I find myself linking to Fr Anthony Chadwick for the third time today (previous posts here and here). In this post, he questions Bishop Brian Marsh of the Anglican Church in America (TAC) as follows re. the Portsmouth Petition:
It would be very useful for me to be able to publish a testimony in retrospect about what the TAC bishops understood when they (I think you were not among them at the time) when they went up and signed the books and the letter.
The good Bishop replied and emphasised that he is giving his personal reflection, and others may take issue with him.
Well, this is his response, which I simply repost here without comment.
Thank you for your good email; I am pleased that you are attempting to discuss the issues of the Portsmouth Petition, the Apostolic Constitution and the Ordinariates in a reasoned manner. A full understanding of this aspect of the church’s history will need the gift of time. Until then, however, we can – and should – offer our provisional understandings of the events that have unfolded since the Portsmouth Petition of 2007, just over five years ago. I would emphasize that this is a personal reflection and represents my own views on the matter. Many of these thoughts have been published elsewhere.
Portsmouth Petition. Although I was not present at the signing of the Portsmouth Petition, Bishops Langberg and Williams signed for the ACA. The text of the petition was not publicized until months later. I did not know of the contents of that petition until it was delivered orally by Archbishop Falk at a meeting of several ACA bishops in 2008. That meeting was held in Fort Worth. Also present were bishops Iker and Wantland of The Episcopal Church. Upon hearing the text, it was my impression that the petition sought “organic unity” with the Roman Catholic Church on a corporate basis. Indeed, that is what I and others had been led to believe was in fact on the table. Archbishop Hepworth had encouraged the belief that the Traditional Anglican Communion would remain intact and that the various national churches would maintain their corporate identities.
The Portsmouth Petition was just that – a petition. To suggest that it was a contract of any kind would be to misrepresent the intent of the document. The Portsmouth Petition was a request on the part of some members of the College of Bishops, a request for a means whereby the TAC might enter into unity with the RC Church.
The fact that members of the TAC College of Bishops signed the catechism of the Roman Catholic Church has caused many to believe that the bishops present were ready to enter the Church of Rome. This is not the case. The signing of the Roman Catholic Catechism as the most complete statement of the catholic faith was simply a statement of fact. The subsequent statement that the bishops aspired to teach that catechism in no way implied their full acceptance of the catechism nor their intent or desire to become members of the Roman Catholic Church. While there were undoubtedly some bishops present who wished to do just that, the simple signing of the catechism does not imply their wish to become Roman Catholics.
Apostolic Constitution. The issuance of Anglicanorum coetibus in 2009 was greeted initially with great rejoicing on the part of many within the TAC. It seemed that our dream of organic unity would be realized. Indeed, Archbishop Hepworth declared that it was a direct response to the Portsmouth Petition and that the TAC should move immediately to accept it. He lobbied extensively for the acceptance of the Apostolic Constitution.
While there are many threads in this part of the story, it became clear to several of us that the Apostolic Constitution did not offer the kind of organic union we had hoped for. Indeed, the Apostolic Constitution offered individual conversion. The corporate integrity of the TAC would not be a consideration. This was not what the Portsmouth petition had requested in its perhaps naive request for corporate unity.
The College of Bishops of the TAC needed to discuss and debate the matter of the Apostolic Constitution. As the highest legislative body of the TAC, such discussion and debate would be required before the AC could be acted upon. Archbishop Hepworth did not immediately call such a meeting. When he did plan a meeting for 2011, he abruptly cancelled it. Finally, in February, 2012, a majority of members of the College of Bishops met in Johannesburg South Africa. By unanimous vote, the TAC College of Bishops rejected the Apostolic Constitution. A petition had been sent to Rome. Rome responded. The response was not accepted.
Ordinariates. Ordinariates were established in the UK in 2011. On January 1, 2012, an Ordinariate was established in the United States. A few hundred “former Anglicans” have entered the Ordinariate established here, along with some former Episcopalians.
The Anglican Church in America has continued as an orthodox Anglican body. It has developed strong relationships with other continuing church jurisdictions and has entered into an agreement of reconciliation with the Anglican Province of America.
Although individuals are welcome to seek membership in the Ordinariates, until now few have chosen to do so. We certainly wish those who have entered Ordinariates godspeed! We pray that they will be happy with the choices they have made. We believe God has called us to labor in another part of the vineyard and we will attempt to do so as best we can.
Again, please know that this is a personal reflection. Others may well take issue with what I have written.
+Brian Marsh
Thanks for that Fr Stephen. It has always been my opinion that we were then seeking Corporation Union with the RC.After reading the response from the Holy See , I felt that it was a matter of Union by Absorportion. I could not agree more with Bishop Brian Marsh’s statement.There is absolutely no need for any Bishop who signed the Portsmouth petition and later pulled out to have a sense of guilt. They were being mislaid. I hope that this explanation will clear the air and let the TAC get on with rebuilding and uniting with other continuing Anglican bodies.
FrEdBakker
Fr. Ed, Were they misled about the Faith and Dogma of the RCC? Even if there is “union by absorbtion”, I’m assuming they would only join that faith body with which they agreed with, on all essentials, and had no substantial disagreement with. That they saw goodness, truth, and beauty in the RCC and its CCC. And that in their faith, they were essentially now RCs. Otherwise, how could you join or be absorbed by another group?
Oddly, the focus always seems to be on the Episcopacy and Clergy. Who can join and how they join. But wy is so little affirmed on the specifics of their Faith or the Faith of what they agreed with? Are there ever any specifics about the Faith or Doctrine? Just some specific examples. Where do they (the TEC bishops of the various jurisdictions) stand officially THEN, NOW, and IN FUTURE on say…
1. puragatory (RC CCC paras. 1030-1032), 2. indulgences (@ 1471), 3. the immaculate conception (@491-492), 4. papal infallibility (@ 891), 5. the filioque (@246), and 6. Anglican Orders (per papal bull/encyclical)?
If they do fully and honestly agree with the RC CCC on all of these specific points, then they are RCs, as only the RCC clearly and without any hesitation or reservation believes what she believes about all of these issues simultaneously and in toto. And if so, shouldn’t they join immediately, rather than wait? Why stay outside like a bell ringing the faithful to a Church if you believe the truth is inside that Church?
B-but the pope kissed the Koran, surely that must account for something!
Michael, Perhaps I can do a recap of my time as a Deacon and later as a Priest in the TAC. Faith and Dogma’s of the Roman Catholic Church as you mentioned were never discussed. I have never ever heard anyone preaching on purgetory or indulgences. Whilst as an Anglican Catholic I believe a certain number of things, I can assure you that purgetory and the ascension of Mary into Heaven and the infallibility of the Pope for instance are dogma’s and docrines I dont believe in.Hence the reason that I do not wish to become a Roman Catholic. Father Graeme Mitchell started praying for the Pope and hung a picture of the Pope in his vestry next to the picture of the Ordinary Bishop David Robarts. I never agreed with that, but I kept my mouth shut. I pictured Corporate Union as both parties sharing the Sacrament , but still continue in their own tradition. Archbishop John Hepworth was the force in getting everyone cost what cost into the Roman Catholic Church, having known him for some time, although not on a deep personal level , I would not believe that he would have asked all the Bishops , who were part of the signing party whether they all believed in the dogma’s and docrines of the Roman Catholic Church.I refuse to believe that all the Bishops, who signed believed in all those dogma’s. Although it is labelled as a piece of paper representing a petition, why sign something that you totally disbelieve in. Is it because ” the boss” tells you that you ought to be signing that? You might not know this but clergy, who disagreed with the AC and discussed it with their faithfull, were quietly relieved of their license to officiate. Lets face it , the issues of female clergy and homesexual clergy is what brought us together as a group of continuing Anglicans, not issues regarding Roman Catholic dogma’s and doctrines.
I come from Dutch Old Catholic background , I have always known about which Roman doctrines we did not accept. Churches that came out of the Union of Scranton have done the same, they are clear what they believe and not believe. The TAC stands by the Affiliation of Saint Louis, I agree that there stance of Roman Catholic Doctrines is not known, but one hopes that at least the Bishops who have joined the Ordinariates believe them. If they dont , well what are they doing in the Roman Catholic Church.
Father Ed Bakker
Father Ed Bakker OPR Christian Catholic Synod of Port Royal/Christ Katholische Kirche in Deutschland Vicar of the Ordinary in Australia,New Zealand and Pacific Isles Phone:03 54444721, mobile: 0400 366 451 http://www.revdedbakkeropr.blogspot.com Father Ed Bakker operates Fusion Webdesigners from Golden Square , Bendigo, Australia Business Solutions at a reasonable price. PC Training Bookkeeping services. Phone:03 5444 4721, mobile: 0400 366 455 Bendigo – Australia
________________________________
Don’t worry, they don’t talk about all those things you disagree with at the Roman Catholic churches here in Los Angeles either. It’s like the Twilight Zone. All about social justice and love and community. If you started talking and asking about Purgatory and Indulgences and Papal Infallibility, everyone gets defensive and say “BUT THAT WAS PRE-VATICAN II AND OBSOLETE!!!!111″
TAC bishops should have a press release and say “We’re sorry you’re offended, we didn’t mean it, just like the pope didn’t mean to offend all those Muslims at Regensburg. Blame it on Hepworth- he’s the angry Byzantine emperor here!”
Fr. Ed, Thanks for the interesting and insightful comments. Much appreciated.
I suspect you’re right when you discuss the PNCC/Old Catholics. Seems like so much of High Church Anglicanism yearns for Rome to recognize them like they did/do these groups. That would mean recognition of apostolic succession, orders and sacramental validity (esp. eucharistic). But Rome hasn’t historically tended to treat Anglicans like these regular “schismatics”, but rather like Lutherans (which is why Rome spends so much time in dialog with Wittenburg as does Canterbury).
Of course, we all realize that any half-educated Anglican clergy were immediately aware of those unique dogmas held by the RCC. It isn’t like Rome tries to hide the details of the CCC. So the Lutheran immediately looks up purgatory and indulgences and the Orthodox looks up primacy and infallibility. We both see the old road blocks are still fully there. A few small rough edges may have been smoothed over, but the essence of the error remains! Anglicans might look up…Anglican Orders issues and their stumbling block confronts them.
Maybe the emphasis for Continuing Anglicanism really needs to be to find their common faith on the essentials and publicly state it? Where is their “Canterbury Confession” and “Apology” to same? Or a modern restatement and amplification of the 39/42 Articles? The CofE tried and failed to annunciate common dogma in the 1920s and that was the beginning of the end for them. Once all you have is BCP, hymnal, and KJV, the sand is constantly shifting and all manner of belief can come to the fore. Then every clergyman (and now often woman) believes what s/he wants to believe and their is no real unity of Faith.
Sorry Father, but I do not think that Bishop Marsh’s attempt at justification for continuing schism holds water. Petitioning to join the Catholic Church and signing up to the Catechism of the Catholic Church necessarily implies acceptance of the teaching of the Church.
Now it may well be that some were caught up in the excitement of the moment and mistakenly imagined that they could continue with their “pick ‘n’ mix” approach to the Church’s teaching and then backed off when they discovered the reality. So be it.
But it does not exactly redound to the credit and prudence of a man who thinks he is in episcopal orders, that he takes such a step without first making sure that he understands all the implications.
Still, one can only regret the fact of the scandal of continuing schism and pray that those who have elected to continue in schism will in due course be fully reconciled to the Church.
I agree. The word “disingenuous” doesn’t begin to cover it!
The provisions for the Ordinariates are a way for the TAC to enter into unity with the Roman Church–they are exactly that!
Is the good bishop concerned that Rome vetted all TAC priests on a case-by-case basis? Is he annoyed that the Continuers would have to share the same Ordinariate with those who had joined from the Cantebury communion? (Urrgh!)
Come on. Of COURSE Rome is going to have to vet every candidate presenting for Holy Orders in the RC. It is clear to every man and his dog that there are/were priests in the TAC who should NEVER have been admitted to seminary, let alone ordained. Australia’s Peter Slipper is a prime example.
