Anglicans to Rome?

[GKC]

Greetings, oat soda,
oat soda:

AC basically said that all things being equal, anglican ordination is invalid. but the church recognizes that the involvement, in some anglican episcopal ordinations, of bishops of the old catholic church of the Union of Utrecht who are validly ordained.

True. Anglican/Old Catholic interaction is a little after the time period of AC. And it really got serious in 1932, after the Anglican and Old Catholic Churches established full intercommunion, and started having an exchange of bishops , for episcopal consecrations My own rector was ordained by a traditional Anglican bishop who was 1 remove from a hands-on by a PNCC bishop, for example.

GKC, do you believe that all ministers in ECUSA have valid orders or just those who can trace a bishop to the old catholic church or someone who was validly ordained? it is my understanding that the church recognizes the possibility of valid orders in Anglicanism from outside the Anglican church.

I believe that only those Anglican clergy (male) who can trace their ordination to a Bishop in Apostolic Succession (and we may differ on what that means, and other things) are validly ordained. In the past, and only recently, at that, the issue of valid orders in Anglicanism, arising from sources outside Anglicanism, has occasionally arisen. It’s what got Fr. Graham and Fr. Hughes ordained *sub conditione * (along with a few other points). But it has not been the general attitude, up until now. Which is why I’m scratching my head at what Traditional Ang is telling us.

GKC

 

[Joannes]

Hello GKC:

You may be the person who can answer this question. I have heard it said that the more “Catholic” Episcopalians or Anglicans actually have list of their bishops (with their line of consecrators) who they hold are certainly valid bishops.

The above may be quite garbled, but my question is, do you know of this or anything like it in the ECUSA or elsewhere in the Anglican Communion? If not, perhaps you could hazard a guess on the genesis of such a story? Thanks.

Regards,
Joannes

GKC:

Greetings, oat soda,

True. Anglican/Old Catholic interaction is a little after the time period of AC. And it really got serious in 1932, after the Anglican and Old Catholic Churches established full intercommunion, and started having an exchange of bishops , for episcopal consecrations My own rector was ordained by a traditional Anglican bishop who was 1 remove from a hands-on by a PNCC bishop, for example.

I believe that only those Anglican clergy (male) who can trace their ordination to a Bishop in Apostolic Succession (and we may differ on what that means, and other things) are validly ordained. In the past, and only recently, at that, the issue of valid orders in Anglicanism, arising from sources outside Anglicanism, has occasionally arisen. It’s what got Fr. Graham and Fr. Hughes ordained *sub conditione *(along with a few other points). But it has not been the general attitude, up until now. Which is why I’m scratching my head at what Traditional Ang is telling us.

GKC

 

[GKC]

Joannes:

Hello GKC:

You may be the person who can answer this question. I have heard it said that the more “Catholic” Episcopalians or Anglicans actually have list of their bishops (with their line of consecrators) who they hold are certainly valid bishops.

The above may be quite garbled, but my question is, do you know of this or anything like it in the ECUSA or elsewhere in the Anglican Communion? If not, perhaps you could hazard a guess on the genesis of such a story? Thanks.

Regards,
Joannes

Greetings, Joannes,

Yes. But it’s not just the Anglo-Catholics for which this information can be found. The CoE, and Anglicans in general, have rather complete records of these things (with holes, as one would expect). I can’t tell you just who one would apply to at Lambeth for that info, but records are kept. All things considered, it would be surprising if they were not. The Episcopal Church in the US and the Anglican Church in Canada maintain records of Episcopal succession. I assume it is done in the other 35 provinces of the world-wide Anglican Communion, likewise.

I can’t vow for the accuracy of it, but there is an interesting site, here:

ucl.ac.uk/~ucgbmxd/success1.htm

with some info on the episcopal lines in the Anglican world. And you’ll find some other related information there also.

