Anglicans to Rome?

[whosebob]

JMJ + OBT​

Dear Fr. Ambrose,

I understand the points you are making about centralized authority, etc. However, I think you’ve been reading a bit too much from dissenting Catholic theologians in this one regard:

The last sentence in the quote I gave is authoritative, period. It is not the Pope’s opinion. And it is absolutely binding on every Catholic conscience. That being said, you are correct that it is was not issued ex cathedra, but is still considered an infallible teaching by virtue of it’s being a repeated doctrinal clarification on the level of the ordinary Magisterium of the Catholic Church.

Those Catholics who write or preach otherwise are perpetuating falsehoods and at worst leading their audiences into the embrace of heresy.

Given the clearness of the Pope’s teaching in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, I must demand clear and convincing proof that your take on it can be taken seriously.

In the Hearts of Jesus and Mary.

IC XC NIKA

 

[whosebob]

My “challenge” to you is off-topic, though. Whoops.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

whosebob:

Given the clearness of the Pope’s teaching in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, I must demand clear and convincing proof that your take on it can be taken seriously.

Dear whosebob,

Probably the most sensible thing is to make a reference to a Catholic source since as an Orthodox Christian my own opinion is extrinsic to this matter.

Does the Holy Father understand and intend
the doctrine of Ordinatio Sacerdotalis to be
the infallible teaching of the Church?

Ordinatio Sacerdotalis:
Infallible?

catholic.net/RCC/Periodicals/Homiletic/12-96/1/1.html
tinyurl.com/6spzk

 

[whosebob]

From the article you linked to:

To establish the infallibility of the text the following properties should be evident: the very form of the words ought to stand out with solemnity which normally occurs when a doctrine is defined by the words “we believe,” “we define,” “we anathematize” and the like. The matter of the doctrine should be drawn from divine and apostolic tradition and ought to serve man’s supernatural salvation by fostering faith and morals. It ought to be manifestly clear from the words themselves that the Magisterium wants to present the teaching as divinely revealed and, therefore, irreformable and to be believed by all. Thus, the document should be addressed to all the faithful. Moreover, it should be discerned in the very tenor of the words of the definition that only those things clearly stated and directly intended fall within the definition and not, therefore, those things said parenthetically. Explanations and arguments which find their way into the document do not share in infallibility but should be considered products of mere human theological effort and thus not immune from the conditions of human weakness.14

However one assess the above theological criteria, it is clear that they serve to corroborate the view that the “definitions” of Ordinatio Sacerdotalis and Evangelium Vitae are, indeed, infallible and de fide. If with regard to Ordinatio Sacerdotalis there be any doubt, the Responsum serves to dispel it. In all three documents “the very form of the words” makes it unmistakable that the teaching at hand derives from “divine and apostolic tradition,” and seeks “to serve man’s supernatural salvation by fostering faith and morals.”

To deny the fact that in the declaratory formulas the Roman Pontiff clearly and unequivocally manifests his mind, one would have to deny their solemn and definitive character. The “very tenor of the words of the definitions” makes that impossible. In a century which has witnessed the promulgation of conciliar and papal documents of every kind and value, the Pope’s apostolic letter and the Congregation’s Responsum are unique. For along with his recent encyclical, they make explicit by way of infallible definition teaching that is “divinely revealed and, therefore, irreformable and to be believed by all.”

To end the agitation surrounding female ordination, John Paul has chosen first to use an apostolic letter for his solemn declaration and then to confirm its infallibility through the non-infallible Responsum of the Congregation. Some may see this action as a novel, even daring, tactic to put the issue to rest; others, as a firm but gentle exercise to confirm the brethren in their faith. In any case, we see exhibited in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis and the Responsum the care of a good Shepherd solicitous for his flock, even the wayward and dissident. Perhaps, they may come to recognize, having given religious assent to the Pope’s teaching, that “a bruised reed he shall not break, and a smoldering wick he shall not quench” (Isa. 42:3).

