Pope gets radical and woos the Anglicans

[Aramis]

they will never allow protestant bishops to automatically become catholic bishops. the catholic church doesn’t allow married bishops. it would be different if they were celibate and had valid apostolic sucession. they are not a true church like the orthodox churches.

this will be a problem for TAC and i don’t expect them to come into communion as a whole because they will need to assimilate into the roman rite more then they probably want to.

they should adopt the extraordinary use of the roman rite and ditch the anglican use. or better yet, use the sarum rite. that would be cool. the anglican use is a dead end.

It’s not a given. The Pope is negotiating their reunion. He has the power and authority to grant them particular church status within the Roman Rite, without self-governance, or to make them a church sui iuris.

Unlike the other anglicans, lutherans, methodists, and other such groups, this is a synod. This is an ecclesial community who have apparently, as a community, sought to come into union AS a community, to remain a group, not to be assimilated.

Because of this, there is very much a possibility that they may be permitted to remain a community and maintain their liturgies with minor changes. And based upon precedents, it’s more than just possible, though I’d put the odds about 30% for remaining a community.

It is also possible that they may merely enter into sacramental communion, with reordination, and not full union.

Also, thanks to the Antiochian Orthodox, some anglicans DO have valid orders. I don’t know if any of the TAC are amongst them.

 

[Joab_Anias]

I tried to delete that last paragraph, but the forum didn’t let me.

I meant it in the spirit of the time in which they came into union, for at that time, Orthodox were not considered to be valid, save by coming into union. But I realized, a bit too late, that few would have the needed knowledge to grasp that

Ah, yea there is only 20 minutes to edit then its locked.

I suspected that was what you meant but still felt compelled to point out what I did. Hope you didn’t mind.

I understand that married priests have been re-ordained Catholic and that celebacy isn’t dogmatic though I agree with the Church that being in a marital vocation can be conflicting to a pastoral role and why they would rather not permit it. How do you think this would effect a married Bishop and if you think the Church will cede re-ordaining a married Bishop?

Peace.

 

[Aramis]

Ah, yea there is only 20 minutes to edit then its locked.

I suspected that was what you meant but still felt compelled to point out what I did. Hope you didn’t mind.

I understand that married priests have been re-ordained Catholic and that celebacy isn’t dogmatic though I agree with the Church that being in a marital vocation can be conflicting to a pastoral role and why they would rather not permit it. How do you think this would effect a married Bishop and if you think the Church will cede re-ordaining a married Bishop?

Peace.

I have no doubt that, if they come in as a community, the extant bishops will be reordained as such… and the only way to limit the effect upon the other churches in union will be to make them a sui iuris church.

Then again, it says in one of the epistles that a Bishop should be the husband of one wife…

It all depends upon how His Holiness proceeds.

If instead they are assimilated as a collection of individuals rather than as a body-corporate, they’re going to probably be priests.

 

[Dee_Dee_King]

I have no doubt that, if they come in as a community, the extant bishops will be reordained as such… and the only way to limit the effect upon the other churches in union will be to make them a sui iuris church.

no way will they ever ordain the bishops. it’s one thing to send the priests to a seminary and later ordain them, it’s altogether different to bring them in as a bishop. the TAC want to maintian thier liturgy and their disciplines. they view themselves as being similar to eastern catholic churches in commuion with rome. it’s not going to work that way for them.

as i understand it, the anglican use is only for particular parishes. this is done out of chairty. there is no future for it. eventually, the parish will be incorperated into the roman rite. that’s why i said there is no future for the anglican use in the church and it’s better that they use a pre reformation litrugy. the fact is latin is to retained in the latin rite, not english.

as for having married bishops in the early church, it is generally accepted that they practiced continence. at this point, a celibate episcopate is part of catholic tradition.

 

[Joab_Anias]

I have no doubt that, if they come in as a community, the extant bishops will be reordained as such… and the only way to limit the effect upon the other churches in union will be to make them a sui iuris church.

Then again, it says in one of the epistles that a Bishop should be the husband of one wife…

It all depends upon how His Holiness proceeds.

If instead they are assimilated as a collection of individuals rather than as a body-corporate, they’re going to probably be priests.

Thanks for the answer.

I tend to agree with you. I think the Holy Father would make the same exception to tradition in the norm that Rome already has in regard to Anglican converts.

That norm as I understand it is to not permit a pastoral duty to a married convert.

There should be plenty of celibate converts to full those roles.

That for me raises the question; if this would be acceptable on the Anglicans part?

I guess time will tell.

I have difficulty seeing them as a Sui Juris Church though.

Is there any precedent for this that I may not be aware of?

Peace.