Hughes, in an appendix to STEWARDS OF THE LORD, lists the occasions upon which Old Catholic bishops participated in Anglican consecrations between 1932 and 1964, and the PNCC participations in the ECUSA and Anglican Church of Canada consecrations between 1946 and 1963. Since Anglican consecrations typically involve 3 bishops, these “Dutch touch” lines rapidly get spread. And there are regular records of them, as I said.

Nice talking with you.

GKC

 

[Traditional_Ang]

GKC:

Greetings, oat soda,

True. Anglican/Old Catholic interaction is a little after the time period of AC. And it really got serious in 1932, after the Anglican and Old Catholic Churches established full intercommunion, and started having an exchange of bishops , for episcopal consecrations My own rector was ordained by a traditional Anglican bishop who was 1 remove from a hands-on by a PNCC bishop, for example.

I believe that only those Anglican clergy (male) who can trace their ordination to a Bishop in Apostolic Succession (and we may differ on what that means, and other things) are validly ordained. In the past, and only recently, at that, the issue of valid orders in Anglicanism, arising from sources outside Anglicanism, has occasionally arisen. It’s what got Fr. Graham and Fr. Hughes ordained *sub conditione * (along with a few other points). But it has not been the general attitude, up until now. Which is why I’m scratching my head at what Traditional Ang is telling us.

GKC

Gkc:

It is my suspicion that that is exactly what Cardinal Ratzinger and his “detectives” were looking at.

The Priests and Bishops in the TAC were “discipled” or trained by people who took their orders and calling very seriously. In turn, they were “raised up” by people who took their calling very seriously. Somewhere in the generations that these people have lived and ministered since Apostolicae Curae, many of those “Servants of God” remedied the deficits of A. C. by seeking ordination from Bishops whose orders came through Utrecht or others recognized by the Catholic Church, Many others were consecrated as Bishop by Bishops from Utrecht or others recognized by Rome.

It is my suspicion they would find this in large sections of the “Anglican Continuoum”, if the Anglicans who are no longer in union with the Archbishop od Canterbury decided they wanted Union with the See of Peter and to partially fulfill the earnest prayer of Our Lord.

It may turn out that one of the real shames of the actions of ECUSA, the C of E and the Anglican Communion in Union with the See of Canterbury is that they may have permanently invalidated those orders just as many good men had repaired most of the defects.

IMO, Pope Leo was right in one respect, those people who value the Sacraments and Orders of the Church will pretty much have to unite with the Catholic Church.

Bodies like the ECUSA and the C of E and men such as the Archbishop of Canterbury have been leaving us with very little choice.

In Christ, Michael

PS:

Stop scratching your head - I’ve recently learned they kept the secret for longer than I thought! LOL

 

[GKC]

Traditional Ang:

Gkc:

It is my suspicion that that is exactly what Cardinal Ratzinger and his “detectives” were looking at.

If so, then there’s a whole new ball game. Which is going to involve not only lines, but intentions,* praxis*, education, and a lot of other stuff

The Priests and Bishops in the TAC were “discipled” or trained by people who took their orders and calling very seriously. In turn, they were “raised up” by people who took their calling very seriously. Somewhere in the generations that these people have lived and ministered since Apostolicae Curae, many of those “Servants of God” remedied the deficits of A. C. by seeking ordination from Bishops whose orders came through Utrecht or others recognized by the Catholic Church, Many others were consecrated as Bishop by Bishops from Utrecht or others recognized by Rome.

True enough. And also true of the bulk of the Continuum, and many orthodox priest/bishops in ECUSA. Well, maybe not plural bishops.

It is my suspicion they would find this in large sections of the “Anglican Continuoum”, if the Anglicans who are no longer in union with the Archbishop od Canterbury decided they wanted Union with the See of Peter and to partially fulfill the earnest prayer of Our Lord.

Possibly so. But that reaction was possible for the last 70 odd years, with respect to Anglo-Catholic clergy who wished to be received in their Orders. With the notable exceptions mentioned here several times, it was not how the matter has been handled.

