Anglicans to Rome - Thread 2


#1

Brothers and Sisters, we’re going to try to do this one more time with instructions from our Super Moderator, Therese Martin:

Therese Martin: Just start it as a new thread. It’ll be separate from the original one that was closed.

Therese Martin: Yes, feel free to start the thread again and let participants know that you intend a narrower focus.

Traditional Ang: *I understand some of my cohorts treated one of our guests quite badly in my absence on the “Anglicans to Rome” Thread. For that I apologize.

Since the group I belong to, the Traditional Anglican Communion, was the origninal focus of the the conversation, I was was wondering if it would be possible to restart a Thread with that as the explicit focus. Esp., since God seems to accomplishing something that was deemed impossible just a decade before.

I understand that an explicit statement of the ground rules might be required in the first posting and occasionally thereafter so the furball that occurred doesn’t occur again.

Thank you for your consideration.

In Christ, Michael*

So, with that in mind, as of two weeks ago, I was informed by my source, who happens to be my Pastor, that an offer had been made to Archbishop John Hepworth, the Primate of the Traditional Anglican Communion by Pope John Paul II for FULL COMMUNION with the Catholic Church and His Holiness, Pope Paul II.

The details were no less astounding to me than they were to many of the other poster of the forum, because they included that the TAC would NOT be required to accept the Infallibility of the Pope or the two Marion doctrines (The Assumption of the BVM & the Immaculate Conception of the BVM).

For those who wish to know, St. Mary’s will be hosting a Bishop next week, at that point, you can consider the poor man cornered for the sake of this forum. Now, I don’t want anyone to warn him!

Per Therese Martin’s instructions, we aren’t discussing the doctrines, or even if the TAC should be forced to accept them (BTW, I do accept them). At least not for now.

We can discuss if the TAC should accept the offer. I will.

We can discuss if some Dioceses, Deaneries and Congregations in the TAC will have problems accepting even this generous offer. I will.

We can discuss how this will make many other Catholics feel, esp. those who’ve had to accept the doctrines to be accepted into the Catholic Church.

Those will have to be the limits for now.

They may be expanded later, but only if the conversation can be done civilly and with NO furball!

God’s blessings on all who participate in this new discussion.

In Christ, Michael


#2

[quote=Traditional Ang]So, with that in mind, as of two weeks ago, I was informed by my source, who happens to be my Pastor, that an offer had been made to Archbishop John Hepworth, the Primate of the Traditional Anglican Communion by Pope John Paul II for FULL COMMUNION with the Catholic Church and His Holiness, Pope Paul II.

The details were no less astounding to me than they were to many of the other poster of the forum, because they included that the TAC would NOT be required to accept the Infallibility of the Pope or the two Marion doctrines (The Assumption of the BVM & the Immaculate Conception of the BVM).

For those who wish to know, St. Mary’s will be hosting a Bishop next week, at that point, you can consider the poor man cornered for the sake of this forum. Now, I don’t want anyone to warn him!

Per Therese Martin’s instructions, we aren’t discussing the doctrines, or even if the TAC should be forced to accept them (BTW, I do accept them). At least not for now.

We can discuss if the TAC should accept the offer. I will.

We can discuss if some Dioceses, Deaneries and Congregations in the TAC will have problems accepting even this generous offer. I will.

We can discuss how this will make many other Catholics feel, esp. those who’ve had to accept the doctrines to be accepted into the Catholic Church.

Those will have to be the limits for now.

They may be expanded later, but only if the conversation can be done civilly and with NO furball!

God’s blessings on all who participate in this new discussion.

In Christ, Michael
[/quote]

Dear Michael,

Wonderful to see a reintroduction of this topic.

You may have missed my last post on it since it was overwhelmed by the other things going on at the time in the old thread…

By the way, I have been a busy reseacher over the last week on this question of reception of the TAC and I am pleased to say that I have some concrete information. But the down side is that it is embargoed until later in February.

I can say that what the TAC wants is not a sui juris-style Church but integration into the Roman Catholic Church with the right to retain a married episcopate and married priests since the Church is based on the family and not on celibate clergy.

Good grief, I am actually on topic!!! How unorthodox!!!


