Anglicans to Rome?

[Fr_Ambrose]

Traditional Ang:

No, I haven’t, and I’m not too sure their doctrine isn’t a form of “High-Church” Anglicanism combined with some Eastern Orthodox window dressing.

I have also heard this said of some of the TAC and its clergy in Australia. You may be able to tell me if I am right or wrong but I recall that some of the TAC (in Tasmania the parishes of Hobart and Launceston) is known as the “Orthodox English Church.” My understanding is the “Orthodox” here refers both to orthodox Anglicanism and a claim to establish a connection with the big-O Orthodoxy which was the faith of pre-schism England? But these people are almost ferocious in their integrity and I rather doubt if they would be interested in “Eastern Orthodox window dressing.”

Merry Christmas!

 

[Traditional_Ang]

GAssisi:

Dear All,

What blessed news! I pray for successful union in terms of the desires and needs of the incoming Anglicans. HereÕs me two cents:

Thank you for you good wishes and your prayers. They are appreciated by all concerned, and by me.

GAssisi:

Insistence on the Roman Rite by certain authorities in England may be due to a perception that the Anglicans are regarded as originally belonging to the Western Patriarchate (i.e., the Latin-Rite Church).

I don’t know why these authorities are so insistant, but I do understand that they are ignoring a direct request from the Pope himself. That seems to be one reason that His Holiness and those responsible for pushing these negotiations forward have moved them along as quickly as they have.

GAssisi:

A married Anglican priesthood would be no problem since such provisions are already in place for individual Protestant ministers coming into Catholicism.

They are also a part of Eastern Orthodox Orders and of the Orders in at least some of the Uniate Churches in the Catholic Church rright now.

And, His Holiness and the people negotiating this have already indicated they don’t have a problem with the already married Priests and Bishops in the TAC.

GAssisi:

In the past, many Anglicans have acquired validity for their orders through the Orthodox Churches. Though many of these were involved in schismatic and ÒindependentÓ movements, it would be fruitful to discover whether any of these orders have continued down through to the TAC.

Many have also obtained validity through Uniate or “National” Churches, such as the Polish National Catholic Church or the Phillippine Independent Catholic Church. As I said previously, Ratzinger and his Congregation have been very busy tracing these Orders and their validity/potential invalidity.

In this case, those labelled as “Schismatics” by the HERETICS in ECUSA and the C of E are the ones whose orders are turning ourt to be valid. And we’re the ones going for the REAL UNION with the CATHOLIC CHURCH!

GAssisi:

When I lived in Berkeley (CA), I sometimes attended Mass at an Episcopal church where Franciscan priests from a local seminary would commune. I assume the Episcopal priests had obtained valid orders from another Church with a validly ordained hierarchy. I wouldnÕt doubt if this particular congregation is part of the TAC.

Sorry, I couldn’t find them in the Directory for the Diocese of the West for the TAC:
anglicanwest.org/locator.html

But I did find this Parish in the Anglican Province of Christ the King (“Orthodox” or Dissident Anglicans, but not TAC):
St. Joseph of Arimathea
The Most Rev. Robert S. Morse
2316 Bowditch Street
Berkeley, CA 94704
anglicanpck.org/dioceses/index.html

The Anglican Province of Christ the King is the largest of the NATIONAL churches with at least 50,000 parishioners in the US and Canada. I understand there have been some talks to join the TAC in the “Journey to the Tiber”, but they haven’t gone nearly as far as those between the Vatican and the the TAC.

I’m sorry, but they may be left behind of their own accord.

GAssisi:

Dear Father Ambrose,

Are the talks between the Anglicans you mention and those particular Orthodox Churches regarding the possibility of intercommunion or requests for valid ordination?

God bless,
Greg

You’ll see I discussed that in my post and LINK regarding the Western Rite of the Antiochan Orthodox Church.

I hope that answers more questions than it raises.

Merry Christmas and Happy St. Stephan’s Day

In Him, Michael

 

[GKC]

Traditional Ang,

“The Anglican Province of Christ the King is the largest of the NATIONAL churches with at least 50,000 parishioners in the US and Canada. I understand there have been some talks to join the TAC in the “Journey to the Tiber”, but they haven’t gone nearly as far as those between the Vatican and the the TAC.”