OR COURSE Rome isn’t going to make 2 ordinariates in the same country, one for continuers and another for mainstream Anglicans. (If I read him correctly) Get real. Also, why would he WANT to see the bickering and splintering groups brought over into the Catholic Church? Surely that’s the one thing which one would be most keen to leave behind?
I think that Michael makes some very good points here. But in defense of many of the Anglicans who were involved in the Rome-ward movement, what Ioannis has said is true as well. I am myself shocked at how many well-educated Roman Catholics simply do not really know the dogmas that Michael has mentioned or put a spin on them that is almost in direct contradiction to the actual documents themselves. I actually know a Roman Catholic priest that after he has explained Papal Infallibility, one would think that it was the ancient, Orthodox doctrine of the early Church! And he was not being disingenuous, he actually believed that what he was saying was the Roman Catholic Faith.
I have often been absolutely shocked at how many modernist Roman Catholics do not even realise that Papal infallibility is personal, and not an infallibility held by the whole Church! And when one actually quotes the pertinent documents from Vatican I, their response is, “Well that was before Vatican II!”
So yes, it is indeed possible for an Anglican, as well as many Roman Catholics, in good faith, not to really understand the true implications of mostly 19th century theological changes in the Roman Catholic Faith.
What I do find interesting in the issue of the Immaculate Conception is that almost no Roman Catholics, outside of a few eastern rite Roman Catholics, really understand the Christological implications of this modernist dogma.
I think that indulgences, plenary, super-rogation et cetera are now simply felt to be embarrassing by most Roman Catholic theologians, as perhaps they should be.
No need to paint Roman Priests and laypeople as ignorant, while some may be, many other perfectly know what it is all about. And I for one think that theology should exclusively be the affair of those having authority. When lay people start to mingle with that, the protestant concept of private revelation/prevalent reason is not far. And this come from (still for the moment) a layman!
Papal infallibility is a gift personal to the Pope, but exercised in fellowship with every Catholic Bishop. Immaculate Conception is not a modernist innovation, being held by much older writers such as St Thomas Aquinas, and even being found in the writing of some Church-Fathers, including Eastern ones.
A problem with orthodoxy is that it disregard continuing revelation from the Holy Spirit. All should remain as it was during the Constantinian era. But that can’t be! First, the Constantinian Church was already rather different from the Apostolic Church, and during its growth, the Church has been able to more clearly discern the Truth.
+ Pax et Bonum
I am still an obedient Catholic to the Pope- so I’m not about to join the SSPX.
Yes, there are PLENTY of Catholics, both lay and clerical, who are very, very, very knowledgeable and intelligent- and I dare not go against them, because some of them have dedicated their lives on matters of theology.
But then, it is the lack of a sense of urgency, at least from the Church in the U.S. that drives me almost insane! Do modernist, or just regular, run-of-the-mill priests-without-strong-feelings-about-one-thing-or-another understand what is at stake here? Are people just asleep or bogged down with the Church becoming a “social club” rather than an army of God? Is there no concept of struggle against the world here?
For example: the idea of the Immaculate Conception, from the Orthodox understanding, is redundant and superfluous- it’s the fact that it became pronounced Dogma rather than it in itself as a theological opinion, that becomes an issue- this is the same thing with the filioque, etc.- I think this is why despite any sort of “progress”, the chief obstacle between a Catholic and Orthodox “Dialogue of Truth” is the issue of “Papal Primacy” and a definition, understanding, and possible redefinition based on correcting misunderstandings made for the last 2,000 years, may happen but probably not in any of our lifetimes.
This is why I am a traditionalist- the modernist “contemporary” “With the times” stance has robbed proper theological education and understanding from seminaries- and it goes without saying that people aren’t interested in the things we regularly talk about on this blog- maybe a few, but not all. I suspect that people are trying to cram into 4 years things which can only be understood initially for 8 years, and ought to be continued for a lifetime.
As for the laity: I quote the lay theologian Frank Sheed when he wrote that Vatican 2 is a “War Summons” because the Church cannot depend only on those who have a collar or a habit to study and teach- that we are all called to take up arms for God and His Church- and the problem is, we’re all armed with toy guns and wooden swords; Vatican 2, instead of its proper context of it having been built on the First Vatican Council and an attempt to honestly engage the modern world, became all about reconciling modernist ideas with the Church; happy-clappy, hippy-dippy liturgy and theology; women and gay priests…. what resulted is a DISASTER, something that only recently is being repaired by someone who took part in the Second Vatican Council- Josef Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI- AND YET! He is being resisted and left in the dark by the conspiracies and intrigues of modernist cardinals, bishops, and priests who are still drunk from the “Spirit of Vatican 2″ and insist in democratizing things in the wrong places, or in ALL aspects of the Church.
Ioannes, When you write, “the idea of the Immaculate Conception, from the Orthodox understanding, is redundant and superfluous- it’s the fact that it became pronounced Dogma rather than it in itself as a theological opinion, that becomes an issue- this is the same thing with the filioque”, you don’t do justice to Orthodoxy or the issues.
I will admit this may be true for the Assumption of Mary. Notice Orthodoxy doesn’t look for her body on earth nor do we have a shrine containing her body. And Scripture is clear God sometimes does will the assumption of bodies.
The filioque is clearly contradicted by Scripture. It is crystal clear. And it overthrows the Trinity by subordinating the Holy Ghost to Christ. The Father is the font. That causes all sorts of confusion within the Trinity and the “roles” within.
The “immaculate conception” is just the logical outcome of Rome’s seemingly never ending path of turning Marian veneration into as close to worship as possible. Goes all back to word choice of Theokos vs Mother of God. Mary is only the mother of his humanity not his divinity. RCC laity start praying to her greatly. Statues. Devotions. Her place in the Rosary. Her role with indulgences and purgatory. She starts becoming “immaculate”. Then she is proclaimed to have an “immaculate conception”. She gets an “immaculate heart”. Now the push is on to make her “co-mediatrix”, when it is clear that Christ is the sole Mediator! Bad theology leads to more bad theology and harms the faith and faithful.
Mary, just like all persons and things, must only lead to Christ. He and He alone is our Lord and Savior! Angels. Councils. Patriarchs. All must only lead to Christ. Anything that leads to something not Christ is an error.
It was stated the, “Immaculate Conception is not a modernist innovation, being held by much older writers such as St Thomas Aquinas.”
Actually, S Thomas was very opposed to this doctrine!
“Mary was not only free from actual sin, but she was also, by a special privilege, cleansed from original sin. She had, indeed, to be conceived with original sin, inasmuch as her conception resulted from the commingling of both sexes. For the privilege of conceiving without impairment of virginity was reserved exclusively to her who as a virgin conceived the Son of God. But the commingling of the sexes which, after the sin of our first parent, cannot take place without lust, transmits original sin to the offspring. Likewise, if Mary had been conceived without original sin, she would not have had to be redeemed by Christ, and so Christ would not be the universal redeemer of men, which detracts from His dignity. Accordingly we must hold that she was conceived with original sin, but was cleansed from it in some special way.” Thomas Aquinas, Compendium of Theology, Part 1, Chapter 224.
This is what was stated: “Papal infallibility is a gift personal to the Pope, but exercised in fellowship with every Catholic Bishop.”
This is what the Council actually declared:
“That the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra (that is when fulfilling the office of Pastor and Teacher of all Christians, on his supreme Apostolical authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith of morals to be held by the Universal Church), through the divine assistance promised him in blessed Peter, is endowed with that infallibility, with which the Divine Redeemer has willed that His Church, in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals, should be equipped: And therefore, that such definitions of the Roman Pontiff of themselves AND NOT BY VIRTUE OF THE CONSENT OF THE CHURCH, are irreformable.” (Henry Bettenson “Documents of the Christian Church” Oxford University Press, 273-274).
I think that one of the best places to actually study the documents relating to infallibility and the Church Fathers is Doellinger’s “The Pope and the Council.” Of course, Doellinger, one of the foremost Roman Catholic theologians of the 19th century, refused to accept this novel doctrine.
One must also ask, if the Personal Infallibility of the pope is such an ancient tradition in both the east and west, why was it necessary for the western Church, for centuries to base the universal authority of the Pope on forged documentation such as the “Donation of Constantine.” Which declares that the Pope’s universal authority does not come from Christ, or Scripture, but was a personal gift of the Emperor Constantine’s empire upon his death?
I do not believe that Don Henri is being at all dishonest, or disingenuous, but this is probably what he as taught in seminary. And it is wrong.
“A problem with orthodoxy is that it disregard continuing revelation from the Holy Spirit”
But Don Henri, if this is true, which was indeed the only way that Newman could accept the Personal Infallibility of the Pope, his concept of the evolution of doctrine, then what would be wrong then in exclaiming that Protestantism is simply a stream of doctrinal revelation as well? Where does it all end? Perhaps in liturgies celebrated with the “presider” dressed as a clown, and red and green balloons? Rap and liturgical disco dancing?
Perhaps the novus ordo, which is basically a Protestant liturgy, is indeed a recognition that the Protestants are theologically correct?
Dale, Yes, the very slippery slope of the “development of dogma”. Of course, their solution rests on an infallible pope. Since he is personally infallible, the dogma can never go into error. And since no one else has an infallible pope, we are all either in serious error already or prone to collapsing into it at any time. (Too bad one Ecumenical Council officially declared a pope a heretic over the issue of the will of God/Christ.)
Dale, When your wrote, “I do not believe that Don Henri is being at all dishonest, or disingenuous”, that can only be true if he both HAS THOROUGHLY STUDIED the actual history of the issue, looking at all serious, relevant sides, and IS OPEN to relevant facts regarding the issue.
Anyone who has chosen not to study the issue or only study it from a completely partisan, one-sided basis is being dishonest and disingenuous, as is anyone whose mind is already made up and completely closed to accepting an alternative wordview. Do you think they have seriously studied the issue looking at those historical and other arguments opposed to it? Do you think they could accept the opposite as a personal belief? Could you see him say, “If you can prove to me I’m in error, I will accept the truth on this issue?”
The key problem today for our modern RC friends is that they have no sense of history and historical perspective. For them, everything is a post-Vatican II world, one where popes like JP II and the current former Cardinal Ratzinger are more like friendly pastoral figures who travel a lot, smile & wave, say nice things in public, and write some decent works on rather innocuous subjects. So all we see is the smile, the white attire, and the mitre.
But as our Lutheran friends detailed in their struggles with Rome in the 16th Century, they say no smiles, only clenched fists smashing into them and a vicious, corrupt power-hungry papacy that manipulated Emperors, Kings, and Princes to maintain its absolute supremacy in ALL religious matters as well as its ability to meddle in ALL temporal matters. The pope then was both supreme religous ruler as well as temporal superpower.
We ALL (and I’m EO) would do well to read Melanchthon’s Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope (1537) that was officially and formally adopted by the Lutheran Smalcald League as a dogmatic statement after Paul III had called for a new general council. The Lutherans knew they weren’t going to get a free council! This treatise is a supplement to the Augsburg Confession (1530) in which Melanchthon had left out a detailed discussion of this matter when the Lutherans submitted their Confession to the Emperor.
Read the Treatise and you’ll…find yourself facing what the papacy was (and theoretically could be, since none of the real power has ever been formally renounced and the old pronouncements by western councils and papal bulls are stil in place).
The Medieval papacy was an ugly, corrupt, evil institution that had very little to do with Christ or the Gospel and everything to do with power, authority, control, influence, money, and resources.
I think we ALL should read Pius IX’s Syllabus of Errors. That was the papacy in the 19th Century, just a short time ago. It, too, was an ugly institution all about power and control. The vast majority of RCs around the world, both Western & Eastern Rite, are sickened when they read it, which is why the RCs go out of their way to avoid mentioning it. Does anyone know, IS THERE ANY REFERENCE TO THE SYLABUS OF ERRORS IN THE CURRENT RC CCC?
There’s no such thing as a “Western Rite” Orthodox, Michael. That’s Female Priestess/Bishopess level of ridiculousness. There was -never- an “Eastern Orthodox, Western Rite” in the history of Christendom, and you lecture everyone about history!
