Anglicans to Rome?

  • Thread starter Thread starter HagiaSophia
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
As an Anglican I have been following this thread with some interest. I belong to one of the “Traditional Anglican” groups which separated from the ECUSA, the Reformed Episcopal Church. The BCP we use is essentially the 1928 book with some additions from the 1662 BCP. That being said, I would like to know from the Anglicans who have posted on this thread what they perceive Anglican Faith and Practise to be. As an Anglican I admit that we have much in common with Rome and yet we also have much to disagree on. To me the essence of Anglicanism is embodied in Holy Scripture and the historic Books of Common Prayer IE 1662, 1928, and the REC BCP, which are essentially the same. This would of course include The Thirty-Nine Articles as a summation and doctrinal statement of Anglican belief. If Rome is willing to accept all this, especially the Thirty-Nine Articles as an Anglican Rite then I am all for an Anglican Use or Rite within the RCC. I really don’t mean to cast aspersions on those Anglicans who have or will post here, but it would do you well to understand what being an Anglican is. In Christ, jurist12
 
40.png
jurist12:
As an Anglican I have been following this thread with some interest. I belong to one of the “Traditional Anglican” groups which separated from the ECUSA, the Reformed Episcopal Church. The BCP we use is essentially the 1928 book with some additions from the 1662 BCP. That being said, I would like to know from the Anglicans who have posted on this thread what they perceive Anglican Faith and Practise to be. As an Anglican I admit that we have much in common with Rome and yet we also have much to disagree on. To me the essence of Anglicanism is embodied in Holy Scripture and the historic Books of Common Prayer IE 1662, 1928, and the REC BCP, which are essentially the same. This would of course include The Thirty-Nine Articles as a summation and doctrinal statement of Anglican belief. If Rome is willing to accept all this, especially the Thirty-Nine Articles as an Anglican Rite then I am all for an Anglican Use or Rite within the RCC. I really don’t mean to cast aspersions on those Anglicans who have or will post here, but it would do you well to understand what being an Anglican is. In Christ, jurist12
Greetings, jurist12,

If aspersions were cast, I’d duck them. (OTOH, I receive aspersion from an aspergillum, fairly regularly) And if you want (people who are posting here?) to understand what being an Anglican is, you’re going to have to draw a lot of charts. You’re an Anglican, in the reformed mode (I understand that the REC is changing, a little). Contarini is an Anglican, in a slightly different mode. And I’m an Anglo-Catholic, in the Anglo-Catholic mode. Anglicanism was the original big tent (which is one of its problems). For me, for many Anglicans, the Articles are an historic document, part of the Elizabethan Settlement, theology as statecraft. Some are unexceptional, some are unacceptable. But the Articles as a document are not binding in any sense on Anglicans generally, except on certain clergy of the CoE, due to the Erastian nature of that jurisdiction. Anglicanism is creedal, not confessional, and I can find you Anglican churches who cut the Articles from the 1928 BCP, and use them to kindle the new fire at Easter. One of the only things I like in the 79 book is the placement of them in the section for historical documents.

I consider Anglican faith and practice to be Scripture, the Councils of the undivided Church, the historic Creeds of Christendom, the BCP (1928 is a good year) for praxis, supplemented by the Anglican Missal, all viewed through the lens of St. Vincent. The Chicago/Lambeth Quadrilateral is worth remembering. And the Anglican 3 legged stool is sturdy.

Mileage may vary. But there are Anglicans, and then there are Anglicans.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus.
 
GKC, The REC is not “reformed” in the Calvinist sense, though there are some who are close to that as members, but it is not a Calvinist body. Augustinian, perhaps, but not Calvinistic. The REC sees itself as an authentic way of being Anglican in the historic sense. There is much happening for the good there, some are taking a fresh look at the Oxford movement but we are not about to become Anglo-Catholic. Unlike some “continuing Anglican groups” or the ECUSA or the CoE, every REC Deacon, Priest, and Bishop must affirm and hold to the Thirty-Nine Articles as binding. We certainly would agree with Vincent of Lerins as well as the historic Creeds and the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils of the undivided Church. In Christ, jurist12
 