For a number of years I was a member of a parish affiliated with the APCK. My son-in-law was ordained deacon by a APCK bishop, after graduating from their seminary. They are certainly (along with the ACA and the ACC) among the largest of the jurisdictions in the Anglican Continuum, and probably are the most stable. But unless they have done something marvelous in the past 2-3 years, they don’t have anywhere near 50,000 members. Would that they did. Going on memory, and using round figures, they had about 80-85 parishes a few years ago, with maybe 100+ clergy. I’d guess they have 60-65 parishes now. Membership in the 5000-8000 range. My best guess, anyway.

GKC

 

[TheGarg]

Traditional Ang:

This is according to the Church! At least that’s what the Holy See says, so this isn’t “Protestant” in the least.

Are you saying that you don’t believe that we’re bringing that many Catholics? Or, Are you saying that you’ve never heard of the various Uniate Rite Catholic Churches? Or, That they’re somehow not really Catholics?

This thread suggested the Anglicans would reunite with the Church, but it sounded conditional. nterpretation of the discussion, and if I was, then I do apologize]“Well, we’ll come back and unite with the Church IF, we can still do things our own way by letting us have our own rite”…

That is the Impression I got from the Anglican rite factors that were mentioned and being considered. IF I FOLLOW Jesus and the Church He started, why would I need my own rite, except to save my pride?

I am down with whatever the Pope does, who am I to argue? If the Pope, or whatever proper council {RCC}, sees fit to give them their own rite, then so be it.
MY point was that if I needed to have my own rite, for prideful reasons, before I reunited with the Church Chirst founded, then that would be mighty protestant of me.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Traditional Ang:

No, I haven’t, and I’m not too sure their doctrine isn’t a form of “High-Church” Anglicanism

Would not all candidates for the trans-Tiberian swim have to hold at least a form of “High-Church” Anglican theology to satisfy the requirements for union with the Church of Rome?

Seeing that the writs of Excommunication have been lifted, I must conclude that Union with the See of Peter would include some sort of Union with those other Patriarchates as well.

Unfortunately not. While the Patriarch of Constantinople did lift the Anathema against Rome in 1965 the other Orthodox Churches did not support him and the whole matter slipped into the void and the Anathema remains in place. Rome remains isolated from the holy Orthodox Church.

 

[LindaS]

I’m not sure that this fits here, but anyway… in the early 20th century, the Friars of the Atonement in Graymoor, an Episcopalian order founded by an Episcopalian priest, Fr. Lewis, were received corporatley into the Catholic Church, without an Anglican Rite. The Friars, and the Sisters, submitted fully to the Catholic Church under the Holy Father, who I believe was Pope St. Pius, 10th.

Peace,
Linda

 

[twf]

Father and others: I recall reading somewhere online at some point that certain “independent catholic” (or perhaps Anglo-Catholic) bishops had been consecrated by Syriac Orthodox bishops. It could be that reference to “Orthodox bishops” consecrating Anglo-Catholic bishops are actually Oriental Orthodox bishops rather than Eastern Orthodox.

I know little of the Orientals, but would they perhaps subscribe to some version of the ‘branch theory’ of the Church? How else could they justify their current schism? (From both the Catholic and EO point-of-view).

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

twf:

Father and others: I recall reading somewhere online at some point that certain “independent catholic” (or perhaps Anglo-Catholic) bishops had been consecrated by Syriac Orthodox bishops. It could be that reference to “Orthodox bishops” consecrating Anglo-Catholic bishops are actually Oriental Orthodox bishops rather than Eastern Orthodox.