It may turn out that one of the real shames of the actions of ECUSA, the C of E and the Anglican Communion in Union with the See of Canterbury is that they may have permanently invalidated those orders just as many good men had repaired most of the defects

True. In Rome’s eyes, anyway. And just then there was some possiblity of progress, given the relationship of His Holiness Paul VI, and Michael Ramsey, as Archbishop of Canterbury. I am the last person in the world to over-estimate the utility of the ARCIC but in the beginning, it did look like there might be a path to an agreement. But that was precisely when the Anglican Communion went off the tracks. The Devil has exquisite timing.

IMO, Pope Leo was right in one respect, those people who value the Sacraments and Orders of the Church will pretty much have to unite with the Catholic Church.

I can certainly agree with this sentiment, without agreeing with your actual meaning.

Bodies like the ECUSA and the C of E and men such as the Archbishop of Canterbury have been leaving us with very little choice.

Hence, I’m where I am.

In Christ, Michael

PS:

Stop scratching your head - I’ve recently learned they kept the secret for longer than I thought! LOL

Well, ok. But in that case I’m scratching my head over just what that last sentence means. Is it that there is no prospect for an announcement on the matter in the foreseeable future?

And BTW, let me recommend again this site, ACCIPE POTESTATEM

angelfire.com/nj/malleus/

where there is much material related to these issues, including an article written by a RC friend of mine, the owner of the site, reprinted from THE MESSENGER, on the precise subject of the idea of the validity of the Continuum orders. Also, an eye opening comparision of the Anglican Ordinal, the Pontificale Romanum and the post 1968 revised edition thereof. Illuminating.

GKC

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Traditional Ang:

I must admit that I haven’t heard about this and wasn’t able to confirm this.

As far as I understand, there would be only ONE reason for a “TAC Bishops meeting in Rome”, esp. if it were more than just a few.

It would definitely be time for Anglicans who are fed up with the C of E, ECUSA and the Anglican Communion (Archbishop of Canterbury) to make their decisions about where they want to go and how important their “Catholicism” is to them.

I’ll be looking for confirmation, and I’ll let you know as soon as I get some, maybe by buying a new “Swimsuit”! LOL

Blessings to you and your families. Please keep praying for us.

In Christ, Michael

**## Michael, **

---

**I hope I’m not being “judgemental” - but I worry about the motives of the people in the TAC who want to “pope” **

**Very obviously, only they can know them - yet I think one ask whether the motive is rejection of Anglicanism and the corruptions in it: or, whether it is love for the religion professed & taught by Rome because of the good things granted to it. IOW, why do they want to make the change ? **

---

**I’m worried because if people change churches for unhealthy motives, they are going to be in for some sad disappointments; for the human heart is the same, whatever one’s churchmanship. Evil is in the heart of man - and if the heart is not converted, an angry and bitter and censorious RC who becomes an Anglican, will be a very unhappy and angry and bitter and censorious Anglican - and the converse is equally true. All churches “carry about the dying of the Lord in [their bodies]”; none is made of sanctified saints alone; so there are disorders in all. Sin is much a reality in Catholics as in Anglicans. **

---

The CC - any Church - can seem wonderful from a distance; but after the first rapture of conversion wears off, its human wretchedness can become very evident. This does not make it less worked-in by Christ - but it does mean that we can never ascribe to any Church any good thing that she has not received from the Lord Who is the Source of all her holiness ##

---

 

[oat_soda]

But why on earth should we make things extra-hard for them? What purpose does that serve?

it’s the devil. in case you haven’t noticed, we’re in an all out spiritual war right of good vs. evil and the devil has made his way even into the vatican. not to sound gloom, but the devil is doing a good job right now, 4,000 abortions a day in this country alone!

part of satans tactics is to divide and conquer. he sifted the episcopalians like wheat. so he’ll do everything in his power to keep us divided. he uses our pride against us. he’s the lord of pride - that’s what got him in hell.