You have as much credibility as your revisionist history that only your fringe group believes in. What, will you cite wikipedia? Some hateful, clearly biased websites such as this: http://orthodoxinfo.com/ ?
You’re obviously an anti-Catholic person; you keep suggesting that these rebellious protestants are somehow valid authorities on what the Church was, is, and ought to be? Give me a break! I have said again and again, pushing Protestant polemicists onto Catholics as a sort of “True and Honest, unbiased History” is about as unbiased as MEIN KAMPF is to the Jewish people. Or, to switch the roles, it is like recommending the Gulag Archipelago to Josef Stalin. He would probably find consider it a hilarious, comedic piece of fiction, which is what I see when reading the writings of Luther and Mark of Ephesus. It otherwise makes good kindling.
It is precisely because of dissent and surreptitious schism that makes it necessary that the Pope OUGHT to retain as much temporal and spiritual power as possible if not increased, and to purge -by force- schismatic Orthodox and rebellious Protestants from rightful Catholic lands. It’s obvious that this suggestion will fall on deaf ears, as Rome deludes itself with happy talk and “progress” that is obviously not happening anytime soon and is working contrary to the flourishing of the Faith. Nothing will come from sterile academic debates, at all; if people have cocooned themselves and then pretend they’re engaging in dialogue, it’s hardly the truth; my solution, therefore, is to crush this opposition. It is clear, that they cannot convert under duress. They cannot convert through reason. Yet there they are, sowing seeds of dissent and heresy. Nothing can define a more blatant act of aggression against what has always been in force, which is the Papacy and the Catholic Church with the Pope at the helm! Force is justified, truly!
The problem: The Papacy will always be viewed as a threat by the enemies of Catholicism unless the Pope is nothing more than a rubber-stamping, “figurehead” that anyone can force to do whatever they will, just like their Orthodox Ecumenical Patriarch or their Archbishop of Canterbury. This is this oligarchical thinking prevalent in so many people that it actually required an Emperor to convene ecumenical councils- I cannot truly accept a leader to care for my soul when he’s afraid of an Earthly prince.
Beyond all this talk and sabre-rattling, both Protestants and Eastern Orthodox can make as much good of their threats as Dawkins’ planned citizen’s arrest. As for my own threat? How can I make good, when people still think there’s anything salvageable from the rotting, corrupted churches that fight against the One True Faith? As with Muslims, it’s folly to, say, commit an act of violence when it is certain that no else is united to the same will.
Michael, you stated the following:
“The Medieval papacy was an ugly, corrupt, evil institution that had very little to do with Christ or the Gospel and everything to do with power, authority, control, influence, money, and resources.”
Which I will not disagree with, but the same lust for power and the use of oppression was very happily used by the Russian Orthodox Church in the 17th century to force a new liturgy upon the Russian people. The bitter persecution, one of the longest in history lasting from 1666 to 1905, of the Old Believers was quite frankly, horrendous.
I think that you have the tendency to believe that Byzantium is all light, purity and kindness, whilst historically its sins are just as great as those of Rome.
Perhaps you should read about the Byzantine oppression of the Copts and Syrians, makes anything that Rome has done rather pale in comparison.
We all have dirty hands…
Dale, I see the problems with state intervention, clericalism, the abuse of authority by prelates, etc. in ALL faith groups, including my own. Which is why I like to study various periods of history.
Trust me, you want to be sickened by issues of power and corruption, just study the history of the Byzantine Empire.
And the Czars were quick studies of history! Ivan the Terrible didn’t get his name for no reason. Yet oddly, while the State worked hard to control and interfere with the Church, the Church was always able to preserve her doctrinal and liturgical independence. Part of that is due to our conciliar nature. Part to squabbles that prevent any one man, party, or nation from achieving dominance.
Unfortunately, in the realm of church-state relations, that is something that can’t be said of the CofE or Protestantism in Germany and Scandanavia.
Michael ,
I am actually not sure that one can say that much of High Church Anglicanism
is yearning for Rome to recognize them.High Church Anglicans with the label
“Forward in Faith” in the end crossed the Tiber, because Canterbury
would not go out of its way to give them space. We have seen this here
in Australia where Forward in Faith folded up as an organization and became
“Friends of the Ordinarate” Confusing renments of FiF days remain
on the official FiF website , see the Australian section. Bishop David
Robarts, presently remaining a TAC Bishop, but formerly a Priest in the
Anglican Church of Australia and chairman of FiF Australia is now waiting
to go to the Ordinariate after he dealt with the wrapping up of the TAC
in Australia and an investigation if this body could be continued
as a going concern. Yours truly and others are still waiting for some sort
of announcement.
Yes indeed, Anglican Clergy are always constantly reminded that in the eyes
of the Holy See their orders are NULL and invalid. Roman Catholic Bishop
Elliott , a former Anglican, constantly reminds remaining Anglican Catholics in this country that they wont last. This is done in a most uncompassional manner.
It cannot be a surpise therefore that Anglican Clergy and laypeople alike in
this country do not want Church Unity by being forced to become
Roman Catholics.Dont we realize that Rome always wants to be in control?
Because they feel that they are the only true Church, it means that any groups
taken on board such as Anglicans , Lutherans, who still want to their
Anglican and Lutheran things can only do this in the RC is they are
prepared to become Roman Catholics. True Church Unity will never be seen
as long as Rome take this stance.
Having said that, if the TAC, the ACPCK and ACC/OP could work towards
becoming a United Body, then I can see true Unity.
As you rightfully pointed out …the emphasis for Continuing Anglicanism really needs to be to find their common faith on the essentials and publicly state it.
You said it in a different way, but yes I believe that the world wide
Anglican Communion has drifted away from the 39 articles , everyone one clergy
and laypeople alike now believe what they like to believe and
there is no strong leadership from the top. What is the top ? An Archbishop,
politically chosen. If it is a political issue than surely it cannot be
anything to do with the Holy Spirit.
Finally.. the Anglican and Lutheran Churches all originated from the
Roman Catholic Church. They left Rome, because they could not agree with
all the Roman practices. No wonder that Rome likes to grab them and return
them to their fold.
If you as an Anglican are against female Priests and Bishops, against
some other Roman Practises , but want to retain traditional Anglican
Catholic worship, then stick to your guns. Dont cross the Tiber because
you want to continue this type of worship because you are being
persecuted by Canterbury or as the case may be Schori Jefferts is on your
tail and accept parts of Roman Dogma and Doctrine that you dont believe.
Your calling then as a Priest or layman becomes a lie.
Father Ed Bakker
And why not the ‘doctrine of Purgatory’? Where do you suppose all of the Souls who depart this world go to, who are not dressed properly for the Wedding Banquet…but certainly are remorseful…with a desire of Beatific Vision? Surely, they are not candidates for Hell! While our Lives here on Earth are a ‘Purgation’ of sorts, we don’t all comply, all of the time, in all things, in God’s Holy Will! Yes, Jesus has already ‘paid our way’ and stormed Heaven for us, opening wide the Gates, but we still are accountable…for our Lives…for the countless missed opportunities of Grace…to Love–God and Neighbor…the state of our Soul when we depart this Life…and then too perhaps a sudden unprepared death.
It is a given fact that Ghosts roam this Earth – can this be part of their Purgatory? I personally have experienced this paranormal phenomenon…when not looking for it, with no invitation on my part, nor any desire to encounter these disembodied Spirits.
Also, ‘Souls in Purgatory’ have appeared to some Saints–asking for Prayers and Masses to allay their ‘Souls Purification’. In Heaven there is only ‘pure Love’ and it makes supernatural Cosmic sense that Purgatory is a rite-of-passage for the Soul’s Perfection; there are a myriad of levels, but it is always a place of ‘God’s Mercy’! And what of the Souls who haven’t heard the “Good News” preached to them–through no fault of their own? Are they lost through the cracks?
Ghosts don’t exist- the only one I believe in is the Holy Ghost; remember the four last things: 1.Death 2.Judgement 3.Heaven or 4. Hell. Purgatory is the ante-chamber of Heaven. If you’re in Purgatory, you’re on your way to Heaven. It’s basically the long, annoying queue to a wonderful place. How long you’re stuck in line, I don’t know. That’s why we pray for the dead.
And, no, you can’t purchase indulgences to get your dead great-grampa out of Purgatory. (You can’t purchase indulgences at all- it is illegal) That’s not how indulgences work, anyway. No, you never could have “purchased” indulgences before the Reformation, either- scammers and charlatans existed then as now, and people made use of indulgences and almsgiving to get rich and created a scandal that Luther used as an excuse for his heterodoxy.
No, you can’t get indulgences for people in Hell. They’re there forever. No, you don’t necessarily need indulgences to get to Heaven. No, indulgences are not permission to sin or in anyway substitute for the Sacrament of Reconciliation. No, even the pope doesn’t know how much time gets removed from time spent in Purgatory through indulgences.
Pope Paul VI (as much as I disliked this pope for his contrived liturgy) stated, “Indulgences cannot be gained without a sincere conversion of outlook and unity with God”(Indulgentarium Doctrina 11)— So that means if you aren’t already a decent, God-fearing Christian, indulgences are useless.
Now, going back to this ghost thing- no, ghosts don’t exist- but unclean spirits, or “daimones” or “daemons” roam the Earth and they can manipulate people into thinking they’re angels or spirits of deceased loved ones, or some sort of pagan deity. They love to torment monks and other holy people the way Jesus was tempted by Satan.
Margaret, Why not the “doctrine” of purgatory? Because it is wrong. Bad theology that leads to bad devotion and faith. Just study the Medieval RCC Church, esp. say from about 1000-1500. By 1500 almost the entire thrust of the laity (who couldn’t understand the Latin liturgy nor were they allowed to read the Bible and had very superstitious ideas about the “magic” of transubstantiation, and only communed about once a year) was to do works to earn his way to purgatory. He paid for masses, he joined groups that did same, he essentially devoted his life to getting indulgences for himself and others. Because the RCC taught him that it thru the pope, without any reference to God/Christ/Holy Spirit, had complete unilateral control over indulgences and the “poor souls in purgatory”. So the layman had to work now for indulgences in the hope that later his friends and family and the Church would work to get him out of purgatory. That in a nutshell was the complete mess of theology and devotion that the RCC had made of things. It wasn’t about a savior saving sinners. It was about a pope controling the keys to purgatory and the coinage that got one out. No wonder there was a Reformation?
What happened to the RCC “doctrine” on Limbo? Used to be in all the prior Catechisms. I have a couple of books written by RC writers with all the appropriate ecclesiastical approvals talking about the reality of Limbo and how it fits in with Heaven and Hell. But…boom…out of the blue in the 1990s the RCC’s new Catechism just…throws out Limbo. Poof, gone. Into the ether of bad theological ideas.
As for visions to Saints, we could all start throwing around our conflicting visions of various places. Look how many Saints have had different visions of both Heaven and Hell? So which saints’ vision is the right one and who decides?
You are no historian Sir, and grossly caricature the devotional life of the Middle-Ages. Contrarily to what you say, it was the era of something called Devotio Moderna, just look it up on wikipedia. You should also read Eamonn Duffy’s book. Your arguments are the very same used by the protestants, which makes me usually say that the orthodox churches are mere Eastern protestants communities that, thank to a twist of history, have been able to keep true Sacraments.
And again, what becomes of the souls who are neither saints neither damned? Purgatory is a very Biblical doctrine held even by some Jewish streams.
+ Pax et Bonum
Don Henri, I read Duffy’s book when it first came out. A masterpiece. Just read his description of the role of purgatory and indulgences in the life of the average illiterate peasant in pre-Reformation England. He couldn’t read the Bible, he didn’t know Latin, he looked at the stained glass windows and statues and marvelled at the “magic” the priest performed behind the Rood Screen. I love how he describes the wills of people and how they dedicate it to perpetual masses said on their behalf and prayers for them now dead so they can get out of purgatory.