#3

[quote=Traditional Ang]So, with that in mind, as of two weeks ago, I was informed by my source, who happens to be my Pastor, that an offer had been made to Archbishop John Hepworth, the Primate of the Traditional Anglican Communion by Pope John Paul II for FULL COMMUNION with the Catholic Church and His Holiness, Pope Paul II.

The details were no less astounding to me than they were to many of the other poster of the forum, because they included that the TAC would NOT be required to accept the Infallibility of the Pope or the two Marion doctrines (The Assumption of the BVM & the Immaculate Conception of the BVM).

We can discuss if some Dioceses, Deaneries and Congregations in the TAC will have problems accepting even this generous offer
[/quote]

Could you let us know about the CCC882/883 supremacy clauses - is the TAC going to accept them?


#4

[quote=Traditional Ang]The details were no less astounding to me than they were to many of the other poster of the forum, because they included that the TAC would NOT be required to accept the Infallibility of the Pope or the two Marion doctrines (The Assumption of the BVM & the Immaculate Conception of the BVM).
[/quote]

Will Traditional Anglican Catholics in the TAC be dispensed by Rome from accepting CCC891?

“The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. . . . The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter’s successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium,” above all in an Ecumenical Council. **When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine “for belief as being divinely revealed,” and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions “must be adhered to with the obedience of faith.” ** This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.


#5

I don’t understand this. What is the TAC accepting? If there not accepting infallability and the IC then what would hold them back?


#6

I am not trying to be arguementative or anything, I just don’t understand.


#7

[quote=jimmy]I am not trying to be arguementative or anything, I just don’t understand.
[/quote]

Me, I’m still standing by with great curiousity, awaiting some formal, public word.

GKC

traditional Anglican


#8

[quote=GKC]Me, I’m still standing by with great curiousity, awaiting some formal, public word.

GKC

traditional Anglican
[/quote]

What do you think of it all GKC? Do you accept communion with Rome under these circumstances?


#9

[quote=jimmy]What do you think of it all GKC? Do you accept communion with Rome under these circumstances?
[/quote]

Greetings, Jimmy,

Fair question. Probably not. I’m sort of like C. S. Lewis, saying that it was not so much the commitment to what the RCC teaches that bothered him, but the commitment to whatever she might teach in the future, that prevented him from submitting.

But the issue that Trad Ang has brought up is fascinating. I have a great deal of difficulty reconciling (to coin a phrase) the offer I read here, with some of my historical readings of RCC doctrine. And I have trouble understanding how it might work in practice. I await further info.

Nice meeting you.

GKC


#10

Fr. Ambrose:

I did see you post, AFTER the other thread had been euthanized due to the FURBALL! The information Lockdown explains why I couldn’t find anything to confirm my primary source, and why I felt like Don Corleone in “The Godfather”.

I can only tell you that my source is UNIMPEACHABLE, and that I wouldn’t have run the story without that.

[quote=Fr Ambrose]Will Traditional Anglican Catholics in the TAC be dispensed by Rome from accepting CCC891?

“The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. . . . The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter’s successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium,” above all in an Ecumenical Council. **When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine “for belief as being divinely revealed,” and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions “must be adhered to with the obedience of faith.” ** This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.
[/quote]

This is the sum of what I know:

  1. The TAC is seeking and being offerred the same status within the Catholic Church as the Eastern Catholic Churches have received.

  2. They are being required to accept Papal Supremacy - That was in place at the time of the Anglican Schism, and was the reason King Henry VIII could not get his annulment from Katherine of Aragon.

  3. They aren’t being required to accept Papal Infallibility. I don’t know why, but that is what’s been offerred.

As I’ve said, they would be fools not to accept, esp. given the state of the Church most of us have left.

Blessings to you and your congregation.

In Christ, Michael


#11

GKC:

As I mentioned, St. Mary’s will have guests from Australia, Not Archbishop Hepworth, but another Bishop, plus a Bishop Designate…

[quote=GKC]Greetings, Jimmy,

Fair question. Probably not. I’m sort of like C. S. Lewis, saying that it was not so much the commitment to what the RCC teaches that bothered him, but the commitment to whatever she might teach in the future, that prevented him from submitting.

But the issue that Trad Ang has brought up is fascinating. I have a great deal of difficulty reconciling (to coin a phrase) the offer I read here, with some of my historical readings of RCC doctrine. And I have trouble understanding how it might work in practice. I await further info.