Maybe I’m missing something, but I read the entire article and it seems to make the case better than I ever could that Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is not merely the Pope’s opinion and is indeed binding on Catholic consciences.

Have I misunderstood, Father?

 

[whosebob]

Let me recommend two more relevant articles online:

Concerning the Reply of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on the Teaching Contained in the Apostolic Letter “Ordinatio Sacerdotalis”
by Cardinal Ratzinger

Ordinatio Sacerdotalis: a definition ex cathedra by Ansgar Santogrossi.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

whosebob:

Maybe I’m missing something, but I read the entire article and it seems to make the case better than I ever could that Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is not opinion and is indeed binding on Catholic consciences.

What strikes an outsider is the great amount of wriggle room in this matter. The Pope issues “Ordinatio Sacerdotalis” and the debate commences among Catholic theologians as to whether the Pope intends it as an infallible statement.

The Pope makes no response to this debate.

Instead Ratzinger has his Congregation issue a “non-infallible” statement which claims that “Ordinatio Sacerdotalis” is infallible.

The whole matter is fraught with enough uncertainty to allow future generations to dismiss it as simply papal opinion. We have seen this happen with many of the previous statements of earlier Popes - ones, for example, where they speak of the impossibility of salvation for those not in communion with them, etc. In later centuries new Popes and new theologians find clever ways of nullifying these inconvenient statements, without infringing on the doctrine of papal infallibility.

 

[whosebob]

Fr Ambrose:

What strikes an outsider is the great amount of wriggle room in this matter. The Pope issues “Ordinatio Sacerdotalis” and the debate commences among Catholic theologians as to whether the Pope intends it as an infallible statement.

JMJ + OBT​

Well, the Holy Father has taken the universal Church into uncharted territory by issuing the teaching in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis in a particular way. But as the article you linked to points out, and as Cardinal Ratzinger points out, JPII had very good reasons for trying to set precedent in utilizing a particular “mode” of binding Papal teaching.
Fr Ambrose:

The Pope makes no response to this debate.

Yes, he did. The CDF is part of the Roman Curia, which is part of the “shepherding-organ” of the Roman Pontiff.
Fr Ambrose:

Instead Ratzinger has his Congregation issue a “non-infallible” statement which claims that “Ordinatio Sacerdotalis” is infallible.

As the articles point out, this was/is the most sensible way to proceed given what the Pope was/is trying to accomplish outside of a more blunt ex cathedra statement in the vein of those defining the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption.
Fr Ambrose:

The whole matter is fraught with enough uncertainty to allow future generations to dismiss it as simply papal opinion. We have seen this happen with many of the previous statements of earlier Popes - ones, for example, where they speak of the impossibility of salvation for those not in communion with them, etc. In later centuries new Popes and new theologians find clever ways of nullifying these inconvenient statements, without infringing on the doctrine of papal infallibility.

Actually, there is no uncertainty except for those Catholics who can’t find it in themselves to submit and offer intellectual assent to the solemn teaching of the Pope. In another fifty years or so, I expect even reasonably catechized Catholics will look back and wonder how anyone ever doubted that the Pope gave an infallible teaching in OS.

As to your “comparison,” there really is none in that context. Read Dominus Iesus to see how the previous Pope’s teaching was not nullified but fits together with the teachings of the Second Vatican Council and subsequent Popes.

Just as an interesting exercise, I would invite someone else on this board or yourself to try and put together a hypothetical “development” of JPII’s teaching that results in women’s ordination being allowed. I can’t fathom how it could be done.

But development of the “extra ecclesiam nulla salus” in terms of submission to the Roman Pontiff, into what the Catholic Church explicitly teaches today is not at all opaque, and the same arguments could have been made going all the way back to the Fathers. There are historical “drivers” that pushed formulations in terms of positive submission to the Pope that must be considered when looking at the EENS across the whole history of the Church . . .

But now I’m going way off-topic, and there are forums members who have covered this time and again much more carefully and thoroughly than I ever could.

In the Hearts of Jesus and Mary.