Read the Augsburg Confession (1530), Apology (1531) to same, and Smalcald Articles (1537). Read Article XII on Penitence in the Apology. An excerpt of the false teaching: “By the power of the keys, through indulgences, souls are delivered from purgatory.” Read Art. XXIV in the Confession on the Mass: “by buying and selling it” and “such mercenary Masses and private Masses” and “This transformed the Mass into a sacrifice for the living and the dead”. All this is geared toward purgatory! The Lutherans had no trouble understanding the terrible impact purgatory and indulgences had on everything. Or read the 39/42 Articles to see what Anglicans had to say. They follow the Lutherans but with a lot fewer words. Or Calvin and the Reformed.
Never forget, the Reformation started with a rebuttal of indulgences because they were at the heart of RC devotion at the time. That is where the hearts and minds of the laity were. Stuck earning their way into and out of purgatory and with everything controlled by the pope.
Limbo remains a valid theological opinion in the Catholic Church today.
Jeff, A careful reading of the current RC CCC would seem to indicate that Limbo is no longer a legitimate theological opinion that can be taught or affirmed by RCs.
Keep in mind that Limbo was a PERMANENT home for unbaptized children. It was NOT a temporary torture chamber like purgatory from which one was set free and moved on into Heaven. Now whether Limbo was an annex to or subdivision of Hell was another murky issue, but everyone knew once you were in Limbo you never got out.
Per CCC, the only two permanent final places are Heaven and Hell. Hell is covered at paras. 1033-1037. As 1035 says, “The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God.” That is a key ingredient to Limbo, so IF you want to teach that all unbaptized children go to Hell, then I guess the outcome of Limbo, eternal separation from God, is maintained but the name of the location is now clearly specified. But paras. 1033 & 1037 use words like “To die in mortal sin without repenting” and “to come to repentence”. That doesn’t appear to cover unbaptized children.
In addition, per the CCC at para. 1261: “the church can only entrust them to the mercy of Goad, as she does in her funeral rites for them.” It also discusses “the great mercy of God” and “Jesus’ tenderness toward children”. Then para. 1283, “the liturgy of the Church invites us to trust in God’s mercy and to pray for their salvation.” A critical section within 1261 is: “allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who had died without Baptism.”
But words like mercy and tenderness are absent from the theology of damnation and Hell. And there can be no hope for those in Hell. And there can be no final, eternal separation from God for those in Heaven, otherwise they wouldn’t be in Heaven.
The CCC appears to be teaching that unbaptized children can go only to Heaven (or possibly also to Hell). But not Limbo, as there is no Limbo specifically set aside for them any more. There is no Limbo in Heaven and no Limbo in Hell, and Limbo wasn’t in Purgatory as that “place” finally empties out and is abandoned for…(redecoration or redevelopment in Heaven). Para. 1031 is clear about purgatory: “this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned.” So if the major punishment in Hell is separation, then Limbo can’t be in purgatory.
I will study those sections tonight (i’m at work now). i was under the impression that limbo was technically a part of hell, but that it is actually a pretty nice place to be.
Jeff, I think the issue for any RC trying to uphold the historic dogma on Limbo today, in light of the current RC CCC, is that Limbo was BOTH PERMANENT and AUTOMATIC for ALL unbaptized infants. But the current CCC appears to strongly imply (state?) that all (or most?) unbaptized infants end up in heaven. So Limbo is automatically radically altered, if not overthrown in toto, when any unbaptized infants go to Heaven. Those that are damned (if there be any) would appear to be in the more “regular” Hell, where separation from God is the primary eternal punishment.
Michael: I would not be scandalized at all if the doctrine of “Limbo” is no longer defined as such, because at the time this ‘tenet of the Faith’ was proclaimed, the very best the Church could do was to adjudicate a place that these delicate prehensile limbs–unbaptized babies–’outside the Body of Christ’ could go–thus “Limbo”, because…we didn’t really know–where these Souls go. Not hell, not quite Heaven, but more like out-on-a-limb(o) playground–a nebulous existence. With the Church’s NOW greater understanding/development of and accepted “doctrine of Divine Mercy”, the Church is more apt to place them ‘within the Body of Christ’ – in the tender “Heart of Jesus” and commend them to ‘Christ’s Infinite Merits’ at the Sacrifice of the Mass and in Prayer within the Heart of the Church Militant–trusting in ‘God’s Ineffable Mercy’! (this in great part due to the approved private revelations of St. Maria Faustina Kowalska).
The term “Limbo” was like floating these Souls in outer-space – it was confusing and hollow.
Btw, you haven’t given an alternative to Purgatory – is it only Heaven or Hell, that’s it?
1. “Limbo” came from the Latin word “Limbus” which meant the “edge” or “boundary”.
2. The English word “Limb” came from the Germanic,Old English word “lim”, meaning “joint, main branch of a tree,” with no connection to the Latin word.
3. Purgatory is a part of Heaven. The lowliest soul in Purgatory is holier than any of us on Earth.
———
Why is Purgatory needed? If I killed a person, and I am overcome with guilt and seek forgiveness, I certainly can’t forgive myself. So I need an external source of forgiveness. For example, if I repented and asked for the forgiveness in Confession or that murdered person’s mother, they can certainly forgive me, but only my guilt is forgiven; the person who is dead cannot come back from life just because my conscience is at ease, I still need to be punished for the sin itself.
So, we have Purgatory, a temporary place in heaven where your sins are purified before you can see God.
Wouldn’t it be unfair if I do many horrible things in my life, and then on my deathbed, I call for a priest and ask for absolution? Suppose I committed mass murder, and asked for forgiveness, and it was given to me: how just is it that I enjoy Heaven without any reparation for what I’ve done?
Heaven- Saints in communion with God.
-includes Purgatory
——-
Limbo, the Boundary. A theoretical place.
——-
Hell- No chance of salvation. A place of regret.
The Church has not proclaimed Limbo as dogma, but we have treated it as a normal explanation for the fate of the unbaptized infants and righteous pagans. We do hope for the salvation of those who we would consider are in Limbo- And we do hope that God is merciful to those who died unbaptized, because to God, nothing is impossible, so perhaps Limbo is possible.
Being unbaptized is not an automatic sentence to Hell. Being baptized is a guarantee that Heaven is available- but even the baptized can fall into sin because of poor choices.
Think about every child that has been aborted. Sometimes unborn children die inside their mothers’ wombs without the mother’s knowledge. Who is culpable? Certainly not the child. Perhaps they are with the other “virtuous pagans” out there, and it is up to God whether they are allowed into Heaven or not. Where do the rest remain?
Something is for certain, the Church does not predestine anyone to Hell, but works to save souls because the Church participates in the work of God for His Glory- in this sense, there is no salvation outside the Church. If a person who never heard of Jesus or the Bible ended up in Heaven, they would be in Heaven -in spite of- and not -because of- what they have been brought up to believe- if they are not Catholic on Earth, but they ended up in Heaven, then they will be Catholic in Heaven, because we believe in the communion of saints.
If somebody knows that baptism and obedience to legitimate authority is required because that authority is established by Christ Himself, and then reject it, of course that person rejects Christ and is damned when they die unrepentant.
But then we must understand the necessity of natural law, which any human being recognizes as something sacred. No society survives if they disobey the natural law; any society considers it wrong to murder, to lie, to cheat, and to steal- so perhaps God, whose desire is for our Salvation, may have planned to save the whole of humanity from itself even before the Incarnation. Yet the Incarnation occurred. Are we to relegate God Incarnate as just another “moral teacher” like Confucius, who did not even speak of Heaven? Are we to treat His Church as if it is equal to the false beliefs of pagans? If so, no wonder Christianity is dying, and the amount of people who say “I can be good without God” are increasing.
Margaret, There was never any need by the Roman Church or West to speculate and dogmatize as it did in regard to unbaptized infants and Limbo. Oddly, you can trace such speculation back to the East and Gregory of Nyssa, but the East dropped the speculation and avoided the problematic dogma.
There is no need to dogmatize about what happens to repentent, justified sinners after they die. Other than to state that Christ is our Mediator. He died for our sins. We can’t save ourself. He is our Savior. We must have faith in Him and God’s Grace. A reason I do love the Anglican “comfortable words” in the their liturgy!
You might study the Anglican C.S. Lewis’ thoughts on the process of cleansing or purging man of the remnants of sin and his sinful nature after death. But such thoughts don’t mean there is either a purgatory, intercessory prayers for the dead who are in purgatory, indulgences trafficked on their behalf, or the sacrifice of the mass on their behalf. It was thus that lead to a Reformation. And notice how the radical revision of your mass has all but obscured any such pre-Reformation/Tridentine theology in these areas.
The typical Orthodox solution when posed with a difficult theological problem:
Run away to a monastery, go into a closet, stare at your navel and do breathing exercises.
Logic and Reason? Oh, no, that’s has to use your brain. It’s more of a Catholic thing, really.
Thanks for your input Mourad,
I took the opportunity to re-read the Portsmouth petition and I must confess
that I had been a Bishop at the time in the TAC, I personally would not have signed it. Signing Bishops and Vicar Generals might have been under the impression that they did not ask to become Roman Catholics, whilst at the same time they acknowledged the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. As I have mentioned before enormous pressure was put on some of the Bishops by former Archbishop Hepworth to sign this document. Who knows , perhaps some of the clergy concerned just obeyed orders?I know two or three people who signed the petition personally and I think at that time they never intended to be Roman Catholics. I think Mourad that if one knows some of the personalities involved in all this, you will come to the conclusion that Bishop Brian’s comment are valid.
Some of the Clergy concerned probably never believed that Rome would
consider such a petition… and when the AC came out Rome called their bluff, and some Bishops were not prepared to go along with it.
You are writing your response off course as a Roman Catholic as you call all those, who did not go across schismatics.I find that a disappointing attitude, but if you must , you must.
It is difficult to reconcile with the Roman Catholic Church, who
calls us schismatics, it proves to me the point that Rome is of the opinion
that they are the only true Church.
I am personally very happy that the Bishops who were mislaid signing the Portsmouth papers pulled out .As I said before no point in going to
the Ordinariate and lying about what you believe.
True Christian Unity can never be achieved if one Church keeps on
calling itself the one and only true Church.
Father Ed Bakker
Thanks for your input Mourad,
I took the opportunity to re-read the Portsmouth petition and I must confess
that I had been a Bishop at the time in the TAC, I personally would not have signed it. Signing Bishops and Vicar Generals might have been under the impression that they did not ask to become Roman Catholics, whilst at the same time they acknowledged the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. As I have mentioned before enormous pressure was put on some of the Bishops by former Archbishop Hepworth to sign this document. Who knows , perhaps some of the clergy concerned just obeyed orders?I know two or three people who signed the petition personally and I think at that time they never intended to be Roman Catholics. I think Mourad that if one knows some of the personalities involved in all this, you will come to the conclusion that Bishop Brian’s comment are valid.
Some of the Clergy concerned probably never believed that Rome would
consider such a petition… and when the AC came out Rome called their bluff, and some Bishops were not prepared to go along with it.
You are writing your response off course as a Roman Catholic as you call all those, who did not go across schismatics.I find that a disappointing attitude, but if you must , you must.
It is difficult to reconcile with the Roman Catholic Church, who
calls us schismatics, it proves to me the point that Rome is of the opinion
that they are the only true Church.
I am personally very happy that the Bishops who were mislaid signing the Portsmouth papers pulled out .As I said before no point in going to
the Ordinariate and lying about what you believe.
True Christian Unity can never be achieved if one Church keeps on
calling itself the one and only true Church.
Father Ed Bakker
Dear Father Ed,
I am not unsympathetic to what you write. I remember some time ago looking at your web-site where there was a slogan “Not all Catholics are Roman” and I rather think that this is where we have a difficulty. As you probably well know, outside the English speaking world, Catholics do not generally describe themselves as “Roman Catholics” but as “Catholics”. The English usage is really a result of the English Reformation.
The problem was of course that the Prayer Book of Edward VI, the Order of Communion service required the recitation of the Apostles’ Creed, which requires a profession of faith in these words: “And I believe in one Catholick and Apostolick Church”
So, if the CofE was claiming to be the one Catholic and Apostolic Church. one could not have those who adhered to the faith of thier fathers also claiming to represent “the one Catholic and Apostolic Church” too.