40.png
jurist12:
GKC, The REC is not “reformed” in the Calvinist sense, though there are some who are close to that as members, but it is not a Calvinist body. Augustinian, perhaps, but not Calvinistic. The REC sees itself as an authentic way of being Anglican in the historic sense. There is much happening for the good there, some are taking a fresh look at the Oxford movement but we are not about to become Anglo-Catholic. Unlike some “continuing Anglican groups” or the ECUSA or the CoE, every REC Deacon, Priest, and Bishop must affirm and hold to the Thirty-Nine Articles as binding. We certainly would agree with Vincent of Lerins as well as the historic Creeds and the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils of the undivided Church. In Christ, jurist12
Yep. I know. And now these folks do too.

Which is another way of demonstrating that there are Anglicans, and then there are Anglicans.

Me, I’m an Anglican.

GKC
 
What do Anglicans believe? Ah, there’s the rub. Shortly after I became an Anglican someone told me that “Anglicans can believe anything they want, as long as they don’t believe it too strongly.” At the time I thought they were joking. The events of the last few years within the Episcopal church have shown me that there is more truth in this “joke” than I realized.

I have enjoyed reading this thread. I hope it won’t devolve into an inter-Anglican dispute about what “Anglicanism” really is. I don’t know if there is a single answer to such a question. In a way, the diversity within the Anglican communion has been one of its strengths (not unlike the diversity within the Roman Catholic Church which has been blessed with both Dominicans and Franciscans, among others). The key difference seems to be the place of authority. There is no reigning authority to keep the diversity within the Anglican communion under control. (As the Pope was able to guide the Franciscans in their early decades). One of the recent recommendations by the higher-ups in the Anglican communion was that the Archbishop of Canterbury be given a greater measure of authority in order to settle disputed questions. The headlines immediately began to describe this as a call for an Anglican Pope. The more protestant groups within the communion immediately rejected this (as did the Archbishop himself) while the more catholic elements welcomed it. This absence of a central authority seems to be the main reason why talks between Rome and Canterbury have stalled. Even when the Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission issues a statement, there is no authority that would bind the Anglicans to accepting it.

This is why many of us are so glad that Rome is now talking to the TAC. There is an authority and it sounds as if progress is being made.
 
40.png
Katholikos:
Thanks for the link to the full article. I hope they can work something out and that it triggers an avalanche of Anglicans to Rome. Here’s a model that works, but these Anglicans want more – their own separate autonomous “rite” (church) such as Eastern Catholics have. The Anglican Use Liturgy is gorgeous.
I am also one who is crossing the Tiber on his own. There are only about half a dozen Anglican Use parishes in the entire world, and they are all in the United States. If Anglican Use were more widely available, I would predict a** flood** of Anglicans/Episopalians to Rome. It may be that the Vatican does not want this to happen for fear of impairing ecumenical relations. Perhaps that is why the Anglican Use has been kept so limited.
 
40.png
buzzcut:
. . … If Anglican Use were more widely available, I would predict a** flood** of Anglicans/Episopalians to Rome. It may be that the Vatican does not want this to happen for fear of impairing ecumenical relations. Perhaps that is why the Anglican Use has been kept so limited.
I think rather that they fear a flood of conservative and traditional Catholics to Anglican usage. The Anglican Liturgy would be quite attractive. This might leave many of the more progressive parishes poorly supported.
 
We will pray for you and your Church’s return to the Catholic Church.

God will find a way.
 
It may be that the
Vatican does not want this to happen for fear of impairing ecumenical relations. Perhaps that is why the Anglican Use has been kept so limited. no way. the anglican communion is so far gone there is no chance of bringing them all back to rome. the catholic church knows it can only do it piece wise or at most diocese by diocese. that guy rowan williams is a liberal.

the reason there are so few anglican use parishes is because of the devil. he wants to divide us and uses our pride to keep us apart. progressives fear the traditional anglican liturgy would attract catholics and some say any hint of crammer’s reforms in a cathoilc liturgy would be an endorsement, especially in england, despite the pope’s approval and endorsment. look at the resistance to the tridentine mass in many diocese. the blame is really on the bishops and the catholic hierarchy in general for their resentment of anything traditional .
 