Dear twf,

There is frankly a lot of craziness and unabashed lies and deception among the vagante bishops. Here is an example which I found on a website. People would accept it as truth if they have no knowledge of the serious way in which real Churches and real bishops approach their responsibilities.

holyspirit.livingrosaries.org/Syrian%20Orthodox.htm

On July 26, 1946, at the Serbian Orthodox Church of St. John the Baptist in San Francisco, California, U.S.A., The Reverend Father Odo A. Barry was conditionally reconsecrated by Archbishop Aneed assisted by the Serbian Orthodox Pastor and in the presence of Archbishop Wadle, American Catholic Church, The Regionary Bishop of the Liberal Catholic Church, Charles Hampton, and a congregation of the faithful of the Greek Church. He had been for twenty-five years in Orders in the Liberal Catholic Church, and their Vicar General in Canada. On Sunday the 29th of July in thy Church of the Holy Spirit, Berkeley, he was Consecrated as Bishop of Canada by, Regionary Bishop Hampton of the Liberal Catholic Church, Archbishop L. P. Wadle and Bishop Michael Strange of the American Catholic Church, Bishop H. J. Kleefisch who had been Consecrated in the Russian Orthodox Church and Archbishop Aneed of the Greek Melkite or Byzantine Church. The Liturgy of the Liberal Catholic Church being used and the actual Consecration being in English, Slavonic and Greek by all five Bishops. The Gospel being read in both Greek and English. Bishop Odo A. Barry was appointed by Archbishop Wadle to membership in the Consistory and Synod of the American Catholic Church on June 26, 1948, and was working as a Missionary Bishop within the British Commonwealth.

This is pure nonsense… so much nonsense that it would take paragraphs and paragraphs to explain it all.

Just to make two points…

No Serbian Orthodox priest would give his church to be used for such a blasphemy, nor would he participate.

No Catholic bishop (the Melkite Archbishop Aneed) would participate in this travesty, willing to consecrate a vagante bishop with a Liberal Catholic bishop and other sectarians as co-consecrators and according to the ritual of the Liberal Catholic Church.

 

[GAssisi]

Dear all,

I read a book which is considered the standard work on Old Catholic history, but it was a library book. Please give me time to obtain that book again, and I will present to you this much-sought after info on the role of the Orthodox Church in the episcopal ordinations of Anglican and Old Catholic dissident and independent Churches.

God bless,

Greg

 

[GKC]

GAssisi:

Dear all,

I read a book which is considered the standard work on Old Catholic history, but it was a library book. Please give me time to obtain that book again, and I will present to you this much-sought after info on the role of the Orthodox Church in the episcopal ordinations of Anglican and Old Catholic dissident and independent Churches.

God bless,

Greg

I will be greatly interested, appreciative, and look forward to that.

The book isn’t C. B. Moss’ THE OLD CATHOLIC MOVEMENT: ITS ORGINS AND HISTORY, by chance?

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

GKC:

I will be greatly interested, appreciative, and look forward to that.

The book isn’t C. B. Moss’ THE OLD CATHOLIC MOVEMENT: ITS ORGINS AND HISTORY, by chance?

One book on this topic which is a ‘must’ is Peter Anson’s “Bishops At Large.” Parts of it are quite hilarious — bishops digging up the graves of dead bishops to place their hands on their heads - that sort of entertaining stuff.

'There is considerable irony in the historical fact that had St Cyprian’s common sense and logical view (adopted by the Orthodox) that heretical baptism was wholly invalid won its way in the mind of the Western Church, bishops at large would have been impossible; no one would have believed in their orders but themselves, and excommunication would have rendered orders immediately invalid.

Btw, what do you make of this Catholic Archbishop Aneed? See message #48. Who exactly is he? How is he able to take part in the consecration of Liberal Catholic bishops and others? I find it hard to believe myself. But of course we have the recent example of the erratic Bishop Michael Cox in Ireland, the same as ordained Sinead O’Connor to the priesthood and called her Mother Bernadette Mary - an action which the Irish Jesuits termed valid but illicit. It was only when he went too far and consecrated another bishop Pat Buckley that Rome made a move against him. He is a ‘legitimate’ hands-on-head bishop via the Roman Catholic Thucite succession.

 

[GAssisi]

Dear GKC:

The book was entitled “The Old Catholic Sourcebook” and was part of an encyclopedic series on religion.