IC XC NIKA

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

JMJ + OBT​

Whosebob, what is OBT?

 

[whosebob]

Fr Ambrose:

The whole matter is fraught with enough uncertainty to allow future generations to dismiss it as simply papal opinion. We have seen this happen with many of the previous statements of earlier Popes - ones, for example, where they speak of the impossibility of salvation for those not in communion with them, etc. In later centuries new Popes and new theologians find clever ways of nullifying these inconvenient statements, without infringing on the doctrine of papal infallibility.

Here is a good outline that shows the organic development of the Church’s teaching across time concerning “salvation outside the Church”:

Our Father’s Plan: God’s Arrangements and Our Response: “Appendix: Is There Salvation Outside the Church?”.

Let me know what you think. It should make a good “companion” to Dominus Ieusus.

 

[whosebob]

Fr Ambrose:

Whosebob, what is OBT?

It stands for . . .

O Beata Trinitas

translation: O Blessed Trinity

“JMJ + OBT” is an invitation to contemplate Jesus, Mary and Joseph – the Holy Family of Nazareth – in the Light of the Holy Trinity, a family of Divine Persons, the communion of the Father and Son in the Holy Spirit. Likewise, the Holy Family of Nazareth provides a “window” through which we can contemplate the invisible Triune God and the personal and corporate communion He calls us to have in Him.

 

[Traditional_Ang]

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

I’m not a member of APCK, so I wouldn’t really know. I did link their their parish locator, and I count 54 Parishes. Assuming an average of 200 parishioners per parish (that’s what we have in mine (about 1/2 attend regularly), that gives a total of aprox 11,000. So I was wrong. I gave Archbishop Morse credit for far more parishioners than he had.

anglicanpck.org/dioceses/index.html

The TAC is experiencing most of its growth in the Southern Hemisphere from EVANGELIZATION! Which means, that a LOT of the people in the TAC are CONVERTS to Christianity and not retreads like yours truly.

It is my hope that the “Consecration” of Bishop Robinson (he left his wife and young children to move in with his gay lover) would force Episcopalians to see that they are in a DEAD BODY and a sinking ship that can only take them to perdition, tha that, therefore, their only reasonable course of action is to leave.

If we succeed in becoming an “Anglican Rite Church” in Union with the One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, the people who will then be leaving ECUSA and the C of E won’t be able to be stigmatized as schismatics.

In Him, Michael

 

[Traditional_Ang]

TheGarg:

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?
color=black]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.

Garg:

This Thread was started from ONE (1) ARTICLE which was from a scular newspaper. At that time, those of us who had spoken to Archbishop Hepworth on the issue of the “Trans-Tiberian Swim” were under a gag order. That was how the negotiations moved so quickly during the last 2 years.

I’m sorry for that, because it meant that, until I gave you some links to some REAL INFORMATION, you were responding largely to conjecture, as, I’m afraid, it seems you still are.

Please, take a few minutes to read the links I’ve provided and download the latest two issues of The Messenger and read the articles dealing with the Reunion with Rome. I would also ask you to read Archbishop Hepworth’s Christmas Message where he states that Union with the See of Peter is an absolute necessity.

Did you know that there is a Siberian Eastern Catholic Church, with its own Rite?

apostle1.com/11-19-2004-siberia_catholics_hope_to_come_in_from_cold.htm

You see, Eastern Catholic Churches by definition are complete Churches with complete eclesiatical structures that have united with the See of Peter. They have their own Biships, Priests and Deacons, Dioceses, parishioners and their own Rites.

That’s the deal that The Holy See has worked out with all the Orthodox Churches who have gained Union with the See of Peter and have thus joined the Catholic Church.