Unfortunately, it’s not “cool” to talk about life in this reality. Catholics will say “it’s a complex problem” just like bishop Flynn says about giving communion to homo-activists. This is just what the satan wants, us to not recognize him. He’s a master of being subtle.

 

[boethius]

3. S. Clement’s has not sought alternative jurisdiction from an Anglican bishop in Nigeria (most of whom would consider us profoundly idolatrous!) or from any other bishop.

1. I am inclined to believe that if TAC does achieve uniate status, or something similar, there will be a number of Clementines who would avail themselves of such an opportunity. The state of Anglicanism is increasingly perilous, and will almost certainly get much worse in the coming months and years (and that is probably an understatement!)

Well, that’s all I can think of. Feel free to ask any questions that you like.

–Paul

Welcome, Paul.
Glad that you have joined this discussion.

Two questions.
First, why would an Anglican Bishop from Nigeria (or elsewhere) consider St. Clements idolatrous? Eucharistic adoration? Prayers to Mary?

Second, would you be willing to speculate about the motivations of those who would stay at St. Clements vs. the motivations of those who would leave? If the Orders at St. Clements are valid and all seven sacraments are available (and the liturgy is well done) why would anyone leave? (Is there a TAC parish nearby?)

Cheers,
Boethius

 

[pgoings]

Boethius,

Glad to answer.

1. The Anglican bishops in Africa (especially eastern Africa) tend to be of the protestant/calvinist school, despite being “Biblically orthodox.” Thus, many of our beloved practices such as Eucharistic Adoration, the invocation of saints, etc. would be considered idolatrous.
2. As to the motivations of the various Clementines, there are several issues above the validity of the sacraments, and the breadth of* praxis* which we currently have available. The major problem is that Anglicanism has largely allied itself with the “spirit of the age,” to an extent which was previously unknown. In a few short years (absent some form of divine intervention) there will no longer be any traditional Anglo-Catholic clergy remaining in “official” Anglicanism. Faced with this, those of us who would like continue to practice the Catholic religion in its fullness are remaining in place until our destination becomes clearer. In the end that might be the local Indult parish, or the “Anglican Rite” uniate parish, if TAC is successful in their negotiations. Of course, there are also those who are just there for the pretty music and vestments (not a phenomenon peculiar to Anglo-Catholicism) who will stay even if heresy is taught from the pulpit by a woman “priest.”

There is a small TAC parish about 40 mins. away. To the best of my knowledge is fairly moderate, and not very Anglo-Catholic. Sadly, the makeup of TAC is not nearly as monochromatic as Abp Hepworth would have the Curia believe–this may cause real problems at some point.

–Paul

 

[mithrandir_maia]

“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.”

I think Gregorio Aglipay (first bishop *Iglesia Filipina Independiente *(Philippine Independent Church) was validly ordained as a priest, but was not ordained bishop prior to the schism in the aftermath of the Philippine Revolution of 1896. The first Filipino Catholic bishop was ordained somewhere in the middle of the 20th century.

The causes of Aglipay’s separation was another matter, in which the racial attitudes of the Catholic hierarchy in the Philippines at that time (Spaniards or Americans) played a major part, and was most unfortunate (cf. Teodoro Agoncillo’s History of the Filipino People).

Just a personal opinion…

 

[mithrandir_maia]

Sorry, I made a wrong post. The previous post should have been at the other forum I read…

My apologies.

 

[SyroMalankara]

TA,

Blessings to you. Please stop referring to Eastern Catholics as uniates. It is kind of an offensive term, its ok since you didn’t know, but please stop using the term in the future. Our Churches are all proper Churches equal in dignity to the Latin Church, not simply Rites.