It may be that the Vatican does not want this to happen for fear of impairing ecumenical relations. Perhaps that is why the Anglican Use has been kept so limited.
no way. the anglican communion is so far gone there is no chance of bringing them all back to rome. the catholic church knows it can only do it piece wise or at most diocese by diocese. that guy rowan williams is a liberal.

the reason there are so few anglican use parishes is because of the devil. he wants to divide us and uses our pride to keep us apart. progressives fear the traditional anglican liturgy would attract catholics and some say any hint of crammer’s reforms in a cathoilc liturgy as an endorsment, especially in england, of his reforms. the blame is really on the bishops and their resentment of anything traditional and the catholic heirarchy in general.
 
40.png
boethius:
Dear Traditional Anglican:

Thank you so much for your participation in this forum. My family will be swimming/jumping the Tiber soon (RCIA in the fall and confession/confirmation at Easter 2006). We are now part of the ECUSA and have been following the TAC’s talks with Rome very closely. Please keep us posted as things unfold.

I have several questions for you.
(1) Do you think the ARCIC (Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission) process has been a help or a hindrance?

(2) Do you know St. Clement’s Church (ECUSA) in Philadelphia?
s-clements.org/
It was here (after visiting on Low Sunday and Corpus Christi) that I viscerally became Anglo-Catholic. If you do know the church, do you think they might join the TAC in order to benefit from full communion?

(3) Why do you think the response to the Anglican Use has been so weak? Will the TAC use the “Book of Divine Worship” or the English Missal? Will the Anglican Use congregations eventually be absorbed into the Anglican Catholic Rite or remain independent?

Thanks again,
Boethius
Boethios:

The ARCIC (Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission) has probably been more of a distraction, and has probably kept the liberals busy so that Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger have gotten farther along in their negotiations with the TAC than they otherwise would have.

I can’t talk about St. Clements, because they’ve been subject to a rather nasty Bishop who has to be kept in the dark not matter what their plans (I believe they’ve already aplied for Episcopal oversight from the Archbishop of Nigeria).

As I understand, we will be using the BCP of 1928/American Missal (and not the Book of Diving Worship) with modifications from the pen of Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger. This really is their baby, and they seem very much of a mind to minimize the number of cooks in the kitchen.

The Primate of the TAC, Archbishop John Hepworth had already stated that the deal will look an aweful lot like and function like that of the various Eastern Catholic Churches. The “Anglican Catholic Church” would be a UNIATE Church directly under the Pope. Archbishop Hepworth would still be the primate, and the “hierarchy” in place, with exception of those who are past retirement age, or who don’t want the jobs, would remain in place.

I’ll have to go with Oat Soda regarding the problems with the response to Anglican use.

That’s one reason the Pope has decided to do it this way. He knows what it means to, “Feed my lambs.” And, so does Cardinal Ratzinger! And, for that, I’m grateful.

I hope this answers your questions.

In Christ, Michael
 
40.png
buzzcut:
I am also one who is crossing the Tiber on his own. There are only about half a dozen Anglican Use parishes in the entire world, and they are all in the United States. If Anglican Use were more widely available, I would predict a** flood** of Anglicans/Episopalians to Rome. It may be that the Vatican does not want this to happen for fear of impairing ecumenical relations. Perhaps that is why the Anglican Use has been kept so limited.
Buzzcut:

The Vatican had nothing to do with the problems with the Anglican Use. I can tell you, partially from personal experience, that you need to look a lot closer, and that more than a few Archbishops are now disobeying the Pope regarding accepting Anglican Parishes for the Anglican Use.

I personally know of one situation where a Cardinal refused at least 1 Anglican Parish. Sources I know have said this Cardinal used to throw away correspondence from the Vatican on this matter, and this was in 1979-81! The Cardinal had a friendship with the Episcopal Bishop which was a higher priority than doing what the Vatican wanted him to do in that situation.

Since at least some of the correspondence that was thrown away was from this Pope, that may well be one reason he has decided not to leave it in the hands of people such as this Cardinal.

I have managed not to talk about this until now, and I had hoped to never have to talk about this, but you were maligning the Pope. I could not allow that to continue, esp. when I knew the truth which would prove that your objection was wrong.

May God bless you on your “swim” across the Tiber. Hopefully, you’ll soon be joined by close to 500,000 Anglicans of the soon to re-named “Anglican Catholic Church”.