 

[Chatter163]

The former Anglican bishops who were received (e.g., Graham Leonard, Clarence Pope, and currently in progress, the Episcopal Bishop of Rio Grande) were all ultimately ordained to the priesthood, but not to the episcopate. (Leonard was later made a monsignor, but he is still a priest.) Me thinks that Rome finds too many cans of worms opened if they go any further than that.

 

[Dee_Dee_King]

Me thinks that Rome finds too many cans of worms opened if they go any further than that.

yep, and when you think about it, these bishops could easily leave the catholic church and splinter into another church but with theoretically valid orders.

TAC has been negotiating union with rome for a long time now. i don’t expect anything to happen. they are not an apostolic church, they are protestant, therefore they have little grounds to demand that their disciplines and heirarchy remain intact in a future union.

the anglo-catholic movement is to bring these protestants back to the church and not create another branch of christianity.

 

[maurin]

As far as I know, there are no heresies in High Church Anglicanism. Their liturgy would probably have to be revised to include prayers for the Pope, but that’s about it. Many High Church Anglicans are Catholic, in every way except obediance to the Pope. They pray the Rosary, the have the Liturgy of the Hours, and they have a great devotion to Mary and the Eucharist. They have a very rich Tradition that would be a very welcome Rite of the Church.

When I lived in Charleston, I visited a Church (I don’t remember the name off-hand, this was a couple of years ago now) that was, to my eyes quite Catholic: a high-Altar, Crucifix above it, Tabernacle, side Altar honoring Mary, side Chapel with another Tabernacle, Choir loft, a number of Statues of Mary, Christ and some Saints. It wasn’t until the Liturgy began that I realized that I was not in a Catholic Church. I refrained from Communion (this was a Saturday evening).

After Mass I asked to speak to the “Priest” and he explained that they are Anglo-Catholics praying for their Bishop to lead them into Communion with Rome.

We spoke in his office, beneath 2 rather large portraits of John Paul II and the newly elected Benedict the XVI.

I continue to pray for their reunion.

The Liturgy, by the way, was closer the TLM in English than to the Novus Ordo. They were not fond of the Novus Ordo. Communion was received by the congregation at the rail, on their knees and on the tongue.

 

[MikeDunphy]

I’ll stick with what Christ said.

Outstanding last words, Bob. May Christ our Savior bless you wherever you are, this year and always.

 

[SemperFidelis]

Outstanding last words, Bob. May Christ our Savior bless you wherever you are, this year and always.

Hear, hear!

 

[SFD]

Maurin:

When I lived in Charleston, I visited a Church (I don’t remember the name off-hand, this was a couple of years ago now) that was, to my eyes quite Catholic: a high-Altar, Crucifix above it, Tabernacle, side Altar honoring Mary, side Chapel with another Tabernacle, Choir loft, a number of Statues of Mary, Christ and some Saints. It wasn’t until the Liturgy began that I realized that I was not in a Catholic Church. I refrained from Communion (this was a Saturday evening).

After Mass I asked to speak to the “Priest” and he explained that they are Anglo-Catholics praying for their Bishop to lead them into Communion with Rome.

We spoke in his office, beneath 2 rather large portraits of John Paul II and the newly elected Benedict the XVI.

I continue to pray for their reunion.

The Liturgy, by the way, was closer the TLM in English than to the Novus Ordo. They were not fond of the Novus Ordo. Communion was received by the congregation at the rail, on their knees and on the tongue.

Maurin,

The Anglican orders are invalid. This was infallibly declared by Pope Leo XIII in Apostolicae curae. This issue was settled for good. Also, you should never participate in an “Anglican Service”…there is no consecration…as there are no valid orders…your participation is prohibited by Canon Law and Divine Law.

SFD

 

[jfallaw]

I’m not really familiar with anything pre-VII, as I was born in '76. I love the traditional mass and all the teachings of the Church, even post-VII (actually my understanding is that absolutely nothing was changed in regards to Church Tradition and teaching). I kinda understand what the debate is about, but what I don’t understand is why people seem to blame any abuse, change, whatever on Pope John Paul the Great. In fact many people seem to speak quite disrespectfully of him. He was pope my entire life just about, and did so many wonderful things for the world. I find it highly disturbing that any Catholic would speak ill of ANY pope as, no matter what he does or is, God Himself placed him in his position of authority. And what especially surprises me is that so-called Traditional Catholics would speak of the pope like that. Isn’t obedience to and respect for the Vicar of Christ an extremely traditional attitude?

 

[maurin]

Maurin,

The Anglican orders are invalid. This was infallibly declared by Pope Leo XIII in Apostolicae curae. This issue was settled for good. Also, you should never participate in an “Anglican Service”…there is no consecration…as there are no valid orders…your participation is prohibited by Canon Law and Divine Law.

