Father Mike,

I'm virtually never away from the board for a full 24 hours. To return and see your posting was a bit of a shock and disappointment. But, I can see why you might do so.

Ah, an offer of blessings and prayers, how sad a comment from a priest ... even an Episcopal one ... nice touch David.

Let me offer, again, a comment I made earlier in this thread, anticipating that it was only a matter of time until someone posted this or a like observation on Father Mike's religious background. I know and understand the doctrine on the risks they take who, knowing the true Church, reject it, but ultimately it is God who will make such judgements, neither we as individuals nor the Church as an institution. I prefer not to second-guess Him.

Father Mike, I regret your decision to leave and hope that you'll reconsider it. A few of us older (whoops, I meant "mature") folks are a necessary evil here, to help the young ones keep things in perspective.

Whatever decision you ultimately make, I pray that God will grant you many years in His service and bless you and yours with health and happiness.

Neil

First a comment on the Fr Mike issue.

I take Neil's admonishment. I stepped over the bounds of charity with this comment and I beg forgiveness.

But I hold to my comment that the Truth is black and white and to say that there are shades of gray is a watering down of the Truth.

Here is where you go wrong, there is no such thing as Eastern Rite nor even a Western Rite.

There are 5 Rites. They are the Latin Rite,
Antioch Rite, Alexandrian Rite, Byzantine Rite, and Armenian Rite.

The Anglican tradition, that which would be compatible with the Catholic Church (they would have to drop their branch theology) would still be western and would fall under the Latin Rite, just as the Ambrosian and Mozarabic rites do.


David, the Byzantine Catholic

You forgot the Coptic Rite and the Assyro-Chaldean Rite.

ProCatholico and David,

Can I try and sort the semantics?

Firstly, ProCatholico, you are focused on the concept of a Church sui iuris. David, on the other hand, is suggesting (and I agree - for reasons I discussed above} that either a Rite or Usage is the more likely form to result from any substantial Anglican entry into communion with Rome. I think that's the underlying frustration for both of you in this discussion.

To David's point, if an Anglican Rite were established, it would be "a western rite" and, thus, would be situated within the Roman Catholic Church.

To ProCatholico's point, if an Anglican Catholic Church sui iuris were established, it would stand on its own, as do each of the existing 23 Catholic Churches sui iuris.

I think this is the valid point that ProCatholico tried to make when he offered the analogy to the Maronites.

Unfortunately, it's a bad analogy. The Maronites, like the Armenians, use a Rite that is unique to their Church. While the Maronites have their origins in the West Syrian Tradition of the Antiochene Rite, its further development in their isolated mountain locale took it so far from its origin as to result in its being viewed as a separate and distinct Rite by most. (The Armenian Rite had its origins in the Byzantine Rite.) BUT his point that there are 2 proper usages of the word "Rite/rite" is valid.

The Anglican Catholic Church sui iuris whch he proposes would be a western rite Church, in the sense that each Catholic Church sui iuris is of either a western rite or an eastern rite (notice the lower-case "rite").

No, but there are eastern rites and awestern rite (more, if you don't buy into my opinion that all the currently existing variations on it should today be termed "usages", a word that wasn't employed when they came into being).

western rite:

Latin

eastern rites (and their respective traditions):

Alexandrian
- Coptic Tradition
- Ge'ez Tradition
Antiochene
- East Syrian Tradition
- West Syrian Tradition
Armenian
Byzantine
- Byzantine-Greek Tradition
- Byzantine-Slav Tradition
Maronite

Hope this helps anyone to see the other's point, cause the arguments are becoming circuitous and making my head spin (Note to Administrator: we need an emoticon for that).

Many years,

Neil

Mexican,

The Copts are of the Alexandrian Rite; the Assyro-Chaldeans are of the East Syrian Tradition of the Antiochene Rite.

Many years,

Neil

Neil,
Close but....

What I am trying to say is what you have put forward but I go on to say that if an Anglican Catholic Church (sui iuris) were to be formed, it would still be of the Latin Rite, as there are many Churches that are of the Byzantine Rite, and that the patriarch under which the new Anglican Catholic Church would fall is that of the patriarch of the west, or the Holy Father.

So the Holy Father would actually end of being the head of two churches.

So there lays a problem, can there be a patriarch of a church who is elected by another church and is a member of another church?

David,

Thank you for finding a challenge, just when I thought I had it nailed .