So, when the attempts at utter extermination of the original Catholic belief and practice in England failed, a form of words had to be invented to differentiate between the CofE (claiming to be Catholic) and the papists – now no longer to be considered traitors.
But that’s the point. I and I hope most catholics do not self-identify as “Roman” Catholics but as “Catholics”. For me, “Roman” is an expression of rite, as is the Ambrosian rite, the Sarum rite, the Chaldean rite etc – all of which are differeng rites of the one Catholic Church.
I would suggest that most of the churches in the Anglican Communion (insofar as that is not an oxymoron) now think of themselves as “protestant and episcopal” as opposed to “catholic” – true there is a minority who self-describe as “Anglo Cathoics”, the spritiual heirs of the Oxford Movement.
But insofar as the CofE is busy replacing whatever its original beliefs may have been with a sort of vague anything goes Christology – the position of those in the CofE who do hold to some remnants of the faith of our fathers are find their position increasingly untenable. In particular the sense of the diocese as a particular church with a bishop necessarily at its head. How can there be a chrism mass presided over by a bishop one believes is no bishop?
Mourad, Spoken like a good Roman Catholic.
Yet, your argument skips over the entire first 1,000 years of Christendom. Roman Catholic has all the world to do with the Patriarch of Rome, the use of Latin, and the theology of the West vis-a-vis the other Patriarchs, the use of Greek, and the theology of the East.
The RCC is the Church of Rome tied to the Patriarch of Rome. It took over various parts and functions of the fallen Western Roman Empire. It worshipped in Latin. It read Jerome’s Latin Bible. It thought like Augustine (whose knowledge of Hebrew and Greek wasn’t the best) and later Aquinas. Few of its bishops were at the Ecumenical Councils, which were held in the East under the auspices of the Eastern (Greek) Roman Emperor.
Look at Lutheran usage, in both the German and the Latin. For example, the Augsburg Confession (1530) talks of “the church of Rome” and “the Roman Church” (Art. XXI). And Lutherans talk of the Greek Church (e.g., Apology, Art. XXII, “In the Greek churches”).
A slight hickup with World press, my comments were printed twice. Please forgive me
Fr Ed
@ Michael Frost: My discussion does not need to go back that far.
There were certainly Christians in Britian in Roman times. There were 3 bishops from Britain at the Council of Arles in 413 and of course St Alban is Britain’s proto-martyr.
But for CofE purposes we need go back no further than the Gregorian mission of St Augustine. The Church in England was always a Latin church St Augustine was sent the pallium in 601 – unequivocal in that it was a conferrral of metropolitan status.
So, insofar as the CofE as a schismatic/heretical body came from anywhere, it was from the Latin Church. The last legitimate Archbishop of Canterbury was Reginal Cardinal Pole.
None of those who prentended to be successors had any connection with any of the Eastern Churches – so why introduce an irrelevance?
Because he really goes out of his way to tell us Catholics we’re wrong. Not that he hates us or anything. (Because he has Catholic friends to prove it!) He just hates what we believe.
Mr. Mourad- can you really dialogue with such people? If so, blessed are you, peacemaker. You have more patience than I have.
As for me, I’ve come to believe that disagreements all boil down to strength of will. I will not back down, I will not refuse to compromise or abandon my Catholic faith, even if I’m told it is wrong by some anonymous online poster. It is they who should back down and convert.
Ioannes – None of us is perfect.
I think we all need to remember that holiness is not the exclusive prerogative of the Catholic Church – or even of Christians.
I am absolutely delighted that so many bishops, priests and lay persons have joined the Catholic Church from various Anglican jurisdictions – including the TAC – and many of them will be far better Catholics that I ever will.
Likewise, I know many Muslims and Jews whose personal holiness is beyond question. If Judaism, Islam and other faiths exist, it is because the Almighty has permitted them to exist.
I simply cannot believe that an Almighty who is both infinitely wise and infinitely just will not have provided due reward for those who strive to do His will in accordance with their understanding of what is required of them which may well not be ours.
There are people on this planet who have never heard of God as we Jews, Christians and Muslims have. Think of Animists in the remote areas of the Congo. Will God in His mercy not also provide for them if they seek to do right in accordance with their understanding?
Perhaps the more the Almighty choses to reveal to us – the more difficult our task in living up to what is expected of us.
Well, suppose there exists some heathen tribe in the wilderness where cannibalism or some other disgusting practice is the norm, or even a part of their primitive faith- there’s no question that we have to stop them, because they are, frankly, wrong- regardless of any discovered philosophical argument for their practices. We can’t be made slaves of relativism out of fear of offending people who are different.
I don’t doubt that God has the ability to make exceptions even from among those people devoid of holiness. He is the Master who pays however He wishes to His laborers. But just who is holy, I dare not presume. As far as I’m concerned, everyone of us is a sinner, and it is better to err on the side of caution and believe ourselves in need of Salvation than to presume we are somehow holy by self-determination. Hence, why I am always up for a struggle- it is what has been constant in the Church from the very beginning, and there will be struggle until earthly death.
When people like the Pope, or monks, or learned holy men can fall and die in heresy, isn’t it a similar possibility with non-Catholics as well, regardless of how holy we think they are? So why is there a complacency, or even a passive acceptance of what is questionable? We must be passionate about one thing or another! There is honesty and sincerity in that passion! The fact that I’m being questioned by my fellow Catholics is a -good- sign, but where is the same critical thought elsewhere? This critical thought is part of struggle, of asceticism that we need in the Church right now, that tightening of the belt as we’re about to get leaner through prayer, fasting, and other mortification of the flesh.
Going back to the topic of these TAC bishops, I find their lack of sincerity disturbing. Be a Catholic or be a Protestant. There is no middle ground- we are not Buddhists, we are not agnostics- we are Christians, and the middle way, the way of the lukewarm is unacceptable!
Also:
Yes, none of us are perfect. But Jesus commands us to BE perfect, as the Father in Heaven is perfect. (Matthew 5:48)
This striving for excellence is a part of this multifaceted struggle we are called to undertake as members of the Church Militant.
Mourad, The subject at hand is your assertion that the Roman Catholic Church is the Catholic Church. You believe the word “Roman” is an addition from the Reformation Era. Yet it was the designator of your Church for over 1,000 years before the Reformation, which is why the German Lutheran reformers, writing in German and Latin in the 1520s and 1530s, have no trouble discussing the Greek and Roman Church (or Churches).
You state, “outside the English speaking world, Catholics do not generally describe themselves as “Roman Catholics” but as “Catholics”. The English usage is really a result of the English Reformation. … I and I hope most catholics do not self-identify as “Roman” Catholics but as “Catholics”. For me, “Roman” is an expression of rite, as is the Ambrosian rite, the Sarum rite, the Chaldean rite etc – all of which are differeng rites of the one Catholic Church.”
The issues really isn’t what you call yourself, but what others call you. Your Church and my Church both believe we are the one, true Church. Others disagree. To all of us (non-RCs), you are clearly the Roman Catholic Church. To them I may be EO or in the Greek Catholic Church. Others in the Polish National Catholic Church. Or the Old Catholc Church.
Everything about the RCC flows from the Patriarch of Rome. As RC CCC at para. 891 makes clear, your Patriarch is essentially a “church of one”; he makes your Church whole and complete. Without him you no longer have a working Church. Just look at the problems you encountered when there were 3 popes claiming to be the real one? How could your Church be anything but “Roman”? (Without Rome, you have EO!
)
Mr Frost.
As you must well know, the Catholic Church does not comprise only the Roman Church. You are forgetting the 22 Eastern Churches in communion. One of the Cardinal Electors of the present Holy Father was the Cardinal Patriarch of Antioch (Syrian Catholic Church). Other Patriarchs are those of the Armenian Catholic Church, the Chaldean Catholic Church, the Coptic Catholic Church, the Maronite Catholic Church, and the Melkite Catholic Church. There are then the Eastern Churches headed by Major Archbishops: the Ukrainian Catholic Church, the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church, the Syro-Malankar Catholic Church and the Romanian Catholic Church, also the Metropolitan Churches: the Ethiopian/Eritrean Catholic Church, the Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Church the Slovak Greek Catholic Church and the other sui iuris churches in communion.
Catholicity is about Communion, not about one’s particular church or rite. If in communion with the Pope one is Catholic. So my Kurdish cousins who are Chaldeans are Catholics not “Roman” but “Chaldean” Catholics.
Since the Great Schism, there are of course Churches which are not presently in communion but whose orders and sacraments are valid which I would think makes the healing of that schism of major importance for Christian unity. But while there is schism such churches cannot properly be Catholic although they may self-describe as such.
Likewise, while persons who are members of one or other of the Anglican ecclesial bodies may self-describe as Catholics, but for Catholics (Roman or Eastern) they are not so – the more so because their orders are not recognised.
Mourad,
By [b]ut while there is schism such churches cannot properly be Catholic although they may self-describe as such, I presume that you mean that neither that communion typically, and erroneously, referred to as the Roman Catholic Church and that communion typically, and erroneously, referred to as the Eastern Orthodox Church cannot call themselves “Catholic” since they are in schism from one another?
If so, then I agree completely, and I am heartened by the significant efforts made by both sides of the Great Divide to heal a thousand years of mistrust and division. I don’t think we will see the healing of that breach in our lifetimes, short of a major miracle, but I do believe that it will happen.
@ Stephen M – No – The Churches in communion with the Pope are Catholic and in communion with one another.
Mourad,
Then I must disagree. The Orthodox churches are in communion with one another too, and are also Catholic.
If I may butt in:
Stephen M, without the Pope, you are not, and cannot be Catholic. They may be “small ‘c’ catholics” but not Catholic.
1. What I understand is this: In the Catholic Church- Eastern Catholics are in communion with each of their fellow individual Sui Iuris Churches, and in communion with the Roman Catholic Church, and theoretically would be in communion with a theoretical “Anglican Catholic Church” (That exists only as it accepts the canon law of the Church, final say of Rome, etc.) The Key is the Bishop of Rome to Catholicism, because He is the Successor of Peter, on whom Jesus Christ built His Church. It was Peter alone who recognized Jesus for who He Is: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Matt. 16:16). Jesus told him that this truth was specially revealed to him, and then he solemnly reiterated: “And I tell you, you are Peter” (Matt. 16:18). To this was added the promise that the Church would be founded, in some way, on Peter (Matt. 16:18). “Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” (Matt. 16:19). Here Peter was singled out for the authority that provides for the forgiveness of sins and the making of disciplinary rules. Later the apostles as a whole would be given similar power (Matt.18:18), but here Peter received it in a special sense. The Orthodox and the Protestants obviously don’t want people to believe anything interpreted from this other than their own interpretations like how the Protestants downplay the Last Supper and consequently have tables in their churches, rather than altars. (If there’s anything other than a pulpit or a stage at all!)
Peter alone was promised something else also: “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 16:19). In ancient times, keys were the hallmark of authority. A walled city might have one great gate; and that gate had one great lock, worked by one great key. The city to which Peter was given the keys was the heavenly city itself. This symbolism for authority is used elsewhere in the Bible (Is. 22:22, Rev. 1:18). It wasn’t James, it wasn’t Paul, it wasn’t a group huddle where everyone was special. It was Peter that Jesus EXPLICITLY singled out, but certain Apostolic responsibilities are shared, later on.
2. As for the Eastern Orthodox Churches- They’re in communion with each other- Russian Orthodox, Greek Orthodox, Antiochian, Serbian, etc. Unless someone from those groups kissed the Pope, and then they’re probably excommunicated. I have no idea what the purpose of the Ecumenical Patriarch is. He has become like a punching bag for everyone among the Orthodox, if I’ve correctly read Orthodox opinions online. (Sadly. I like Patriarch Bartholomew. But being liked by Roman Catholics is probably anathema.) But they’re still not Catholics.