Most have at least some married Priests. Many confirm their babies at the time of Baptism - They call it “Chrismation”), and they give the Eucharist to these babies. It’s part of the EASTERN RITE!

columbusguides.com/data/ukr/ukr010.asp
wcc-coe.org/wcc/europe/profile-macedonia.html
smartpedia.com/smart/browse/Uniate

Now, unless you really believe the See of Peter was somehow mistaken to have allowed these Eastern Catholic Churches to unite with him and submit to his authority while maintaining their own Rite, you don’t have any legitimate objections regarding the Union between the TAC and the Holy See.

His Holiness has decided that he wants people like me to stay in the parishes we are in with the Bishops, Priests, and deacons God has seen fit to put over us so long as he can bring the whole body in. Which is exactly what other Popes decided to do with the parishioners who came over as part of the various Eastern Catholic Churches.

I urge you do some research into the subject of “Uniate Catholic Churches” aka “Eastern Catholic Churches”. If you do, you’ll see the Pope is doing nothing with us that previous Popes haven’t done with Eastern Churches who wanted to United themselves with the See of Peter and the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

You’ve hit me with a harsh attitude in a couple of posts. I have NO idea what I or any other Traditional Anglicans actually did that earned that harshness. If I have, I apologize, but if I haven’t, I beg you to drop the harsh attitude. I can’t see how it’s either charitable or necessary.

In Him, Michael

 

[TheGarg]

Traditional Ang:

Garg:

This Thread was started from ONE (1) ARTICLE which was from a scular newspaper. At that time, those of us who had spoken to Archbishop Hepworth on the issue of the “Trans-Tiberian Swim” were under a gag order. That was how the negotiations moved so quickly during the last 2 years.

I’m sorry for that, because it meant that, until I gave you some links to some REAL INFORMATION, you were responding largely to conjecture, as, I’m afraid, it seems you still are.

Please, take a few minutes to read the links I’ve provided and download the latest two issues of The Messenger and read the articles dealing with the Reunion with Rome. I would also ask you to read Archbishop Hepworth’s Christmas Message where he states that Union with the See of Peter is an absolute necessity.

Did you know that there is a Siberian Eastern Catholic Church, with its own Rite?

apostle1.com/11-19-2004-siberia_catholics_hope_to_come_in_from_cold.htm

You see, Eastern Catholic Churches by definition are complete Churches with complete eclesiatical structures that have united with the See of Peter. They have their own Biships, Priests and Deacons, Dioceses, parishioners and their own Rites.

That’s the deal that The Holy See has worked out with all the Orthodox Churches who have gained Union with the See of Peter and have thus joined the Catholic Church.

Most have at least some married Priests. Many confirm their babies at the time of Baptism - They call it “Chrismation”), and they give the Eucharist to these babies. It’s part of the EASTERN RITE!

columbusguides.com/data/ukr/ukr010.asp
wcc-coe.org/wcc/europe/profile-macedonia.html
smartpedia.com/smart/browse/Uniate

Now, unless you really believe the See of Peter was somehow mistaken to have allowed these Eastern Catholic Churches to unite with him and submit to his authority while maintaining their own Rite, you don’t have any legitimate objections regarding the Union between the TAC and the Holy See.

His Holiness has decided that he wants people like me to stay in the parishes we are in with the Bishops, Priests, and deacons God has seen fit to put over us so long as he can bring the whole body in. Which is exactly what other Popes decided to do with the parishioners who came over as part of the various Eastern Catholic Churches.

I urge you do some research into the subject of “Uniate Catholic Churches” aka “Eastern Catholic Churches”. If you do, you’ll see the Pope is doing nothing with us that previous Popes haven’t done with Eastern Churches who wanted to United themselves with the See of Peter and the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

You’ve hit me with a harsh attitude in a couple of posts. I have NO idea what I or any other Traditional Anglicans actually did that earned that harshness. If I have, I apologize, but if I haven’t, I beg you to drop the harsh attitude. I can’t see how it’s either charitable or necessary.