I can see why bishops wouldn’t want an “Anglican” Church within the Western Patriarchate, because it would diminish their power, but it seems in America and some other places, this power needs diminishing. Historically speaking, the Anglican Use belongs within the Latin Church just as the Mozarabic, Gallican, or Ambrosian, and this should be allowed. It wouldn’t be proper to have a separate Anglican-only jurisdiction. My hope is that married deacons would continue to be allowed to the priesthood, and that this is allowed in the rest of the Latin Church as well. You set a fine example of faith, hopefully the Church in America and wherever else TAC is will see your faith and grow in theirs.

Subaho Labo Lebaro Vala Rooho † Kadisso. Ameen.
[Glory be to the Father, Son, and † Holy Spirit. Amen.]

 

[SyroMalankara]

btw:

The Orthodox lineage that the Anglicans indirectly inherited are mainly from schismatic bishops who recieved their orders from the Malankara/Syriac Orthodox Church. Former Catholic priest turned Orthodox bishop Rene Villette, Matthew Parker, etc are from this line. These guys never started a church that didn’t go into schism.

 

[boethius]

A question for those who know something about the Oxford movement and the current direction of the T.A.C.

Will the T.A.C.'s union with Rome be (in some sense) a vindication of the Oxford movement? One’s view of this will (of course) depend upon what one understands the goals of that movement to have been. Was reunion with Rome one of those goals? Did the ceremonial and theological aspects of the Oxford movement plant the seeds for at least part of Anglicanism to unite with Rome? Who was ultimately the more prescient, Newman or Pusey.

In the (limited) sources I read, the Oxford movement is usually considered to have been more of a noble failure (in that its theological aims and achievements could not resist the novelties of modernism, i.e., we may have candles on the altar but there is a priestess celebrating mass). If the T.A.C unites with Rome (or even if they don’t) , will the history of the Oxford movement need to be revisited and revised?

Cheers,
Boethius

p.s. Paul. You listed the indult and T.A.C. congregation as options if Clementines relocate. Do you think indult groups would welcome Anglicans (though the Tridentine is clearly much closer in spirit and ceremony to the mass at St. Clement’s)? You did not mention the Orthodox churches. Would one of those churches be an option?

 

[Traditional_Ang]

**## Michael, **

---

**I hope I’m not being “judgemental” - but I worry about the motives of the people in the TAC who want to “pope” **

Very obviously, only they can know them - yet I think one ask whether the motive is rejection of Anglicanism and the corruptions in it: or, whether it is love for the religion professed & taught by Rome because of the good things granted to it. IOW, why do they want to make the change ?

---

I’m worried because if people change churches for unhealthy motives, they are going to be in for some sad disappointments; for the human heart is the same, whatever one’s churchmanship. Evil is in the heart of man - and if the heart is not converted, an angry and bitter and censorious RC who becomes an Anglican, will be a very unhappy and angry and bitter and censorious Anglican - and the converse is equally true. All churches “carry about the dying of the Lord in [their bodies]”; none is made of sanctified saints alone; so there are disorders in all. Sin is much a reality in Catholics as in Anglicans.

---

The CC - any Church - can seem wonderful from a distance; but after the first rapture of conversion wears off, its human wretchedness can become very evident. This does not make it less worked-in by Christ - but it does mean that we can never ascribe to any Church any good thing that she has not received from the Lord Who is the Source of all her holiness ##

---

Michael:

Thank you for making this much more readable. I still suggest the forum defaults as they are simply easier to do. I think you’ll agree that it’s a better use of bra(name removed by moderator)ower and energy to concentrate on what we’re saying and how we’re phrasing it than worrying about how it looks. You’ll see that (poutside of Bolds and italics) I use very few special characters.

I can only tell you what my motive is and what Archbishop Hepworth has told me his is. We both believe that one of the problems with Anglicanism was that there was NO real authority, ono one who could say, “This far and no further,” and have it stick. We both know that the Throne of peter represents steady and constant Authority, and we’ve both seen it’s judicious use by it’s present occupant.