In Christ, Michael
 
40.png
jurist12:
As an Anglican I have been following this thread with some interest. I belong to one of the “Traditional Anglican” groups which separated from the ECUSA, the Reformed Episcopal Church. The BCP we use is essentially the 1928 book with some additions from the 1662 BCP. That being said, I would like to know from the Anglicans who have posted on this thread what they perceive Anglican Faith and Practise to be. As an Anglican I admit that we have much in common with Rome and yet we also have much to disagree on. To me the essence of Anglicanism is embodied in Holy Scripture and the historic Books of Common Prayer IE 1662, 1928, and the REC BCP, which are essentially the same. This would of course include The Thirty-Nine Articles as a summation and doctrinal statement of Anglican belief. If Rome is willing to accept all this, especially the Thirty-Nine Articles as an Anglican Rite then I am all for an Anglican Use or Rite within the RCC. I really don’t mean to cast aspersions on those Anglicans who have or will post here, but it wouJurist,ld do you well to understand what being an Anglican is. In Christ, jurist12
Jurist,

Since the 39 Articles condemn things such as Transubstantiation, Purgatory, The Tradition of the Church and the Primacy of the Pope, they get dropped.

It is being suggested that we acquire copies of the present Catholic Catechism and read it. If you read the catechism and the Faith of the Universal Church, you might discover that Cramner’s 39 Articles are just a little too Protestant for those of us who want to be Catholics.

Remember, most of us read of things like the Documents of Vatican II and the Church Fathers as well as the Bible. So, our horizon has to be wider than the 39 Articles.

Regarding Purgatory, how many of us are ready to walk into the full Beatific Vision RIGHT NOW? Think about that…

Blessings.

In Christ, Michael
 
Traditional Ang:
Regarding Purgatory, how many of us are ready to walk into the full Beatific Vision RIGHT NOW? Think about that…
Yet how many refrain from taking communion? How many pray, “Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldst enter under my roof…” But still we eat and drink the “fire of the Godhead” and we are not destroyed because of our iniquities. Although we are not ready, God condescends to our frailty and our sinfulness. God comes to take up His abode in us without our total purification.
 
Traditional Ang:
Jurist,

…Cramner’s 39 Articles are just a little too Protestant for those of us who want to be Catholics.
A minor point, perhaps, but the 39 Articles were not Cranmer’s, who had already gone out in a blaze of glory when they were enacted by Parker under Buffy’s watch (1563? or so). She even cut out XXIX, trying to keep the peace with the Romans, so there were only 38. Till she was excommunicated, that is. Then she figured “what the hay”, I reckon. Anywho, Cranmer wrote up 42 articles, that got fiddled with by Parker et al. (and let’s not even go to the earlier editions- what a headache). Just for fun, here are Cranmer’s articles that didn’t make the final cut into the 39. I’m including the Latin so that everybody can read them:

*The Resurrection of the Dead is not yet brought to pass

The Resurrection of the dead is not yet brought to pass, as though it only belonged to the soul, which by the grace of Christ is raised from the death of sin, but it is to be looked for at the last day: for then (as Scripture does most manifestly testify) to all that be dead their own bodies, flesh, and bone shall be restored, that the whole man may (according to his works) have other reward, or punishment, as he has lived virtuously, or wickedly.

Ressurrectio mortuorum nondum est facta

Resurrectio mortuorum non adhuc facta est, quasi tantum ad animum pertineat qui per Christi gratiam a mote peccatorum excitetur, sed extremo die quoad omnes qui obierunt, expectanda est; tunc enim vita defuntis (ut Scripturae manifestissime testantur) propria corpra, carnes & ossa restituentur, ut homo integer, prout vel recte vel perdite vixerit, juxta sua opera, sive praemia sive poenas reportet.

The Souls of them that depart this life do neither die with the bodies, nor sleep idle.

They which say, that the souls of such as depart hence do sleep, being without all sense, feeling, or perceiving until the day of judgment, or affirm that the souls die with the bodies, and that at the last day shall be raised up with the same, do verily dissent from the right belief declared to us in Holy Scripture.