SFD

Thank you for your caveat, I am mature enough in my faith to know where I am much of the time. AS I explained in my post, I believed I was in a Catholic Church until the Liturgy actually began. It was then I intuited I was not at Mass. (I certainly fulfilled my obligation the next day.)

I wouldn’t, though, change having that experience for the life of me. It opened my eyes to the fact that Reunification is possible, and that there are those outside of Communion with Rome who are desperately hoping for it.

I continue to pray for Reunification.

 

[maurin]

I’m not really familiar with anything pre-VII, as I was born in '76. I love the traditional mass and all the teachings of the Church, even post-VII (actually my understanding is that absolutely nothing was changed in regards to Church Tradition and teaching). I kinda understand what the debate is about, but what I don’t understand is why people seem to blame any abuse, change, whatever on Pope John Paul the Great. In fact many people seem to speak quite disrespectfully of him. He was pope my entire life just about, and did so many wonderful things for the world. I find it highly disturbing that any Catholic would speak ill of ANY pope as, no matter what he does or is, God Himself placed him in his position of authority. And what especially surprises me is that so-called Traditional Catholics would speak of the pope like that. Isn’t obedience to and respect for the Vicar of Christ an extremely traditional attitude?

Jesus teaches us that you know the tree by its fruit. Good for you, you have a well-developed intuition. Don’t discount it. I agree with your post entirely.

 

[SFD]

Thank you for your caveat, I am mature enough in my faith to know where I am much of the time. AS I explained in my post, I believed I was in a Catholic Church until the Liturgy actually began. It was then I intuited I was not at Mass. (I certainly fulfilled my obligation the next day.)

I wouldn’t, though, change having that experience for the life of me. It opened my eyes to the fact that Reunification is possible, and that there are those outside of Communion with Rome who are desperately hoping for it.

I continue to pray for Reunification.

Maurin,

I meant no disrespect…you mentioned that you “refrained from communion”…I assumed that you participated in everything else.

And of course, the High Church Anglicans would like to jettison the rest of that Anglican mess. My point was that they do not have apostolic sucession nor valid orders…it’s not just a matter of accepting the Bishop of Rome as their head.

Sorry for the confusion,

SFD

 

[Sr_Sally]

After Mass I asked to speak to the “Priest” and he explained that they are Anglo-Catholics praying for their Bishop to lead them into Communion with Rome.

Perhaps, in humility, they ought to just start individually converting. If they want to truly be Catholic, they shouldn’t wait for their bishop or some other church politics to get taken care of.

 

[maurin]

Perhaps, in humility, they ought to just start individually converting. If they want to truly be Catholic, they shouldn’t wait for their bishop or some other church politics to get taken care of.

It’s funny, Sr Sally, but I asked that very same question. The answer I received was not at all satisfying–to either me, or the “Priests” I spoke to. This experience took place a couple of years ago, now, so I do not know any other details.

 

[maurin]

Maurin,

I meant no disrespect…you mentioned that you “refrained from communion”…I assumed that you participated in everything else.

And of course, the High Church Anglicans would like to jettison the rest of that Anglican mess. My point was that they do not have apostolic sucession nor valid orders…it’s not just a matter of accepting the Bishop of Rome as their head.

Sorry for the confusion,

SFD

It is I who must also apologize. I took no offense at your post, I was only attempting to further clarify my experience and myself.

My participation was limited to following along what was happening in front of me. With few exceptions, the similarities between this service and the Mass was quite striking to me, which is why I asked to speak with the Priests after the service was over.

It was very interesting to me a year or two later when I attended my first of many TLMs that the rythm of this “Anglo Catholic” service was similar to the rythm of the Traditional Latin Mass (albeit, the ANglo Catholic service was in English.).

Sorry for the misunderstanding we have shared.

 

[SFD]

It is I who must also apologize. I took no offense at your post, I was only attempting to further clarify my experience and myself.

My participation was limited to following along what was happening in front of me. With few exceptions, the similarities between this service and the Mass was quite striking to me, which is why I asked to speak with the Priests after the service was over.

It was very interesting to me a year or two later when I attended my first of many TLMs that the rythm of this “Anglo Catholic” service was similar to the rythm of the Traditional Latin Mass (albeit, the ANglo Catholic service was in English.).

Sorry for the misunderstanding we have shared.

It’s a pleasure to converse with you, Maurin.

 

[otjm]

But they also have married priests and bishops. I doubt the TAC will back down on that. Why I think they end up Orthodox and this turns out to be a tempest in a teapot so to speak.

So does the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church; the majority of them were Anglican or Episcopalian before converting.Those who convert and become Catholic priests don’t seem to have an issue with accepting the rule for others; nor do the converts who do not become priests. I don’t think it is a major issue; it is not as if they do not understand what the RC position is.