That, and the problems with the “Working Theology” of ECUSA and the C of E which virtually guarantee “more of the same” from the Anglican Communion, and also insure that those doing the “innovations” can’t be corrected or held to account. For more about the "Working theology, please read this post and the LINKS:

Re: Ecumenism-New American Bible-Offensive Language to Jews Deleted #44
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=437108&postcount=44

Some of this can be expressed in the words of Peter when Our Lord asked if the Disciple were also going to leave: Simon Peter answered Him, “Lord, to whom can we go? You have the words of eternal life…” John 6:68

I’m enough of an adult to know that the Catholic Church isn’t perfect, and so is Archbishop Hepworth, but it’s sure better than what we left. And, for me, it’s sure better than being “on the Road to Jericho”.

Blessings to you and your household.

Michael

 

[Traditional_Ang]

GKC AND ALL OTHER ANGLICANS:

I’ve been asked to keep you appraised of any DEVELOPMENTS in the negotiations between Pope John Paul II and Archibishop Hepworth of the Traditional Anglican Communion.

This may turn out to be a real shocker, and may cause those Anglicans who’ve rejected Re-Union with Rome to reconsider their position…

GKC:

If so, then there’s a whole new ball game. Which is going to involve not only lines, but intentions,* praxis*, education, and a lot of other stuff

True enough. And also true of the bulk of the Continuum, and many orthodox priest/bishops in ECUSA. Well, maybe not plural bishops.

Possibly so. But that reaction was possible for the last 70 odd years, with respect to Anglo-Catholic clergy who wished to be received in their Orders. With the notable exceptions mentioned here several times, it was not how the matter has been handled.

True. In Rome’s eyes, anyway. And just then there was some possiblity of progress, given the relationship of His Holiness Paul VI, and Michael Ramsey, as Archbishop of Canterbury. I am the last person in the world to over-estimate the utility of the ARCIC but in the beginning, it did look like there might be a path to an agreement. But that was precisely when the Anglican Communion went off the tracks. The Devil has exquisite timing.

I can certainly agree with this sentiment, without agreeing with your actual meaning.

Hence, I’m where I am.

Well, ok. But in that case I’m scratching my head over just what that last sentence means. Is it that there is no prospect for an announcement on the matter in the foreseeable future?

And BTW, let me recommend again this site, ACCIPE POTESTATEM

angelfire.com/nj/malleus/

where there is much material related to these issues, including an article written by a RC friend of mine, the owner of the site, reprinted from THE MESSENGER, on the precise subject of the idea of the validity of the Continuum orders. Also, an eye opening comparision of the Anglican Ordinal, the Pontificale Romanum and the post 1968 revised edition thereof. Illuminating.

GKC

…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.

If the Bishops are going to Rome this summer as has been rumored, it would be for ORDINATION SUB CONDITIONE and NOT "Re-Ordination, as Cardinal Ratzinger has already verified the validity of the Orders. Order and Discipline for Bishops, Priests and Deacons would be as per Anglican Useage under Archbishop Hepworth’s authority in submission to Pope John Paul II.

The deal in practice will look a lot like those used to bring the Eastern Catholic Churches into union with the See of Peter.

I would strongly advise All members of the TAC to enthusiastically accept this offer. I would also advise All believing Anglicans who have left or who are leaving the Anglican Communion (C of E), and their parishes, to consider this offer.

I also think the Orthodox need to reevaluate some of their opinions about Rome. I understand that’s 3 out of the 5 objections, and the 33 Articles of Brest say how Rome would handle at least one other.

Blessings and peace.

In Christ, Michael

 

[GAssisi]

This reminds me of the Polish National Catholic Church’s desire for full communion with the Catholic Church. As many of you may know, the PNCC was practically kicked out of the Utrecht Union because she was too “conservative” in the face of the Old Catholic allowance for female and homosexual priests. Currently, we have mutual agreements for the Sacraments in extremis. Let us pray that it leads to full communion soon, along with the TAC.

God bless,

Greg

 

[HagiaSophia]

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.