3. As for for the Oriental Orthodox they’re in communion with each other- Coptic, Armenian, Syro-Malabar-Malankara (I have no idea what’s up with that one) Ethiopian, etc. Maybe. They’re a bit iffy- I have no idea how tight their definition of “communion” is. But I know they’re non-Chalcedonian, and are on somewhat better terms with the Roman Catholics. They have their own Pope, at least the Copts have. I have no idea what authority he has. They’re still not Catholics.
And now, the Protestants and non-Apostolic Christianity: They’re not Catholics, by the way.
4. The Lutherans and the national churches. I have no idea what their deal is and their relationships with each of their mini-sects. But I tell you, these are not the Church founded by Christ, but the outgrowth of the Protestant Rebellion 500 years ago. The same could be said with the other groups below.
5. The Anglican Alphabet Soup. They’re the Anglican Communion. You all know about them. From Hepworth to Schori to Welby and the Queen of England, they’re those people. They vote what they believe in. Leave it to people to decide what gets you into Heaven and what gets you to Hell.
6. The thousands of low-church groups, including Mormons, Unitarians like Jehovah’s Witnesses, Salvation Army, Puritans, Quakers, Shakers
Candlestick Makers. They really don’t count, sorry. If they did count, I might as well start my own church based on a science fiction novel and scam people out of their money.BUT! Those groups are not in communion with each other, at least in normal circumstances. This is what I understand from Rome- an exception is probably like… a situation when an Orthodox layman is in threat of death, wishes to make die having received the Sacrament of Reconciliation, and Holy Eucharist, and only has a Roman Catholic bishop with a small piece of wheat host and a vial of wine on his person. In theory, it is acceptable for the Orthodox to receive the Eucharist, from the Roman side. But from the Orthodox side, that Orthodox person will probably not be considered Orthodox anymore and will go to hell with the Papist-Romish-Agent-of-the-Devil Catholic Bishop for eating the invalid, azyme, dead bread without the precious blood.
Ioannes,
I don’t know where to begin correcting that, so I won’t. I doubt it would make any difference anyway.
I claim victory.
I think my work on this blog is done.
Stephen M, Yes, such words of wisdom back to Ioanne: “I don’t know where to begin correcting that”. There is so much wrong there; the entire premise and support is fallacious!
Just for once, I’d love to have Ioannes and Mourad talk about the history of Christendom by eras. Let us start with the first 800 years, up to the end of the 7th Ecumenical Council. I’d love to read their erudition about papal infallibility during this patristic conciliar period:
- During this era on Council declared a pope a heretic (for his ideas about the will of God/Christ); that is just an historical fact.
- Not to mention that NO pope ever attended any of these 7 Councils.
- The vast majority of bishops were Greek-speaking Easterns (not Latin-speaking Westerners).
- The pope didn’t even convene a single Council. They were called by an Emperor.
- And any book citing patristic fathers in support of papal infallibility will be essentially a blank book filled with empty pages!
- The Scriptural model is crystal clear in Acts at the Council of Jerusalem where it is JAMES, NOT PETER, who is the head.
So where was this mysterious papal infallibility from the age of the Apostles to the end of the 7th Council?
Ioannes, The real nifty thing about the papacy, infallibility, and the development of dogma is never having to say you’re wrong. The old dogma can be “reinterpreted”. Or it can be destroyed.
Please tell me what happened to Limbo?
Prior to the recent RC CCC you found Limbo in all the Catechisms and RC Encyclopedias. I have a couple books dedicated entirely to it. One written right before Vatican II (by a Jesuit with all the official approvals from higher ups) said it was a dogma waiting for a final papal pronouncement. Just read a good pre-Vatican II RC Encyclopedia and study the entry on “Limbo”.
But poof, with the wave of the magic wand, JP II sent Limbo into limbo! Where, oh where did all the babies there go? Or are we to guess they were never there in the first place because the place didn’t exist and the Magersterium was wrong about Limbo? That is what sucks about infallibility, you can never admit to being wrong.
St. James fled Jerusalem when it was destroyed. He is now venerated in a Catholic Church, not an Eastern Orthodox one, as Peter is the Head of the Church on Earth, and it would be better to force Orthodox bishops and monks to kiss the feet of the Pope and be his footstool.
See, the problem with people like Michael Frost (and at least a few months ago, irishanglican) is the genetic fallacy of appealing to accomplishment: “You must have studied this particular book that is biased towards favoring my position… in order for you to see how right I am and wrong you are.” Or an appeal to authority, which anyone can make on the internet. For example, I can say I have a degree in Patristics and Church History, and even then, people like Michael Frost can claim the same and what exactly does that accomplish?
His words has about as much authority as mine, because no one can truly guarantee the veracity of their identities on the internet- and so he can make a revised History that flatters the Orthodox and Protestant, and do so with Tolkienesque detail but it doesn’t make it any more true!
On the other hand, I EMBRACE the bloodshed that is necessary at times in the history of any group of people, because it is inevitable. No history is needed there; speech and written words are limited and mutable. Action is not, when executed.
Ioannes, As you can see repeatedly from my thoughts here, I’m very respectful of different theological opinions and beliefs. Doesn’t mean I always agree, but I try to see the world from their point of view.
I have NO problem seeing the wisdom, goodness, truth, and beauty that arises at various times and from various people outside of my faith group. You won’t hear me attacking historical Confessional Lutheranism/Melanchthon, Methodism/Wesley, Arminianisn/Arminius, Anglicanism/Laud & the Non-Jurors, Old Catholics/Dollinger, PNCC/Hodur, etc.
And I have the greatest respect for RCs like Erasmus, Catejan, Nicholas of Cusa, Bellarmine, Gerson, etc. I consider Molina a great gift to all of Christendom. HIs thoughts on contingent knowledge are the magnificent height of the best in speculative theology. Talk about taking the sovereignity and omniscience of God seriously! Calvin could only dream (he died around 1564, well before Molina). Sure, I’m not a fan of either Augustine or Aquinas, but I respect them both. Same for Jerome. I even can respect Leo, Gregory, and Nicholas (“the Greats”). And the name escapes me of the wonderful theologian at the time of Charlemagne whom I like. And while I consider them Orthodox, I have the utmost respect for John Cassian, the father of Western Monasticism & someone who realized Augustine had gone way too far in some things and Faustus of Riez, who also tried to temper the errors of Augustine in regard to predestination and the will (both living in 5th Century Gaul)
Don’t know where St. Jame’s body is buried and venerated. I’ll have to look it up and the history behind it. Wondering if Latin Crusaders, Genoans, or Venetians “stole” it and took it somewhere else? Like so much they stole from Constantinople and the Holy Land when they were terrorizing their fellow (Eastern) Christians.
The Christian Church is first and foremost about Christ. We are catholic because we are meant to be bringing Christ to the entire world. We are orthodox because God has promised that evil won’t prevail against the Church and we are meant to preach and teach and practice the Gospel.
I wish you’d stick to history on the papacy. An Ecumenical Council declares a pope a heretic. Emperors, not popes, called them. Popes didn’t attend. Councils, not popes, thru the intercession of the Holy Ghost brought the orthodox understanding of the Trinity, Incarnation, Virgin Birth, Dual Natures of Christ, etc. Patristic fathers wrote nothing directly supporting papal infallibility. Those are raw, hard facts RCs don’t like to face so they skip them and move to Vatican II and JP II. And if ANY of these facts are wrong, cite me which one and where!
Still hoping you’ll tell me where all the babies in Limbo went when JP II sent Limbo into limbo! The Magesterium did a major about face about this one!!! You should read the headline from the satirical publication, The Onion, about the pope limboing Limbo. Even the secular world notice when the old dogma was thrown out and replaced by new dogma.
Wishing you a safe and fun New Year’s Eve and New Year.
Ioannes, Of course the name came to me the second after I hit send. Hincmar of Rheims. Another RC I have great respect for and during the Medieval period.
Ioannes, With my apologies to the Crusaders, you really should study the fabulous fantastic fables and legends behind “James’ body being in Spain”. If you believe this, I have both a bridge in Brooklyn, the Crown of Thorns, and a “get our of purgatory free card” signed by a pope to sell you. Just a quick piece of info from Wiki…
“The translation of his relics from Judea to Galicia in the northwest of Iberia was effected, in legend, by a series of miraculous happenings: decapitated in Jerusalem with a sword by Herod Agrippa himself, his body was taken up by angels, and sailed in a rudderless, unattended boat to Iria Flavia in Iberia, where a massive rock closed around his relics, which were later removed to Compostela. An even later tradition states that he miraculously appeared to fight for the Christian army during the battle of Clavijo, and was henceforth called Matamoros (Moor-slayer). Santiago y cierra España (“St James and strike for Spain”) has been the traditional battle cry of Spanish armies.
A similar miracle is related about San Millán. The possibility that a cult of James was instituted to supplant the Galician cult of Priscillian (executed in 385) who was widely venerated across the north of Iberia as a martyr at the hands of the bishops rather than as a heretic should not be overlooked. This was cautiously raised by Henry Chadwick in his book on Priscillian;[6] it is not the traditional Roman Catholic view. The Catholic Encyclopedia of 1908, however, states:
“ Although the tradition that James founded an apostolic see in Iberia was current in the year 700, no certain mention of such tradition is to be found in the genuine writings of early writers nor in the early councils; the first certain mention we find in the ninth century, in Notker, a monk of St. Gall (Martyrologia, 25 July), Walafrid Strabo (Poema de XII Apostoli), and others. ”
The tradition was not unanimously admitted afterwards, while numerous modern scholars, following Louis Duchesne, reject it. The Bollandists however defended it (their Acta Sanctorum, July, VI and VII, gives further sources). The suggestion began to be made from the 9th century that, as well as evangelizing in Iberia, his body may have been brought to Compostela. No earlier tradition places the burial of St James in Hispania. A rival tradition places the relics of the Apostle in the church of St. Saturnin at Toulouse; if any physical relics were ever involved, they might plausibly have been divided between the two.
The authenticity of the relics at Compostela was asserted in the Bull of Pope Leo XIII, Omnipotens Deus, of 1 November 1884. The Catholic Encyclopedia (1908) registered several “difficulties” or bases for doubts of this tradition, beyond the late appearance of the legend:
James suffered martyrdom[Acts 12:1-2] in AD 44. According to the tradition of the early Church, he had not yet left Jerusalem at this time.[8] St Paul in his Epistle to the Romans written after AD 44, expressed his intention to avoid “building on someone else’s foundation”,[Rom. 15:20] by visiting Spain[Rom. 15:23][15:24], suggesting that he knew of no previous evangelization in Hispania. The tradition at Compostela placed the discovery of the relics of the saint in the time of king Alfonso II (791-842) and of bishop Theodemir of Iria. These traditions were the basis for the pilgrimage route that began to be established in the 9th century, and the shrine dedicated to James at Santiago de Compostela, in Galicia in Spain, became the most famous pilgrimage site in the Christian world. The Way of St. James is a tree of routes that cross Western Europe and arrive at Santiago through Northern Spain. Eventually James became the patron saint of Spain.”
This is the utterly silly make believe that so permeated the Medieval RCC. Thank God for Luther and the Reformation in regard to Relics!
Ioannes,
I wished that it was as simple as to be either a catholic or a protestant, but indeed in this inperfect
world and inperfect church it does not seem to be possible. As I mentioned previously I do know some of the Bishops/Vicar Generals ,who signed the petition in Portsmouth on a personal level
and I cannot accept it that you call them lukewarm Christians. They were either pushed into
signing the petition and at the same time being misled by their Archbishop. There were off
course also Bishops present in Portsmouth, who had the desire to become Roman Catholics.
The petition in question is not a binding legal document, it is natural for people to have doubts
after they have signed such a document like that. The crunch really comes when the likes
of some of the Australian Anglican Clergy, who have joined the Ordinariate make the
declarations in front of the ordaining Roman Catholic Bishop. Your declaration is then made before God. Writing something or signing anything is dead easy, but making the oath in front
of God , yes , that is a different matter.
I wish you a Blessed Sunday.
Father Ed Bakker
What about signing something on the altar while wearing your mitre? Isn’t that like making an oath in front of God?
