.” I also found the Orthodox Church to be riddled with ethnic infighting and almost completely uninterested in evangelisation.
After that I was pleased to find the Catholic Church and come home! For all the human faults of its members at least it is led by the successor of St Peter, whom Our Lord chose and to whom He gave the keys.
 
40.png
rjs1:
I must admit I am rather staggered by your comment re the Catholic and Orthodox position regarding abortion.
I like to take an interest in the Lives of the old Irish Saints and one of the very curious things one encounters is their strange attitude to abortion. Four of the Saints have Lives in which they are responsible for some sort of abortions: Saint Brigid, Saint Kieran of Saigir, Saint Aed of Killarien, and Saint Kenneth of Aghaboe.

The hagiographies of these Saints contain accounts of abortions -details most unlikely to have been inserted by Planned Parenthood in Canada or in Eire to foster their anti-Catholic agenda.

In the case of Saint Kieran of Saigir, a local king named Dima abducted Bruinnech, a vowed virgin, from Kieran’s monastery.

“Sanctus quoque Keranus, tanti facinoris immanitatem detestans ac remedium apponere cupiens, ad domum sacrilegi, quesiturus ab eo puellam, accessit. . . . Reverente vero vir Dei cum puella ad monasterium, confessa est puella se conceptum habere in utero. Tunc vir Dei, zelo iustitie ductus, viperium semen animari nolens, impresso venri eius signo crucis, fecit illud exinaniri.”

St. Kieran, despising the enormity of such a crime and wishing to apply a cure, went to the house of sacrilege to seek the girl from there. . . . When the man of God returned to the monastery with the girl, she confessed that she was pregnant. Then the man of God, led by the zeal of justice, not wishing the serpent’s seed to quicken, pressed down on her womb with the sign of the cross and forced her womb empty."

**Notice a very interesting detail ** because it bears out what I posted earlier about the early Western (Catholic) theory of the distinction between a quickened (animated) and unquickened (not yet animated and therefore abortable) foetus – *Not wishing the serpent’s seed to quicken -viperium semen animari nolens * - Saint Kieran did not believe he was causing the abortion of a live foetus. It had not yet “quickened” in his eyes and so it was not a sin for the Saint to bring about an abortion.

Bruinnech then resumes her previous status in the community until Dima returns to the monastery to abduct her again. The very sight of the king causes her to die, and in response Dima
threatens Kieran with exile for killing his “wife.” Kieran’s holy power then causes two of Dima’s sons to die, which thus removes Dima’s threat to Bruinnech and Kieran’s community. Kieran then restores the sons and Bruinnech back to life, and neither she nor Dima is mentioned again.

The two women who received such abortion services from Saint Aed of Killarien and Saint Kenneth of Aghaboe are not named, nor are the exact circumstances leading to the pregnancy detailed; they appear in the vitae exclusively as the occasion for
the saints to perform such a “miracle” upon them.

Saint Aed noticed that the womb of one of the consecrated virgins serving him “grew quickly without food, as if it might flee from that place. Then the virgin confessed before all that she had sinned secretly and she did penance. St. Aed blessed her womb, and at once the baby in her womb disappeared as if it did not exist.”

“…cito surrexit ille sine cibo, ut ab isto fugeret. Tunc illa coram omnibus confessa est quod occulte peccasset et penitentiam egit. Sanctus autem Aidus benedixit uterum eius, et statim infans in utero eius evanuit quasi non esset.”

The virgin in Saint Kenneth’s vita had “fornicated secretly,”
became pregnant, and asked Kenneth to bless her womb. When he did so, “at once the baby in her womb vanished without a trace.”

“…occulte fornicavit . statim infans in utero eius non apparens evanuit.”

There is not a hint in the hagiographies that the monk scribes found anything reprehensible in these saintly abortions. Indeed they are used as evidence of the miraculous powers of the Saints.

Sorry, I know this has nothing to do with Anglicans moving to Rome, but I just remembered these things about my Irish ancestors.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top