Nice meeting you.

GKC
[/quote]

…I plan on making use of the time to find what information can be found. Of course, I would then report that information, unless they decide to gag me, in which case, I’ll have to write that i’ve been gagged.

I would recommend that all High Church Anglicans consider this offer, simply because of what we’ve left, and how difficult it is to maintain Apostolic Succession, Teaching Authority, and order for more than a generation or two without the type of Magisterium that Rome brings to the table.

And face it, we’re not about just growing old together and burying preople when they die, and we want to make sure that our parishioners have places to commune during when travelling. Also, At some point, we need to be about growing new and vibrant churches and about a place for other Anglicans to come who decide they can NO longer abide the UNBELIEF and the other problems of the Anglican Communion (C of E).

To do all that, we need to unite with Rome. That’s what we said we’d try to do when we passed the Affirmation of St Louis in 1977:

Unity with Other Believers
We declare our firm intention to seek and achieve full sacramental communion and visible unity with other Christians who “worship the Trinity in Unity, and Unity in Trinity,” and who hold the Catholic and Apostolic Faith in accordance with the foregoing principles.

Intercommunion with other Apostolic Churches
The continuing Anglicans remain in full communion with…all other faithful parts of the Anglican Communion, and should actively seek similar relations with all other Apostolic and Catholic Churches, provided that agreement in the essentials of Faith and Order first be reached.

acahome.org/tac/library/docs/affirm.htm

I think it just might be time to put up or shut up.

Blessings to you and your friends in the Province of Christ the King.

In Christ, Michael


#12

[quote=Traditional Ang]GKC:

As I mentioned, St. Mary’s will have guests from Australia, Not Archbishop Hepworth, but another Bishop, plus a Bishop Designate…

…I plan on making use of the time to find what information can be found. Of course, I would then report that information, unless they decide to gag me, in which case, I’ll have to write that i’ve been gagged.

I would recommend that all High Church Anglicans consider this offer, simply because of what we’ve left, and how difficult it is to maintain Apostolic Succession, Teaching Authority, and order for more than a generation or two without the type of Magisterium that Rome brings to the table.

And face it, we’re not about just growing old together and burying preople when they die, and we want to make sure that our parishioners have places to commune during when travelling. Also, At some point, we need to be about growing new and vibrant churches and about a place for other Anglicans to come who decide they can NO longer abide the UNBELIEF and the other problems of the Anglican Communion (C of E).

To do all that, we need to unite with Rome. That’s what we said we’d try to do when we passed the Affirmation of St Louis in 1977:

Unity with Other Believers
We declare our firm intention to seek and achieve full sacramental communion and visible unity with other Christians who “worship the Trinity in Unity, and Unity in Trinity,” and who hold the Catholic and Apostolic Faith in accordance with the foregoing principles.

Intercommunion with other Apostolic Churches
The continuing Anglicans remain in full communion with…all other faithful parts of the Anglican Communion, and should actively seek similar relations with all other Apostolic and Catholic Churches, provided that agreement in the essentials of Faith and Order first be reached.

acahome.org/tac/library/docs/affirm.htm

I think it just might be time to put up or shut up.

Blessings to you and your friends in the Province of Christ the King.

In Christ, Michael
[/quote]

Thank you. I am not in the APCK at this time. But there are still friends, yes.

Tell us what you can, when you can.

GKC


#13

Jimmy:

Many of the “Low Churchmen” don’t accept 7 Sacraments - They accept 2. That’s what I was taught. I had to see the necessity for the other 5 and had to be taught that the Early Church Fathers and the First 7 Councils taught 7 and not 2.

They will have problems with other doctrines as well, including those accepted at the time of the Anglican Schism (Like Purgatory-I’ve had an argument on that already)…

[quote=jimmy]I don’t understand this. What is the TAC accepting? If there not accepting infallability and the IC then what would hold them back?
[/quote]

…And, there are many, including some “High Churchmen” (see APCK) who don’t know exactly what they signed on to when they signed the Affirmation of St. Louis in 1977, and will have to be informed that they pretty much agreed to this in advance (see my previous post - #11).

And then there’s my personal favorite, good old fashioned HUMAN PRIDE! That’s the gift that keeps on giving and always gives the Devil a major foothold from which to attack any good work of the Lord. We’re all too familiar with this one!