Defunctorium animae neque cum corporibus intereunt, neque otiose dormiunt

Qui animas defunctorum praedicant usque ad diem judicii absque omni sensu dormire, aut illas asserunt una cum corporibus mori, & extrema die cum illis excitandas, ab orthodoxa fide, quae nobis in sacris literas traditur, prorsus dissentiunt.

Heretics called ÒMillennariansÓ

They that go about to renew the fable of heretics called ÒMillennialismÓ be repugnant to Holy Scripture, and cast themselves headlong into a Jewish dotage.

Millenarii

Qui Millenariorum fabulam reviocare conantur, sacris literis ad versantur, & in Judaica deliramenta sese praecipitant.

All men shall not be saved at the length

They also are worthy of condemnation, who endeavor at this time to restore the dangerous opinion, that all men be they never so ungodly, shall at length be saved, when they have suffered pains for their sins a certain time appointed by GodÕs justice.

Non omnes tandem servandi sunt

Hi quoque damnatione digni sunt, qui conantur hodie perniciosam opinionem instaurare, quod omnes, quantumvis impii, servandi sunt tandem, cum definito tempore a justitia divina oenas de admissis flagitiis luerunt. *
 
Dear Traditional Anglican,

Could you tell us a bit about how the sacraments are carried out in the TAC? I’m thinking in particular about confession, confirmation, last rites, etc. (With regard to the Eucharst, does the celebrant face the East, is the gospel read on the “gospel-side” or among the people, is communion received under both species, do you practice paedo-communion?)

Also, are there any special features of the liturgical year? Special “Anglican” saints, the observance of Septuagesima, Ember days, etc.? I assume that Corpus Christ is already celebrated (contra the 39 articles).

Also (finally), does the TAC have any confraternities devoted to the Blessed Virgin, etc.?

I’d be curious to hear from members of other continuing Anglican communions as well.

Will any of these special features be modified once full communion with Rome is reached?

Cheers,
Boethius
 
Traditional Ang:
And so we would…

Explorer, what do you know about the various UNIATE CHURCHES?? Orthodox Churches that, during the past 300 years or so, arrived at the conclusion theat the POPE WAS RIGHT and that their PATRIARCHS were wrong?? These people ALL submit DIRECTLY TO THE POPE, not to their Local Ordinaries. That way, Local Ordinaries can’t interfere in whether individual cities or communities have Orthodox Rite Uniate Churches!

What do you know about the Society of Jesus (The Jesuits), who do not submit to the LOCAL ORDINARY but DIRECTLY TO ROME?? The Local Ordinary can appeal, but Jesuits receive their commands from ROME!

The Pope, and the Congregation doing the heavy lifting on this matter appear to have compelling reasons for creating a “Rite” rather than just a “Use”, which I’m not at liberty to discuss. Please remember, we would all be Catholics, and we all submit to the leadership of the Pope.

I really am asking for some ciscumspection, and a lot of prayer. The Devil would love nothing more than to see this deal go to pieces on some unforeseen shoal.

Please pray for us. Thank you.

In Him, Michael

Traditional Anglican, When you ask me what I know about Uniate Churches, I have to say NOTHING. I suppose that 99% of the Roman Catholics in the state of Texas, where I live, know nothing of that Church. The only Anglicans we see are in magazines. Some of us have heard of the Orthodox Church but know almost nothing about it. This is not negative it is just the truth.

You asked about St.Ignatius’ Society of Jesus (the Jesuits) and my familiarity. Here I give a very large positive! Yes I know about the heirarchy and organization of the Jesuits, yes I know that from the begining the Jesuits answer directly to the Pope. They do not have to bend to the local Bishop, yes I know. Why you mentioned this, I dont quiite know. Was it too say that if Angicans were to become Catholics their Priests would answer not to the local Bishop but directly to Rome?

If somehow your church was accepted by Rome wwould you then be a Catholic or still remain outside - still be an Anglican?
 
40.png
boethius:
Dear Traditional Anglican,

Could you tell us a bit about how the sacraments are carried out in the TAC? I’m thinking in particular about confession, confirmation, last rites, etc. (With regard to the Eucharst, does the celebrant face the East, is the gospel read on the “gospel-side” or among the people, is communion received under both species, do you practice paedo-communion?)