Dear Father,

Never heard of Archbishop Aneed. I don’t see how those liberal Jesuits can regard a sacerdotal ordination of a woman as valid!

Also, can we keep the discussion on Apostolic Succession confined to one thread? We began discussing it in the “What’s In A Name?” thread. Thanks.

God bless,

Greg

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

GAssisi:

Never heard of Archbishop Aneed. I don’t see how those liberal Jesuits can regard a sacerdotal ordination of a woman as valid!

I imagine that they see the feminine as valid but not (pro tempore) licit matter for the sacrament of Orders?

Also, can we keep the discussion on Apostolic Succession confined to one thread? We began discussing it in the “What’s In A Name?” thread. Thanks.

In message #19 Mercygate introduced the question of apostolic succession and it is always an inevitable corollorary in any discussion about Anglicans and Rome. Would you not agree that it is relevant, from different perspectives, for both this thread and for the “What’s in a Name” thread?

 

[GAssisi]

FYI, that the priest is male is necessary matter for the Sacrament of Orders. Thus it inherently involves the question of validity, not licitness.

Greg

P.S. OK, but just keep it to discussions about Anglican ordinations.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

GAssisi:

FYI, that the priest is male is necessary matter for the Sacrament of Orders. Thus it inherently involves the question of validity, not licitness.

But this is precisely the point. The Jesuits and other Catholic theologians dispute this very point that a male is necessary matter. And as we have seen with the extraordinary ordination of women in Communist Czechoslovakia women may be appropriate matter.

P.S. OK, but just keep it to discussions about Anglican

ordinations.

Excuse me!? I am truly sorry if my manner of discourse is not according to your requirements but I have my own style of interaction with people and this includes a measure of elasticity when speaking with them.

 

[Irish_Melkite]

Father Ambrose and Greg,

Antoine Aneed was a renegade Melkite priest, not in episcopal orders except in his own mind. Any lines that claim succession based on episcopal ordination by him are deficient in that regard, without question.

Aneed was a pastor sent to US in the early 20th century. He held the honorific title of exarch, as opposed to the functional office. At some point, after several years of dedicated service, he up and disappeared, surfacing in California, where he created the Byzantine Catholic Church of America (or some such styling, I don’t have a reference in front of me right now) and subsequently, like Aftimios Ofiesh, Joseph Vilatte, and others of that ilk, seemingly never met a priest he didn’t want to elevate to the episcopate. Aneed’s Church has since divided and morphed probably a hundred times or more. His is one of about 30-35 claimed lines of succession from dissident Latin, Eastern, and Oriental Catholic, and dissident Eastern and Oriental Orthodox hierarchs that recur time and time again in the “independent catholic” and “independent orthodox” Churches.

The Wadle lines and the entire Liberal Catholic Church are among the presbyteral and episcopal orders most suspect and least likely to be deemed valid. I don’t have time to do so now, but I will reread the details of that ceremony that was described and see who the players were. I should then be able to add some further insight about it.

BTW, there are no instances of canonically accepted Orthodox hierarchs having interacted with the Old Catholics or Anglicans in the administration of presbyteral or episcopal orders. That is a recurring urban legend among Catholics seeking to make a point (and among Anglicans and Old Catholics seeking to bolster their arguments of legitimacy, although the latter seldom need to do so) .

The Orthodox, Eastern and Oriental, hierarchs who did so were all either themselves self-proclaimed hierarchs or hierarchs who were acting outside the constraints of their legitimate jurisdictional authority - which, by the Cyprianic theory ascribed to by the Orthodox, effectively deprived them of the faculty, jurisdiction, and authority to confect a valid sacramental administration of orders. Ironically, the Catholic Church, relying on the Augustinian theory, would accord validity, though not licitness, to the acts performed by those who had once been validly recognized as hierarchs by a canonical Orthodox Church.

Many years,

Neil

 

[GKC]

"BTW, there are no instances of canonically accepted Orthodox hierarchs having interacted with the Old Catholics or Anglicans in the administration of presbyteral or episcopal orders. That is a recurring urban legend among Catholics seeking to make a point (and among Anglicans and Old Catholics seeking to bolster their arguments of legitimacy, although the latter seldom need to do so) .