In Him, Michael

**Micheal, **

**Thanks for the info, I will read it carefully. I am glad to hear of these unions, for if you read my messages carefully, they are not attacking the angelican rite, and I volunteered that I was no authority on the subject. **

---

**I also professed eagerly that whatever the Holy Father says goes {or whoever makes those decisions in the See of Peter}. **

---

**My comments were more simplistic in the context of “Why the need for “different” “rites”?”. **

---

I meant not to be harsh and wholeheartedly apologize if I came off as such. I was simply questioning more the “need” to have different rites, why not just one? It would seem to be a matter of pride, which isn’t good is it? [There’s my ignorance showing again ]

**Then again, when I read your links maybe I will have a better understanding of “rites” in general. **

**Once again I ask your forgiveness, and may the Peace of the Lord be with you. **

Christ’s Love

 

[Irish_Melkite]

Traditional Ang:

Did you know that there is a Siberian Eastern Catholic Church, with its own Rite?

apostle1.com/11-19-2004-siberia_catholics_hope_to_come_in_from_cold.htm

Michael,

The impression you got from that article notwithstanding, there is no SIberian Catholic Church sui iuris and the bishop and diocese referenced are not of any of the Eastern or Oriental Catholic Churches. The use of the term “Uniate” by the article’s author was apparently intended to emphasize the fact that this diocese to which he was referring was a diocese of the Catholic Church, as opposed to the Orthodox Church (to which most canonical jurisdictions in that region belong). Bishop Cyril Klimowicz is the Ordinary of the Diocese of Saint Joseph at Irkutsk, a Latin jurisdiction.

There are, in fact, no functional canonical jurisdictions of the Eastern or Oriental Catholic Churches anywhere in Russia at present. The Apostolic Exarchate of Moscow, the sole Russian canonical jurisdiction of the Byzantine Russian Catholic Church sui iuris has been extant but sede vacante since the repose of Blessed Father Archimandrite Exarch Kliment Sheptitsky in a Soviet prison in 1951.

BTW, the term “Uniate” is one that has a history of pejorative use with regard to Catholics of the Eastern and Oriental Catholic Churches sui iuris and is not presently used or accepted.

There are distinct differences in meaning between “Church”, “Rite”, “Rescension”, and “Usage” or “Use”, several of which terms I see being bandied loosely about or being used with some interchangeability. I suggest reading from post #26 in the thread entitled:

RCC? Correct Term?

Many years,

Neil

 

[oat_soda]

Now, unless you really believe the See of Peter was somehow mistaken to have allowed these Eastern Catholic Churches to unite with him and submit to his authority while maintaining their own Rite, you don’t have any legitimate objections regarding the Union between the TAC and the Holy See.

i would think the pope and cardinal ratzinger would be open to allowing the anglicans too keep their liturgical traditions but not a married priesthood or a “democratic” style church. they might be concerned that the anglican rite, which technically isn’t a seperate rite as is historically derived from the latin rite as with all western christianity, would draw many people away from roman catholic parishes. the anglicans have retained more “catholic” traditions which developed in the 19th century by the ritualist movement. jealousy in the catholic church could present a problem, especially those who are more progressive and would see the anglicans as a threat. ultimatley, it’s satan who is keeping us apart.

 

[GKC]

Traditional Ang:

I’m not a member of APCK, so I wouldn’t really know. I did link their their parish locator, and I count 54 Parishes. Assuming an average of 200 parishioners per parish (that’s what we have in mine (about 1/2 attend regularly), that gives a total of aprox 11,000. So I was wrong. I gave Archbishop Morse credit for far more parishioners than he had.

anglicanpck.org/dioceses/index.html

The TAC is experiencing most of its growth in the Southern Hemisphere from EVANGELIZATION! Which means, that a LOT of the people in the TAC are CONVERTS to Christianity and not retreads like yours truly.

It is my hope that the “Consecration” of Bishop Robinson (he left his wife and young children to move in with his gay lover) would force Episcopalians to see that they are in a DEAD BODY and a sinking ship that can only take them to perdition, tha that, therefore, their only reasonable course of action is to leave.

If we succeed in becoming an “Anglican Rite Church” in Union with the One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, the people who will then be leaving ECUSA and the C of E won’t be able to be stigmatized as schismatics.