And a note ALL - I will give further details as soon as I am aware of them, even if I can’t confirm them, so long as the source is unimpeachable!

May God bless your fasts during this Lent.

In Christ, Michael


#14

[quote=Traditional Ang]This is the sum of what I know:

  1. The TAC is seeking and being offerred the same status within the Catholic Church as the Eastern Catholic Churches have received.
    [/quote]

My own unimpeachable source informs that the TAC is seeking, not a sui juris status such as the Eastern Catholic Churches enjoy, but to be integrated into the Roman Catholic Church as a prelature. This would give them a status akin to Opus Dei. The Indult Catholics also hope to become a prelature but so far this has been blocked by the bishops.

I think that the traditional Episcopalians have already tried for a prelature only a few years ago with the Episcopalian Bishop Pope of Texas. This was supported by Cardinal Law and by Cardinal Ratzinger. For some reason which eludes me the proposal evaporated.


#15

[quote=Traditional Ang]Jimmy:

Many of the “Low Churchmen” don’t accept 7 Sacraments - They accept 2. That’s what I was taught. I had to see the necessity for the other 5 and had to be taught that the Early Church Fathers and the First 7 Councils taught 7 and not 2.

They will have problems with other doctrines as well, including those accepted at the time of the Anglican Schism (Like Purgatory-I’ve had an argument on that already)…

…And, there are many, including some “High Churchmen” (see APCK) who don’t know exactly what they signed on to when they signed the Affirmation of St. Louis in 1977, and will have to be informed that they pretty much agreed to this in advance (see my previous post - #11).

And then there’s my personal favorite, good old fashioned HUMAN PRIDE! That’s the gift that keeps on giving and always gives the Devil a major foothold from which to attack any good work of the Lord. We’re all too familiar with this one!

And a note ALL - I will give further details as soon as I am aware of them, even if I can’t confirm them, so long as the source is unimpeachable!

May God bless your fasts during this Lent.

In Christ, Michael
[/quote]

Thankyou Michael, I was a little confused because, from your first post it seemed like this might be like a back slapping type of thing where both accept the other. But you have cleared it up for me. It seems like it is much more of a commitment than what I thought.


#16

[quote=Traditional]Many of the “Low Churchmen” don’t accept 7 Sacraments - They accept 2. That’s what I was taught. I had to see the necessity for the other 5 and had to be taught that the Early Church Fathers and the First 7 Councils taught 7 and not 2.

[/quote]

We have had a small thread on this. I’ll see if I can track it down.

The Fathers do not enumerate 7 Sacraments, nor do the Seven Ecumenical Councils. The Fathers vary in both number and kind.

The Orthodox have never defined the number of Sacraments (or Mysteries as we call them.) In catechisms, though you will find that seven is mentioned, it is not exhaustive.

The tonsuring of a monk and nun is one of the Sacraments.

Also the anointing of a Sovereign.

The Consecration of the Waters at Theophany.

The Consecration of a Church (also, -this is very interesting- considered as such by the Celtic Churches - we still have their very complicated rite for it.)

The Funeral Service, etc.

These are probably actions which the West would call sacramentals, but the East has no such distinction and they are simply Sacraments for us.


#17

[quote=Traditional Ang]2. They are being required to accept Papal Supremacy - That was in place at the time of the Anglican Schism, and was the reason King Henry VIII could not get his annulment from Katherine of Aragon.
[/quote]

Catherine of Aragon was the aunt of Charles V, the Holy Roman Emperor.

Charles had no intention of allowing his aunt to be cast off.

To ensure that the Pope did not buckle and allow the “annulment” of that marriage Charles marched on Rome with his army.

The annulment could have been justified by the previous Pope’s dubious dispensation for the marriage of Catherine and Henry VIII because of her previous marriage to Prince Arthur and her bethrothal to Henry VII -it was all very incestuous. In church law the Pope would probably have been able to grant an annulment -and especially when it was being sought by a King, and not just any King, but Henry VIII, the “Defender of the Faith.”

To prevent the annulment Charles V marched on Rome, sacked it (but not too seriously) and took control of it in 1527. He also took control of the Pope and prohibited any annulment between Catherine and Henry VIII.