If the Bishops are going to Rome this summer as has been rumored, it would be for ORDINATION SUB CONDITIONE and NOT "Re-Ordination, as Cardinal Ratzinger has already verified the validity of the Orders. Order and Discipline for Bishops, Priests and Deacons would be as per Anglican Useage under Archbishop Hepworth’s authority in submission to Pope John Paul II.

The deal in practice will look a lot like those used to bring the Eastern Catholic Churches into union with the See of Peter.

I would strongly advise All members of the TAC to enthusiastically accept this offer. I would also advise All believing Anglicans who have left or who are leaving the Anglican Communion (C of E), and their parishes, to consider this offer.

I also think the Orthodox need to reevaluate some of their opinions about Rome. I understand that’s 3 out of the 5 objections, and the 33 Articles of Brest say how Rome would handle at least one other.

Be still my beating and thank you for the update. This pope has got to keep on living - he just has to.

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Michael:

If I have offended, I apologize and beg forgiveness.

I hope you will note that I usually try to type “Eastern Catholic Churches, also known as Uniate Churches”, simply because many of the Orthodox Brethren see themselves as “Eastern Catholics” in spite of the fact they are NOT in union with the See of Peter, and there are others who do not know that Eastern Catholics ARE in union with the Holy Pontiff but do understand that “Uniates” are. It makes for an impossible situation.

If the phrase “Eastern Catholic Churchs aka ‘Uniate Churches’” is not acceptable, I’ll stop using it, per your request.
Michael_Thoma:

TA,

Blessings to you. Please stop referring to Eastern Catholics as uniates. It is kind of an offensive term, its ok since you didn’t know, but please stop using the term in the future. Our Churches are all proper Churches equal in dignity to the Latin Church, not simply Rites.

That is exactly what is being offered to the TAC. The Pope probably would not have had to offer it except for the fact that several disobedient Cardinals and Archbishops made the Pasteral Provision for the Anglican Use unworkable or refused to impliment it.
Michael_Thoma:

I can see why bishops wouldn’t want an “Anglican” Church within the Western Patriarchate, because it would diminish their power, but it seems in America and some other places, this power needs diminishing. Historically speaking, the Anglican Use belongs within the Latin Church just as the Mozarabic, Gallican, or Ambrosian, and this should be allowed. It wouldn’t be proper to have a separate Anglican-only jurisdiction. My hope is that married deacons would continue to be allowed to the priesthood, and that this is allowed in the rest of the Latin Church as well. You set a fine example of faith, hopefully the Church in America and wherever else TAC is will see your faith and grow in theirs.

Subaho Labo Lebaro Vala Rooho * Kadisso. Ameen.
[Glory be to the Father, Son, and * Holy Spirit. Amen.]

I am personality aquainted with one case that very nearly destroyed what would have been the first Anglican Use parish except for the refusal of the local Ordinary to allow it at the time.

I’ve heard here that the National Councils of Bishops of New Zealand and the UK have refused to allow the Anglican Use in both of their countries, as well as several of the more LIBERAL Cardinals in the USA and Canada.

So, unless the Pope is prepared to order these recalcitrant Cardinals and Archbishops to allow it, Union of this type is his only option to bring these Traditional Anglicans into Communion with the Catholic Church.

This also allows him to set up a precedent he can point to when talking to the Orthodox. If it helps the Pope to unite East and West, I don’t mind playing the part of guinea pig.

Blessings to you and yours.

In Christ, Michael

 

[Traditional_Ang]

HagiaSophia:

Be still my beating and thank you for the update. This pope has got to keep on living - he just has to.

HagiaSophia:

I pray that he does. I gather that this is part of his most fervent wish.

I just hope and pray that the enemy of the People of God (aka “Lucifer”, “Satan”) doesn’t get a hand in the process at the last minute.

Pray for St. Michael’s protection as well. I understand the people working out the final details are going to need to need it. The same goes for those traveling to Rome…

Blessings and peace be with you.

Michael