To be fair, Mrs. Gyapong…
You and I or anyone can wear mitres and it would be meaningless regardless of what we do at the altar. I don’t think we can force them to accept anything. They’ll come when God wills it- unfortunately what they will is not necessarily the same as what God wills, in the same way God wills the Unity of All Christians, but everyone wants it done under their own conditions. If the Holy Father does not declare for all Catholics to hunt down all the non-Catholics and herd them into our churches, bound with ropes, I suppose we really can’t think about anything like that at the moment, much less formulate a plan to that end. If the Holy Father wishes us to pray for Christian Unity, then by gum I will always have that in my mind during Mass and my private devotions.
As a cradle Catholic, I can only rejoice at those who joined the Ordinariates, and support the Ordinariates with what little I have.
I keep remembering various analogies about swimming the Tiber, and boarding ships, and so forth but I like the analogy of a train. These bishops want to save face for buying tickets on the Ordinariate train they did not board. They wish to portray themselves as having done any business with the Ordinariate only at gunpoint, fearing Hepworth’s wrath or something?
This is just silly. I have no idea if Hepworth is this brilliant, manipulative arch-villain everyone portrays him to be, but if this man is sincere and innocent, and thinking of nothing but good, he has to bear his suffering and be reconciled with hardship- It may ruin him on Earth, but God knows what good he did.
Good morning Deborah,
I hear what you are saying, but as Bishop Brian Marsh said , it is just a petition.I said before that a number of Bishops were mislaid and a number were pressurized to sign. Again
having known a number of the personalities, who signed , I still confirm that their
Catholic Faith is NOT lukewarm.Let all parties , i.e. the Ordinariates and the Continiuum now get on with their Mission in the name of Christ.
Have a good Sunday
Father Ed Bakker
Yes, fatheredbakker, it is simple; it gets complicated because we want it to be. It doesn’t have to be complicated, but it requires a great deal of honesty and courage.
“…let your speech be yea, yea: no, no: and that which is over and above these, is of evil. ” (Matthew 5:37)
1. Do you deny the authority of the Roman Pontiff?
2. Are you a member of the Eastern Orthodox Churches?
3. Do you deny all of teaching authority vested in the Catholic Church?
4. Is Christ truly present in Bread and Wine during the Sacrifice of the Mass?
5. Do you believe that one must have works as well as faith?
These are some of the basic questions determining Catholicity or Protestantism, but I think the most important are: 1. The authority of the Pope. 3. Magisterial authority. 4. Real Presence.
———-
Fine, so let’s kiss or hold hands and pretend that didn’t happen. I confess to you all, that happened between me and a girl I liked, and afterwards, there was only awkwardness and the constant avoidance of eye contact- she’s happily married now, with 2 kids, and here I am, posting comments on the internet. Were I that young man again, I would have been proud and passionate about my actions, with no regrets and my whole being would be put into it regardless of what anyone thinks or says! Love is in the WILL! It’s not a weak and insecure thing like an momentary emotion or something that came out of boredom! It is passionate and full of ardor!
By lukewarmness, I mean to say the sort of waffling that happens afterwards. I am passionate about the Ordinariates. Msgr. Steenson stated that people like me (Traditionalists) have no place in the Ordinariates, BUT THAT DOESN’T MATTER TO ME, because I know they’re Catholics like myself. Being lukewarm is being complacent. Did these bishops desire to be Catholics? How badly do they want to be Catholics? Are they making all sorts of conditions for themselves before they plunge headlong into the Catholic Church?
If they weren’t lukewarm about anything, how could they let -anyone- determine the fate of their immortal soul? When they’re being judged by God, will they keep pointing at Hepworth, or the Pope, or some other person? If they’re Protestants, fine! If they want to become Catholics, or want the Pope to recognize them as such, fine! But at least be clear! I just don’t see it in this letter by Bishop Marsh trying to “clarify” things. He doesn’t want to make people angry, first and foremost. And he seems to use the “I didn’t know” excuse. My reaction is “What?” How could these people not know? Is it an issue of technology? This is just mind-boggling, but for intents and purposes, at this stage, the TAC is not in communion with the Catholic Church. If they’re protesting something, they’re Protestants.
Ioannes,
You quoted Matthew 5:37 and I could not agree more with its contents. Therefore
I repeat that if I had been one of +John’s Vicar Generals, I would not have
been prepared to sign the petition and the Roman Catholic Cathechism.
So yes , I deny the authority of the Pope. No I am not Eastern Orthodox.
I dont accept the Magisterial Authority , whether infallable or ordinary.
I DO believe in Christ’s presence in Bread and Wine in the Sacrifice of the Mass and I believe that one must have works as well as faith.
Going back to Portsmouth again ,the Petition in question was not a clear
and straight request for all the Bishops and Clergy and faithful of the
TAC to convert to Roman Catholism for the sake of Union. You cannot label
clergy, who pulled out as ” lukewarm”.If you are calling all the Bishops who pulled out ” lukewarm” including Bishop Michael Gill, who is Father Smut’s Bishop, you need to give them the opportunity to explain.
Bishop Gill and some of the others including Bishop Marsh do not
need to give me any explanation why they pulled out, because I understand
the reason. I have referred your comments to Bishop Gill, he may or may not
wish to respond.
Furthermore I dont think that the present TAC wishes to be recognized by
Rome, even if they were dreaming about it, it will never happen. As Bishop
Brian rightly puts it… we are doing God’s work in another part of
the vineyeard.
On a final note , as an Anglican Catholic Priest I am definately not a Protestant.Back in New Zealand when I was a TAC Postulant , I got special
permission to join the Roman Catholic Parish locally for a training period
and the late Roman Catholic Bishop of Christchurch gave me permission in
writing to receive the Blessed Sacrament.I went to see the Bishop for an interview prior to the permission given , I explained that I believed in the real presence and that there was no local Church for me.
On this note , I close my contribution to this discussion, because there
are issues I have to deal with.
With every good wish in Christ,
Father Ed Bakker
fatheredbakker:
You believe in the Real Presence of Christ in Bread and Wine at the Sacrifice of the Mass.
THIS IS A GOOD START! Whatever happens, please don’t stop believing in this!!!
Without the Real Presence, the Papacy, Magisterial Authority, and everything else are pointless.
it seems to me that people didn’t genuinely know what was going on at Portsmouth. Someone should’ve been more critical, but that’s in the past. What will people do now? Apply to become an Orthodox Church? Hope that either Rome or Canterbury bow down to the TAC? I guess we’ll see this in the future.
I’m not going to get on anyone’s case anymore on this topic.
Ioannes, If you read pretty much every major serious Reformational Confession carefully, in their own way, they all accept a “real presence”. I think Luther, Melanchthon, Cranmer, Calvin, Bucer, and Wesley all accept the real presence of Christ in and thru the sacrament of the Eucharist. What they and the Greek Church don’t accept is “transubstantiation”. So Lutherans prefer something like “consubstantiation”. EOs just accept the awesome mystery that is the Eucharist but we have a clear epiclesis in our Eucharist so we make a statement about the source of this mystery.
I’d be surprised if Fr. Ed accepted the sacrifice of the mass on behalf of the dead, whose souls are “currently” being tormented in purgatory and who need indulgences to get out quicker, with these indulgences controlled by the Roman pope and his Church. I’d also wonder if he accepts paid and other private masses said entirely on behalf of the dead.
When you say sacrifice of the mass and real presence as an RC, it comes with a complete set of theological meaning that is held in toto only by your Church.
Fr Ed:
The various bishops, priests and laity who left churches in the Anglican Communion to form churches in what became the TAC did so for a reason. One presumes that there was considerable hardship involved in so doing and therefore that the individual and collective decisions were not taken lighty nor for any unworthy motive, but because of a deep conviction that the particular church they were leaving had fallen so far into error that they cound not in conscience remain.
How could any church fall so far into error? It could only be because it was not the true church. The true church cannot fail – Matthew 16: 13-19
“And Jesus came into the quarters of Cesarea Philippi: and he asked his disciples, saying: Whom do men say that the Son of man is? But they said: Some John the Baptist, and other some Elias, and others Jeremias, or one of the prophets. Jesus saith to them: But whom do you say that I am? Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.”
Those who at Portsmouth signed the Catechism of the Catholic Church and followed though on that act did so because they came to realise the validity of the Petrine promise.
Those who signed but did not follow though will have had their reasons. You wrote earlier on this thread:
“Whilst as an Anglican Catholic I believe a certain number of things, I can assure you that purgetory [sic] and the ascension of Mary into Heaven and the infallibility of the Pope for instance are dogma’s and docrines I dont believe in.Hence the reason that I do not wish to become a Roman Catholic”
That’s clear enough. There are some elements of Catholic belief you accept, others you do not, therefore you could not in conscience become a Catholic and nor could you have signed the Catechism of the Catholic Church to signify your acceptance of doctrines which are repugnant to you.
But what I do not understand is how those who did sign the catechism to signify acceptance of the teaching of the Church could backtrack for what seem to be “organisational quibbles” – the “we thought we were going to received as a body keeping own hierarchy” argument.
It is precisely because each individual has to wish to be received that this was impossible. One cannot simply arrogate to a King or an Archbishop, Bishop or Parish Priest the power to transfer human souls from one church to another. That was what Henry VIII and Cramner sought to do in England.
But just as it must be apparent to you that the various constitutent churches of the Anglican Communion have strayed so far that in effect the gates of hell have prevailed – what guarantee do you have that all the little offshoots of the TAC will not suffer the same fate? One can hardly regard the Affirmation of a group of disaffected Anglican clergy in St Louis as an equivlent guarantee to that given by Our Lord to Peter.
Ioannes, Just in case you’re not up to speed on the RC dogma of Limbo and the changing Magesterial teaching about same (involving your greatest theologians and your western councils) over the milennia. Today Rome believes it has figured out a way to change official dogma without making it look like it changed the official dogma. Just some fyi from Wikipedia:
“Saint Augustine of Hippo held that because of original sin, “such infants as quit the body without being baptized will be involved in the mildest condemnation of all. That person, therefore, greatly deceives both himself and others, who teaches that they will not be involved in condemnation; whereas the apostle says: ‘Judgment from one offence to condemnation’ (Romans 5:16), and again a little after:” The Council of North African bishops, which included Augustine of Hippo, held at Carthage in 418 did not explicitly endorse all aspects of Augustine’s stern view about the destiny of infants who die without baptism, but the Latin Fathers of the 5th and 6th centuries did adopt his position, and it became a point of reference for Latin theologians in the Middle Ages.
In the later medieval period, some theologians continued to hold Augustine’s view. In the 12th century, Peter Abelard (1079–1142) said that these infants suffered no material torment or positive punishment, just the pain of loss at being denied the beatific vision. Others held that unbaptized infants suffered no pain at all: unaware of being deprived of the beatific vision, they enjoyed a state of natural, not supernatural happiness. This theory was associated with but independent of the term “Limbo of Infants”, which was forged about the year 1300. If heaven is a state of supernatural happiness and union with God, and hell is understood as a state of torture and separation from God then, in this view, the Limbo of Infants, although technically part of hell (the outermost part, “limbo” meaning “outer edge” or “hem”) is seen as a sort of intermediate state.
Saint Thomas Aquinas described the Limbo of Infants as an eternal state of natural joy, untempered by any sense of loss at how much greater their joy might have been had they been baptized. He argued that this was a reward of natural happiness for natural virtue; a reward of supernatural happiness for merely natural virtue would be inappropriate since, due to original sin, unbaptized children lack the necessary supernatural grace. In regards to baptism of desire, Aquinas stated that only adults were capable of this, and this view seemed to be accepted by the Council of Florence, which quotes Aquinas in its Eleventh Session concerning baptism of infants. The natural happiness possessed in this place would consist in the perception of God mediated through creatures. As stated in the International Theological Commission’s document on the question:
Because children below the age of reason did not commit actual sin, theologians came to the common view that these unbaptized children feel no pain at all or even that they enjoy a full, though only natural, happiness through their mediated union with God in all natural goods (Thomas Aquinas, Duns Scotus). In some ways, this state bears a strong resemblance to the goal of Ignatian spirituality—seeing God in all things—and would be a form of happiness rarely attained by any human walking the earth.