So it was Charles the Holy Roman Emperor who made sure that the Pope upheld the sanctity of his aunt’s marriage to Henry VIII!! We have a secular ruler upholding Catholic doctrine. A nice irony!


#18

[quote=Fr Ambrose]Catherine of Aragon was the aunt of Charles V, the Holy Roman Emperor.

Charles had no intention of allowing his aunt to be cast off.

To ensure that the Pope did not buckle and allow the “annulment” of that marriage Charles marched on Rome with his army.

The annulment could have been justified by the previous Pope’s dubious dispensation for the marriage of Catherine and Henry VIII because of her previous marriage to Prince Arthur and her bethrothal to Henry VII -it was all very incestuous. In church law the Pope would probably have been able to grant an annulment -and especially when it was being sought by a King, and not just any King, but Henry VIII, the “Defender of the Faith.”

To prevent the annulment Charles V marched on Rome, sacked it (but not too seriously) and took control of it in 1527. He also took control of the Pope and prohibited any annulment between Catherine and Henry VIII.

So it was Charles the Holy Roman Emperor who made sure that the Pope upheld the sanctity of his aunt’s marriage to Henry VIII!! We have a secular ruler upholding Catholic doctrine. A nice irony!
[/quote]

Fr. A,

You have the gist of it right here. But the sack of Rome was coincidental, in the annulment waltz Henry started. Fatal to Henry’s hopes, in the end, but not caused by Henry’s causa.

I hate to see poor Trad Ang’s thread adrift again. Would another thread be of interest? I’m fond of discussing diriment impediments of consanquanity, affinity and the justice of public honesty.

But the ultimate factor in the mix was Charles, to be sure.

GKC


#19

[quote=Fr Ambrose]Catherine of Aragon was the aunt of Charles V, the Holy Roman Emperor.

Charles had no intention of allowing his aunt to be cast off.

To ensure that the Pope did not buckle and allow the “annulment” of that marriage Charles marched on Rome with his army.

The annulment could have been justified by the previous Pope’s dubious dispensation for the marriage of Catherine and Henry VIII because of her previous marriage to Prince Arthur and her bethrothal to Henry VII -it was all very incestuous. In church law the Pope would probably have been able to grant an annulment -and especially when it was being sought by a King, and not just any King, but Henry VIII, the “Defender of the Faith.”

To prevent the annulment Charles V marched on Rome, sacked it (but not too seriously) and took control of it in 1527. He also took control of the Pope and prohibited any annulment between Catherine and Henry VIII.

So it was Charles the Holy Roman Emperor who made sure that the Pope upheld the sanctity of his aunt’s marriage to Henry VIII!! We have a secular ruler upholding Catholic doctrine. A nice irony!
[/quote]


#20

It is true that Charles V did more for the Church than the popes of his time. I don’t know whether the talk about Clement’s weakness is justified or not.

However, there was never any basis for the annullment Henry sought.

The papal dispensation had been well within papal authority to give.

Furthermore, and more importantly, Catherine testified under oath that her marriage with Henry’s brother Arthur had never been consummated, and his youth and general sickliness during the span of their marriage made this quite believeable as well.

Thus, Henry’s fear of “incest” was mere histrionics. He already wanted to marry Anne Boleyn, and he meant to have his way.

Regards,
Joannes

[quote=Fr Ambrose]Catherine of Aragon was the aunt of Charles V, the Holy Roman Emperor.

Charles had no intention of allowing his aunt to be cast off.

To ensure that the Pope did not buckle and allow the “annulment” of that marriage Charles marched on Rome with his army.

The annulment could have been justified by the previous Pope’s dubious dispensation for the marriage of Catherine and Henry VIII because of her previous marriage to Prince Arthur and her bethrothal to Henry VII -it was all very incestuous. In church law the Pope would probably have been able to grant an annulment -and especially when it was being sought by a King, and not just any King, but Henry VIII, the “Defender of the Faith.”

To prevent the annulment Charles V marched on Rome, sacked it (but not too seriously) and took control of it in 1527. He also took control of the Pope and prohibited any annulment between Catherine and Henry VIII.

So it was Charles the Holy Roman Emperor who made sure that the Pope upheld the sanctity of his aunt’s marriage to Henry VIII!! We have a secular ruler upholding Catholic doctrine. A nice irony!
[/quote]


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.