TAC and Eastern Catholics?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Peter_J
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I, personally, do not like the idea of “Anglican Use” parishes. I think it was fine here in the US as a way to get them into communion with Rome, which was the most important goal.

The Book of Common Prayer that Anglicans use was created post-schism, and whatever its similarities to Catholicism, and no matter how “Catholic” their practice may look, it can never be ignore that it is the product of schism.

Here is what i would think should happen. Though the Motu Proprio only mentions the Latin Rite, its intent has been used to argue that other traditional rites, such as the Ambrosian and Mozarabic rites, as well as the rites of some religious orders, should be restored as well.

What i would like to see is the restoration of the Sarum Rite (or, maybe a bit more correctly, the Sarum use of the Latin Rite). Just as the Archbishop of Milan governs the Ambrosian Rite and the Archbishop of Toledo governs the Mozarabic rite, the head Archbishop of England (whether it be Westminster, or restored to Canterbury after a return to communion) could govern the Sarum Rite.

That way, former Anglican congregations could retain an Anglican heritage, and could even RECLAIM some of that heritage, since the Sarum Rite is older than the Book fo Common Prayer, and is not tainted by schism. This way, the former Anglicans could be both more fully Anglican AND more fully Catholic than they ever were before.

What does everyone else think about this? Are there any traditional Anglicans on here who could comment?
 
Peter_J said:
Ghosty,

I understand what you’re saying, but I don’t agree with it.

-You understand the Antiochian Orthodox Church to be saying:
“we’re not ready to reunite with Rome, so we can’t reunite with the Melkite Church”
-I understand the Antiochian Orthodox Church to be saying:
“we’re not ready to reunite with Rome, or even with anyone in full communion with Rome, like the Melkite Church”
Click to expand...
Actually, I’m trying to say basically what your second point is, I’m just adding in the notion that Communion with someone in Communion with Rome is Communion with Rome. You can’t reasonably say “I’m in Communion with A, and they’re in Communion with B, but I’m not in Communion with B”. The whole concept of “dual-Communion” is either a fantasy or a lie, IMO.

Taken on its own, minus Rome, I doubt there is anything about the Melkite Church that the Antiochian Orthodox Church wouldn’t accept. The thing is, the Melkite Church is with Rome by definition, you can’t have one without the other, and even the Melkite Church recognized this to some degree with the Synod’s official “Zoghby” proposal (in contrast to the two-point quote that is usually cited). Here’s an excerpt of the actual Synodal declaration by the Melkite Church:
4.The Joint Commission will discuss one point further, that is, the role of the Bishop of Rome in the church and in the ecumenical councils. On this subject the Fathers of the Synod adopt what was stated in the Second Vatican Council: to give due consideration to the character of the relations which obtained between them and the Roman See before separation (Decree on Ecumenism #14); and also what His Holiness Pope John Paul II said in his encyclical That All May Be One - Ut Unum Sint (#61): The Catholic Church desires nothing less than full communion between East and West. She finds inspiration for this in the experience of the first millennium. Concerning the primacy of the Bishop of Rome the Fathers declare that they are inspired by the understanding in which East and West lived in the first millennium in the light of the teachings of the seven ecumenical councils, and they see that there is no reason for the separation to continue because of that primacy.
Click to expand...
The Melkite Church would not let the question of Rome, and the role of the Pope, sit off to the side as something irrelevant to Reunion, even though it affirmed that the question wasn’t enough to prevent the sharing of Sacraments and Liturgy. Rather it simply said “we can have Sacramental union while working out exactly how to express Papal Primacy”. I think the Melkite Synod misread the Eastern Orthodox acceptance of possible Roman Primacy at the time, though I think that perhaps they had foresight in what would be coming with Ravenna and the coming talks.

In my view, and I think this is backed up by historical reality, the Melkite Church is the “Papal-primacy” branch of the Byzantine Antiochian Church. Union with Rome, and recognition of the Papacy as having a special Petrine role unique in the Church, is the main distinction between the Melkite Church and the Antiochian Orthodox (at least in terms of official party lines; there are those on both “sides” who fall more into the other camp). You can’t have Communion between the two without a) settling the issue of Roman Primacy (since Communion with any Catholic Church means accepting the role of Rome, however it’s defined by the Catholic Church) and b) settling the question of where other Churches in the Eastern Orthodox Communion stand in relation to an Antiochian Orthodox Church that is effectively Catholic.

I believe both Rome and the Antiochian Orthodox voiced this apprehension, and both wisely chose to hold back until talks have progressed further. Saying this, however, I don’t believe the Melkite Initiative was a mistake; I think it threw the matter on the table in a very obvious and beneficial way, and perhaps paved the way towards future Unity. If anything it showed, in a most humble and tangible way, the pain and discomfort of schism. It was a necessary wake-up call for both Communions.

Sorry, this was way off the topic of the TAC, but I think it fits the broader subject, and certainly fits with the subject of this forum.

Peace and God bless!
 
belgianwaffles9 said:
The Book of Common Prayer that Anglicans use was created post-schism, and whatever its similarities to Catholicism, and no matter how “Catholic” their practice may look, it can never be ignore that it is the product of schism.
Click to expand...
20 of the Ritual Churches in Union with Rome are the result of schism.

Not an issue.
 
Aramis said:
20 of the Ritual Churches in Union with Rome are the result of schism.

Not an issue.
Click to expand...
Yes, but they didn’t change their rituals.

Thats why their ordinations are invalid, because they changed their rituals.

The other Churches didn’t change a thing; returning from schism is good. But we shouldn’t allow a protestant prayer book any space in Catholicism.
 
belgianwaffles9 said:
Yes, but they didn’t change their rituals.

Thats why their ordinations are invalid, because they changed their rituals.

The other Churches didn’t change a thing; returning from schism is good. But we shouldn’t allow a protestant prayer book any space in Catholicism.
Click to expand...
And, as you have pointed out, as a matter of vital importance they healed their schism from Rome by reunification as well.
 
Peter_J said:
I just found another article, this one from The Independent. (You might want to sit down to read it.)
Click to expand...
I had already read it. Between that and The Tablet singing the praises of the pretender to the episcopal throne of Canterbury, things would look pretty gloomy, wouldn’t they?

I would start looking at TI and TT’s track record on a number of their predictions. I would be very curious what they were saying 18 month ago about the “rumors of allowance of the old rite” that were swirling in the air.

Time will tell, eh?
 
Peter_J said:
That sentence makes it sound like the TAC and the Vatican have already come to an agreement, when in fact all we know is that the Vatican has made a new offer.
Click to expand...
The beatification of John Henry Newman will be happening soon…

At that time, I expect a lot more to be made clear.
 
We will simply have to wait and see how the Pope deals with the TAC. And the TAC haven’t been part of the AC for several years.

Puts them in another category.

AS to the knox missal, it’s essentially a minor revision of the old Celtic Rite missal, with a few minor changes to the canon.

It can be fixed easily (so said one of those involved in so doing).

The Anglicans didn’t change the ordination protocols at all… they simply abolished them in total during one period (ISTR Cromwell’s time…). Then later reinstated them, substituting the crown for the pope, as Henry had done.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top