The Ecumenical Council of Florence (1442) spoke of baptism as necessary even for children and required that they be baptised soon after birth. This had earlier been affirmed at the local Council of Carthage in 417. The Council of Florence also stated that those who die in original sin alone go to hell.
John Wycliffe’s attack on the necessity of infant baptism was condemned by another general council, the Council of Constance.[19] The Council of Trent in 1547 explicitly stated that baptism (or desire for baptism) was the means by which one is transferred ‘from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace….’”
So, what exactly is the point of all this, that I’m going to Hell because your opinions are correct, and I am wrong- there’s nothing more disingenuous as respecting an opinion you disagree with! It’s like saying “Freedom of religion exists” when it’s a masquerade for “Freedom to be wrong”! There can only be one Truth, not many Truths, and the fullness of Truth can only be found in the Catholic Church as headed by the Supreme Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ, who is also the Successor of Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, not James, whose body is nowhere to be found, but in Spain.
I can certainly say that the Orthodox cannot go into Heaven outside the communion with the Pope, regardless of the kissing and the nice, respectful dialogue that really amounts to nothing! Maybe, through God’s mercy, they can- but I certainly see saints like Jerome and Pope Pius X and Augustine having a fit with people who have looked down on the Latins in History!
To say that we can all easily “Get along” IS A LIE. Differences exist, even among your Orthodox churches, and to ignore these differences is a failure to admit that anything is wrong. How can you address a problem, in order to solve them, when people are pretending there is NO problem?
So, Michael Frost, you can pile heaps and heaps of citations from Church Fathers, both East and West, (like St. Gregory) talking about how evil or stupid us Roman Catholics are, and you can use our Catechism against us, a technique best favored by atheists when talking to us about the inconsistencies of our faith, you can recommend the writings of the “Reformers” BUT IT CHANGES NOTHING! It can only harden my heart, and the hearts of your opponents so to strengthen our resolve, for when the time comes that even the Orthodox collaborate with secular powers and hunt down those loyal to the Pope, the acts of people like Ante Pavelić become justified. It is the inevitable truth. Just as the Eastern Orthodox persecuted the Oriental Orthodox, the moment Eastern Orthodox churches like the Russians take power, persecution becomes inevitable, even outside of Russia, where at the moment, Catholics are persecuted.
“I can certainly say that the Orthodox cannot go into Heaven outside the communion with the Pope…”
Bloody hell.
…Unless God says otherwise, when we’re dead and everything else is revealed to us. He has final say, but such exceptions outside the norm is what we call a “miracle”. You can either hope for it, despair in it, or join the Catholic Church and follow its laws as the surest way. If you end up in Heaven despite not being Catholic on Earth, you are in Heaven -in spite of- having existed outside the Church, and not -because of- it. If you are in Heaven, though, you would instantly be Catholic, because in the Communion of Saints, there can be no division, though there is some semblance of individuality or personality retained, yet only perfected in how God intended each person to be.
No doubt, since this isn’t in the Bible, “It must be false” says the Protestant. Well, the Nicene Creed isn’t in the Bible either, with its extra-Scriptural language such as “The Holy Trinity”. And if the Nicene Creed is derived from Scripture, what’s stopping interpretation of the Nicene Creed? Rejection of the intellect (Ergo, logic and reason) as a necessary component of truth, leading to Obscurantism and ignorance. Not to say that revealed truth is inferior- if God Himself appears before us and reveals us the correction of the Nicene Creed, then who are we to argue? But if God gave you a brain, why not use it?
Here’s Lumen Gentium #14, in case you have Catholics telling you you don’t have to convert and talking about what “Vatican II says”.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html
Ioannes, My point is simple. The RCC has constantly changed and dramatically so over various eras. And this includes its dogma. You and I can see this play out in regard to Limbo. Now you have it, now you don’t. (Bad theology based entirely on human reason and logic, not the Grace of God by His Holy Ghost leads to such changes.) Two primary changes, however, are consistent over the past 1500 years. First, increasing the power of the pope, which culminated in his personal infallibility (1870). Second, increasing the scope and role of Mary. Thus her immaculate conception (1854) and Assumption (1950) in addition to her immaculate heart and the ongoing move to make her co-mediatrix.
Sadly, both work to lead believers away from Christ and the Gospel, which is why the Reformation was such a necessary corrective. If only Rome would’ve worked with Luther then rather than waiting almost 500 years to surrender. Today, Luther has so much of what he knew the Christian Church needed (a renewal of the theology of justification, the bible translated from the original langugages, the bible in the hands of the faithful, the liturgy refocused on Christ and in a language accessible to the faithful with communion in both kinds, married clergy, dropping purgatory, indulgences, relics, and the other forms of works-righteousness, etc.).
Mr. Frost, while you seem much more interested in bashing the Catholic Church than in the possibility of the eternal salvation of unbaptised babies, there is a recent theological commision report on the status of the same on the Vatican website:
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html
It seems much more thoughtful than your rants.
Andrew, Discussing theological issues and church history is hardly bashing or ranting. Nor is discussing a reliance upon human reason and logic as expressed thru Medieval Scholasticism. The point remains, why the endless need of the Roman Church to speculate on these issues? Catechisms change. Commissions study issues. The speculation never ends and can never end…unless and until the Holy Ghost reveals.
I’m not the one changing dogma from all unbaptized infants go to Hell (Limbo) into all unbaptized infants go to Heaven (thru purgatory?). EOs haven’t dogmatized the issue nor spent a lot of time discussing Gregory of Nyssa’s ancient speculations that set this off. We are called and will be held accountable for evangelizing all nations and peoples in the knowledge of and faith in Jesus Christ, Lord, Mediator, and Savior of
For me personally, I suspect the reality is somewhere in the middle: there is no Limbo and no purgatory, and not all go to Heaven and not all go to Hell. And I say this using the speculative theology of one of your RC giants, Molina, and his thoughts on middle knowledge and the contingent knowledge of an omniscient God. If you haven’t read him, you really should.
You are discussing theological issues so long as you can take the opportunity to bash the Roman Catholic Church. Do not deny it, because you are making yourself look like a disingenuous fool for every denial of your hatred of the Catholic Church as you throw our beliefs back to our faces as you use them for your ammunition. Your own inconsistent premise of not relying on reason and logic betrays your own feeble attempts at using them. You are in fact so hateful of the Roman Catholic Church that you would rather betray your own principles rather than let the Roman Catholic Church believe what they believe.
Who is to say that the Orthodox never changed their positions? We’re not the ones ordaining women deacons now. Nor are we a member of the “World Council of Churches.” whatever that is, considering the anti-ecumenism rants we get from the Uber-Orthodox on the net. We’re not the ones who collaborated with ATHEISTS and MUSLIMS. For all this boasting that your traditions are older than the “innovations of Catholics” when Orthodox traditions have depended on pagans and other non-Christian line of thought! (And even Thomas Aquinas, imagine that!) Are we going to pretend that the Byzantines didn’t call themselves “Greeks” out of the embarrassing fact that they were Greeks who mysteriously stopped being neo-Platonist pagans and suddenly became Christians and preferred to call themselves “Romans”? Are we going to pretend that Volodmir of Kiev who in one day was a barbaric heathen, was the next day is a saint? One who converted, not because of faith or reason, or logic, but because Byzantium was the shinier place, the more materially wealthy! Let’s talk about your Arian Patriarchs, shall we? What about your Iconoclasm? Oh, and your most Christian treatment of the Copts and Armenians! So much for “Ancient Orthodox Tradition!” The Orthodox changed their positions a lot. It was only a matter of time before they got beheaded by Turks or shot by communists when their attempts to weasel out by frequently changing their explanations of what they believe reached a breaking point and they can no longer be stooges of some Sultan or other despot. (Remember, the Patriarch of Constantinople was just a civil servant! The Emperor treated him as such.)
And then we’re going to pretend that people like the Old Believers and the New Calendarists don’t exist? Give me a break! If you want “Pristine Orthodoxy”, go live with Russian Old Believers and see how happy you are. Your Orthodox Church is as much a product of change as Roman Catholic Church is- it’s just that we have a Pope to rally under. You have an oligarchy that have failed to support the arts and sciences because they’re stuck in 1053 or 1204 so they can show us evil Franks/Latins/Westerners how morally superior they are by constantly repeating how morally inferior we are. We developed universities; our clergy developed the Heliocentric system and invented genetics. Your bearded clergy encouraged backwardness and retained abject poverty and xenophobia. Though humanism has gotten out of control nowadays, you cannot deny that human progress came from CATHOLIC WEST rather than ORTHODOX EAST and that is why you hate us, and struggle so mightily with your logic and reason to prove that logic and reason is bad. But it’s all in vain, you will only have more Pussy Riots in your churches.
Suffice to say, you are as bad as those monks at Mt. Athos who are disobedient to the Patriarch of Constantinople. How can divided “Autocephalous” churches be surprised that they will have rebellion from their own ranks when they themselves recognize no higher leader on Earth? It’s the SSPX sort of situation, where there can only be greater rebellion and dissent from a lack of singular authority. The sort of theology devoid of reason and dependent of the experiential is the reason why “Orthodox Lands” are so backwards and their leaders corrupt- Haven’t you noticed? Russia had what was basically slavery until the first world war; they certainly don’t have Catholic, Spanish colonial masters to blame- they have the Eastern Orthodox Church to blame. (No surprise that Orthodox now concoct conspiracy theories involving Jesuits hiding from the shadows and kidnapping Orthodox children to sacrifice them in Catholic churches. And world domination. It’s like straight out of Jack Chick Tracts!) Then all of those Slavic nations fell -so easily- into atheism. It wasn’t until Poland and Hungary (Catholic nations) started their own rebellion that Communism crumbled. Why? Because the weak and passive theology of Orthodox Christianity, which seeped into the ignorant serfs of Orthodox lands was easily wrecked by atheistic material dialectic which had their roots in Protestant higher criticism and rebellion from the Catholic Church. And yet you advocate for the Orthodox to “rediscover” Reformed theology?
What ever happened to your demand that I tolerate other (meaning -your-) religion? What ever happened to to the freedom that you are willing to apply for yourself but not to your enemy? Do you believe that everyone’s religion is valid? If not, why do your orthodox churches join “World Council of Churches”? Are you going to arbitrarily label “Those churches” as “not orthodox after all”? You are just a member of a fringe “Eastern Orthodox” group, which will -never- be relevant beyond your little circle of anti-Catholics or ethnic enclave. And that is why you hate the Catholic Church; you are no different from Voltaire who exclaimed “Crush this infamous thing!” Because the reach of the Church is great and petty men are jealous of this, so they strive to crush it, throughout history. From Nero to Richard Dawkins. It seems to me you’re in good company.
I don’t believe in freedom to err, and by the fact that you are Eastern Orthodox makes you erroneous. If I did not believe that the Catholic Church headed by the Pope is the One True Faith, I should leave and apologize to everyone for advocating the Catholic Church. What proof do you have that you are Eastern Orthodox? For all we know, you’re just an atheist who hates the Roman Catholic Church- Only the Devil could hate the Church more! I find it -hilarious- that for all this big deal with regards to Protestants becoming “Orthodox” those groups have merely taken their rabid anti-Catholicism to a whole new level. They now can brag about their Apostolic succession as well! Perhaps you are one of those people- the other alternative was for you to have joined the SSPX and you’d still spew the same anti-Catholic, schismatic line of thought.
Oh, and for the record, when the Temple at Jerusalem was destroyed, Rome became the chief Christian community because it was the richest, which is why Peter and Paul stayed there and got martyred there, and why Constantine respected Rome even when he moved the capital to Byzantium. (And then we get the ridiculous “New Rome” and “Third Rome” wannabe attitudes the Orthodox have. There’s only ONE Rome, and it isn’t Moscow or Istanbul. Orthodox can go cry about it in their forums.)
What a thoroughly depressing “discussion”!
You’ve got a point there.