The Orthodox, Eastern and Oriental, hierarchs who did so were all either themselves self-proclaimed hierarchs or hierarchs who were acting outside the constraints of their legitimate jurisdictional authority - which, by the Cyprianic theory ascribed to by the Orthodox, effectively deprived them of the faculty, jurisdiction, and authority to confect a valid sacramental administration of orders. Ironically, the Catholic Church, relying on the Augustinian theory, would accord validity, though not licitness, to the acts performed by those who had once been validly recognized as hierarchs by a canonical Orthodox Church."

This is my understanding on this point, with the exception that I am not aware of any serious Anglican claim that there has been legitimate (not *soi disant * or vagante) Orthodox participation in Anglican ordinations/consecrations. Accordingly, I await learning what the “Old Catholic Sourcebook” might reveal, with interest.

GKC

 

[mercygate]

TheGarg:

I think that they should swallow their pride and do things according to the Church. Anything else would be in the fashion of current protestantism, and self defeating.

Anyone who is “subject to the routine of thier ways” are not “subject to the routine of Christ’s way”. His Will be done not ours.

Peace be to all.

Those Anglicans who have come in under the Pastoral Provision and who celebrate according to the Anglican Use are the most staunchly Catholic and doctrinally sound people in the Church. Yet, though your words seem harsh, as a Convert to the Church, I largely agree with you. The general way of things is that one must do what one must do in coming into the Church, and foregoing one’s treasures is often part of that. Even if one DOES retain one’s liturgy, one must be willing to leave it behind. One MUST be prepared to leave it behind.

 

[whosebob]

Fr Ambrose:

But this is precisely the point. The Jesuits and other Catholic theologians dispute this very point that a male is necessary matter. And as we have seen with the extraordinary ordination of women in Communist Czechoslovakia women may be appropriate matter.

JMJ + OBT​

Dear Fr. Ambrose,

In 1994, Pope John Paul II promulgated his encylical letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis. Here is an excerpt from paragraph #4:

Although the teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved to men alone has been preserved by the constant and universal Tradition of the Church and firmly taught by the Magisterium in its more recent documents, at the present time in some places it is nonetheless considered still open to debate, or the Church’s judgment that women are not to be admitted to ordination is considered to have a merely disciplinary force.

Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.

So . . . for a Catholic theologian to deny the same teaching would make him at least a material heretic, and most likely a formal heretic. Now there are a large number of Catholic priests, theologians and lay people today who are enthusiastic heretics concerning the reservation of priestly ordination to human males – but that doesn’t really affect the issue. The Holy Father has spoken, and this matter is closed as far as Catholic doctrine is concerned.

In the Hearts of Jesus and Mary.

IC XC NIKA

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

JMJ + OBT​

Dear Fr. Ambrose,

In 1994, Pope John Paul II promulgated his encylical letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis. Here is an excerpt from paragraph #4:

So . . . for a Catholic theologian to deny the same teaching would make him at least a material heretic, and most likely a formal heretic. Now there are a large number of Catholic priests, theologians and lay people today who are enthusiastic heretics concerning the reservation of priestly ordination to human males – but that doesn’t really affect the issue. The Holy Father has spoken, and this matter is closed as far as Catholic doctrine is concerned.

In the Hearts of Jesus and Mary.

IC XC NIKA

This was merely issued an an In dubium, if I remember. That means the Pope is not issuing it ex cathedra and he is not claiming to be exercising his infallibility. Popes have held wrong opinions in the past. As an Orthodox Christian I thoroughly agree with the Pope on this matter and I rejoice that my Church will never make any changes to the male priesthood - it is protected from any change by the very lack of centralised authority which people here sometimes bewail. We simply have *no * authority and *no * person which can introduce innovation into the Tradition. We are stuck with our past!!! with that which we have received from the holy Apostles and our Fathers.

The Roman Catholic Church on the other hand does possess such an authority who can introduce significant changes. Given time and the manufacture of node points (from scripture and tradition and simply the petrine office itself) the introduction women priests is not totally an impossibility.