Also, are there any special features of the liturgical year? Special “Anglican” saints, the observance of Septuagesima, Ember days, etc.? I assume that Corpus Christ is already celebrated (contra the 39 articles).

Also (finally), does the TAC have any confraternities devoted to the Blessed Virgin, etc.?

I’d be curious to hear from members of other continuing Anglican communions as well.

Will any of these special features be modified once full communion with Rome is reached?

Cheers,
Boethius
Boethius,

If Traditional Ang worships where I’m thinking he does, his answer here could be a doozy. But you also asked other continuing Anglicans to reply. That’s me.

Continuing Anglicans, split into way too many jurisdictions, are hard to categorize (like Anglicans generally). But, in general, continuing Anglicans are probably a little skewed toward the Anglo-Catholic and High Church side of the Anglican spectrum. My parish might not be untypical.

Taking your points as you wrote them:

Confession: Anglicans (particularly Anglo-Catholics) practice individual auricular confession, just as do other Catholics (yes, I 'm very familiar with Apostolicae Curae). But it is not an absolute recoquirement, before receivng the Sacrament (I participated in a thread on this somewhere here, about how are Anglicans forgiven, or something). Most often, the corporate confession and absolution in the Mass service is all that is done. But if an individual wishes to make an individual confession, for absolution, it is not unusual. With respect to such a confession, as opposed to the general confession, the Anglican rule is “All can, some should, none must”.

Confirmation is done, at the age of discretion, after Baptiism, and after (usually) a series of catechism classes. It is done by the imposition of hands by a consecrated bishop, in the apostolic succession (indeed, I know what *Apostolicae Curae * says). Normally, it is required that one be confirmed before one can receive the Sacrament, but there are a few exceptions.

Last Rites are as you would be familiar with them, annointing and so forth.

The celebrant faces east (Ad orientum) exclusively, in most traditional Anglican services.Altars remain against the wall, as before the recent innovations in the RCC.

The Gospel is read, or chanted, usually from the Gospel horn, sometimes from the Nave. In either case, it is not uncommon for the Book to be censed.

Communion is received under both species, unless there is a reason not to. Intinction appears to be becoming more common. In the hand is practiced by about 2/3s, I’d say, the rest receive by mouth, as I do. We use the altar rail, all receive kneeling, unless there is a physical problem.

The Blessed Body is reserved, in a Tabernacle found on the Altar, centered. It is reverenced in the usual manner, by kneeling or bowing as one approaches or crosses the altar. No one except ordained clergy (* (sure, I know a good deal about Apostolicae Curae)*) may touch or distribute the consecrated elements (i.e. no Extraordinary Ministers). Benediction/Adoration of the Sacrament is done fairly commonly. Padeo-communion is not our custom.

The Liturgical Year would be fairly familiar to you. Yesterday, Septuagesima Sunday, I read the Psalm and ( special case) also the Epistle. Next Sunday will be the commeration of Bl. Charles Stuart, King and Martyr. The list of Saints days are given for the week in each weekly Mass service bulletion. Yes to Ember days, Saints days, Corpus Chrsti, etc. The 39 Articles are a piece of historical paper.

The actual service is from the ECUSA 1928 Book of Commmon prayer, (I can provide a link to the service) supplemented with the Anglican Missal, which moves it toward the Anglo-Catholic side, liturgically. It would look familar to anyone who was familar with the Tridentine Mass, pre-VII. Sometimes we get some Latin, sometimes a sung Mass, sometimes not. The congregation participates a great deal more in the responses, and the chants, than I have seen done in an indult Tridentine Latin Low Mass, which is all I have attended. There is a great deal of genuflecting, bowing, etc.

Without trying to cover all of Anglicanism, that’s a fair idea of how many Anglo-Catholic oriented Continuing parishes do it. If there are any questions, I’d try.

And, to be sure, *Apostolicae Curae * is not unfamiliar territory for me.