In Him, Michael

From my experience in the APCK, I fear that assuming an average of 200 per parish is generous, but one can hope.

As for the future of the TAC and its journey, I wish you all well. Of course, to an Anglo-Catholic like me, you’re already in the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. But certainly you won’t be any less so, if you are in communion with the Holy See. Good luck.

GKC

 

[oat_soda]

As for the future of the TAC and its journey, I wish you all well. Of course, to an Anglo-Catholic like me, you’re already in the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. But certainly you won’t be any less so, if you are in communion with the Holy See. Good luck.

you’re wrong. how can two churches that are not in communion with one another both be “one” catholic church? i guess your definition of “one” is different then mine.

 

[katherine2]

oat soda:

you’re wrong. how can two churches that are not in communion with one another both be “one” catholic church? i guess your definition of “one” is different then mine.

I guess the same way two sisters who are not speaking to each other are still part of ONE family.

 

[oat_soda]

I guess the same way two sisters who are not speaking to each other are still part of ONE family.

you’re wrong too. families eat at the same table together and share each others food. what we have is disunity in the family which is opposite of what Jesus wanted when he prayed that we all may be one.

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Irish Melkite:

Michael,

The impression you got from that article notwithstanding, there is no SIberian Catholic Church sui iuris and the bishop and diocese referenced are not of any of the Eastern or Oriental Catholic Churches. The use of the term “Uniate” by the article’s author was apparently intended to emphasize the fact that this diocese to which he was referring was a diocese of the Catholic Church, as opposed to the Orthodox Church (to which most canonical jurisdictions in that region belong). Bishop Cyril Klimowicz is the Ordinary of the Diocese of Saint Joseph at Irkutsk, a Latin jurisdiction.

There are, in fact, no functional canonical jurisdictions of the Eastern or Oriental Catholic Churches anywhere in Russia at present. The Apostolic Exarchate of Moscow, the sole Russian canonical jurisdiction of the Byzantine Russian Catholic Church sui iuris has been extant but sede vacante since the repose of Blessed Father Archimandrite Exarch Kliment Sheptitsky in a Soviet prison in 1951.

BTW, the term “Uniate” is one that has a history of pejorative use with regard to Catholics of the Eastern and Oriental Catholic Churches sui iuris and is not presently used or accepted.

There are distinct differences in meaning between “Church”, “Rite”, “Rescension”, and “Usage” or “Use”, several of which terms I see being bandied loosely about or being used with some interchangeability. I suggest reading from post #26 in the thread entitled:

RCC? Correct Term?

Many years,

Neil

Neil,

I’m a recent retread doing most of my writing late at night. That often makes for sloppy use of language, esp. on subjects that I’m not very familiar with, or where my previous acquiantance is some 20+ years old and from a FATHER who was part of the ANTIOCHAN ORTHODOX CHURCH ANGLICAN RITE (that’s what they called it then).

I realized the other day from reading my own links that the correct useage is as you said (EASTERN/ORIENTAL Catholic Churches), and not “Uniate” (bad habits - esp. old ones from one’s father die hard). The problem is, once the words are posted, they’re posted.

I was only bringing up the bit about the Siberian Catholic Church (the article said they were in union with Rome) to point out the VARIETY of Orthodox Congregations that have joined the Catholic Church and that have been allowed to do so without giving up their liturgy, their eclisiastical structure or most of their other practices.

I’m gathering from Archbishop Hepworth’s comments that we would be called Anglican Catholics and keep our liturgy, eclisiastical structure and practices in much the same way as the Eastern Catholics have kept theirs.

I understand that one reason the Pope is doing it this way is that some Archbishops and National Councils of Bishops have refused to admit Anglican Use Parishes in spite of his repeated entreaties.

They wouldn’t be able to refuse the Anglican Catholic Church in Union with and submitted to the authority of His Holiness, Pope John Paul II.

I apologize for any sloppiness in communication.

In Him, Michael