GKC
 
oat soda:
i hope the anglicans come back home. the reason traditional anglicans’ liturgy is so good is because during the 19th century, there was a movement called the the oxford or ritualist movement. they basically reformed their liturgy to make it more catholic. crammer did away with most of the catholic liturgy before this. this era produced cardinal henry newman and also saw many conversions to the catholic faith.

the problem you have is there are catholics in england who resent the anglican liturgy because crammer’s reforms did away with the sacrafice of the mass and the eucharist. also, england was always catholic up to henry 8th so they do not have a legitimate claim to be seperated from the latin rite as they are part of the western church. but, i still would love to have a reform of the catholic liturgy to make it more harmonious with the tridentine rite. maybe the anglicans can help spur and new oxford movement in the catholic church.
**## FWIW: Ritualism in the C of E was a development of one strand in the Oxford Movement: it was also as much a return to the liturgical sources of the English Church in the reign of Edward VI, as a development of the “RC” elements in the Oxford Movement. **

The Ritualists were probably far more interested in matters of liturgy than the CC - which was often criticised for the shabbiness of its liturgical practices. The Catholic liturgical revival came a bit later on. ##
 
Exporter said:
*********************************************************************
Traditional Anglican, When you ask me what I know about Uniate Churches, I have to say NOTHING. I suppose that 99% of the Roman Catholics in the state of Texas, where I live, know nothing of that Church. The only Anglicans we see are in magazines. Some of us have heard of the Orthodox Church but know almost nothing about it. This is not negative it is just the truth.

You asked about St.Ignatius’ Society of Jesus (the Jesuits) and my familiarity. Here I give a very large positive! Yes I know about the heirarchy and organization of the Jesuits, yes I know that from the begining the Jesuits answer directly to the Pope. They do not have to bend to the local Bishop, yes I know. Why you mentioned this, I dont quiite know. Was it too say that if Angicans were to become Catholics their Priests would answer not to the local Bishop but directly to Rome?

If somehow your church was accepted by Rome wwould you then be a Catholic or still remain outside - still be an Anglican?

Exporter:

I was educated by Jesuits for 2 years at the St. Ignatius Institute and nearly made a ROMAN Catholic by some Conservative Jesuit Priests in the late 1970’s. They definitely do not answer to their local Bishops, and I don’t think anyone would claim that Fr. Joseph Fessio, S.J. isn’t Catholic.

catholicherald.com/bonacci/01mb/mb010208.htm
catholicherald.com/articles/00articles/fessio.htm
ncregister.com/Register_News/Hoopes-SII.htm
naples.avemaria.edu/founders_club/message.asp

I didn’t know the rest of the Jesuits had fallen so far.

Regarding the Eastern Catholic (or “Uniate”) Churches, they function like the Jesuits, although they are more like Fr. Fessio then the more liberal of the Jesuits:

Heart of Jesus - Canada Union of Brest
by BISHOP ROMAN DANYLAK from CATHOLIC INSIGHT NOVEMBER 1996
heartofjesus.ca/UkrainianChurch/unionofBrest.htm

Ukrainian Catholic Archeparchy of Winnipeg - History 'Union of Brest’
archeparchy.ca/history/union_of_brest.htm

Byzantine Catholic Church in America
byzcath.org/

Saint Basil the Great Byzantine Catholic Church
stbasil.org/

Melkite¾Greek Catholic Church - Eparchy of Newton
melkite.org/

St. George Melkite Greek Catholic Church
users.cwnet.com/stgeorge/

Byzantine Russian Catholic Church
catolicos.org/russnoframe.htm

These Churches, and some others (there are 16 in the “Unia”), are completely CATHOLICin that are are ib UNION WITH AND SUBMITTED TO THE SEE OF PETER AND HIS AUTHORITY. As you can see, they all have their very unique litergies and hierarchies and eclesiologies, that are allowed, as long as they accapt the authority of the POPE and the Church as a whole.

It will be the same for the Anglican Catholic Church. We will be obedient CATHOLICS first, like all of those Churches I listed above, and we will also be Anglicans, as those Churches are what they are. We would be IN, but just not in in the way you might want it, but IN in the way the POPE wants it.

Can you understand this?

If not, take the trip to an Eastern Catholic parish near you, even if near requires a weekend trip!

BTW, just so you know, I’m having to describe this to one of the Priests in my Parish who doesn’t quite understand this either, so you’re definitely not alone.

And, it was most illuminating to see what’s happened to Fr. Fessio…

Blessings to you and your family.

In Christ, Michael
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top