Ok - I missed that, but I'll offer you a different perspective. Such a Church (unlikely though I consider the prospect for one) would be of or use a Rite that does not now exist and which might well be termed the "Anglican Rite." It would be a western (lower case) rite. One would have a situation like that of the Armenians or Maronites, where the names of Rite and Church are synonymous.

Now, as to the Western Patriarch issue - that's an interesting twist, which hasn't previously arisen because there has been no western sui iuris Church other than Rome. First, the Anglican Church sui iuris would not have to be a Patriarchal Church; I can see a Major-Archepiscopal or Metropolitan Archepiscopal status, at least initially.

Remember that the title "Patriarch of the West" is not cast in stone. His Holiness could easily be termed "Patriarch of Rome" or "Latin Patriarch of the West". (How many Patriarchs of Antioch are there? 5, I think, if one doesn't count a couple of vagantes.)

David - you said "there are many Churches that are of the Byzantine Rite, and that the patriarch under which the new Anglican Catholic Church would fall is that of the patriarch of the west, or the Holy Father."

that suggests that every Church sui iuris is under a Patriarch - which we know isn't the case. Of 14 Byzantine Churches sui iuris only one is headed by a Patriarch - and as wonderful as I believe our last 3 Patriarchs have been - I haven't seen any other Churches petitioning to be under His Beatitude Gregory III's omophorion.

Many years,

Neil

(P.S. Admin, Need that emoticon soon - the spinning head one )

Neil,
And now to really get that head spinning I will add a third possibility....

1) an Anglican Catholic Church (sui iuris)

2) a usage (or rite), the Anglican Usage, like the current Ambrosian and Mozarabic rites within the Latin Church (and Latin Rite)

3) a personal prelature like Opus Dei, sort of like how the traditional group in Campos, Brazil was reconciled with the Catholic Church (at least this is what I think they did).


David, the Byzantine Catholic

I guess I'll throw my two cents in...

I would tend to agree with David as liturgically the Anglican Use is just that a use, it is considered, quite rightly I think, an offshoot of the Roman Rite.

Ecclesiologically, the Latin Church sees sui iuris status a bit differently than the Eastern Churches. Each diocese is a Church sui iuris and above that only Provinces have a clear juridic standing and the Metropolitans' rights are clearly defined and quite limited. Patriarchs and Primates are honorary titles without any jurisdictional authority, unless one is talking about the Pope.

The Latin Church is one Church sui iuris with several Rites and Uses. The Archdiocese of Milan uses the Ambrosian Rite but is not a sui iuris Church in the sense any of the Eastern Churches are. The Archdiocese of Milan follows the Laitn Code of Canon Law and doesn't have any more autonomy from Rome than any other Latin Archdiocese.

To this we must consider how Rome does things. It has been reluctant to creat any new Eastern Patriarchates let alone a Western one. Negotiations with the SSPX have talked about the creation of a Personal Prelature for the Tridentine Use and this is the most I can see being done for the Anglican Use, unless a mass migration of Anglicans to Rome occurs and I just don't see that happening. (Campos is set up as an Apostolic Administration, a temporary measure until the SSPX is reconciled an the personal prelature erected in my opinion)

Also remember the Anglican Use is currently restricted to the US, the English Hierarchy didn't want it in England, nor do many US bishops in their diocese. Also many Episcopal priests and laity convert and simply accept the Roman Rite without seemingly wanting to continue with the Anglican Use.

Personal Prelature is what I see in the future.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Let me clarify my form of address for the Episcopalian clergyman. If he were born a Protestant and was on the Forum defending the truths of the Faith according to his light I would gladly address him as "Father", whatever my opinion on the validity of Anglican orders. On another thread I defended the Holy Father kissing the ring of the Archbishop of Canterbury and I would also defend his kissing the Koran. And I do appreciate the charitable tone of the Administrator's remarks. However it should be noted that the clergyman in question was raised a Byzantine Catholic. Only God can judge his motives for converting to the Episcopal church, though if he describes himself as a Ruthenian Catholic "in spirit" I doubt his experience was too traumatic. Nevertheless objectively , judging from his posts, he is at enmity with the Gospel. Objectively, his ministry confirms sinners in their sin to the detriment of their souls. There is no charity in pretending otherwise, though I know that religious liberals covet our acceptance. How can we pretend that any opinion is a valid option for Christians?
It should be noted that I was in fact very moderate in tone, I didn't call anyone a "viper' or suggest that they are children of Satan, the way our Lord addressed the religious leaders of His day. But then I think it possible that He would have been thrown off the Forum for His lack of charity...

Well said Daniel.

Daniel,

Thank you for your post. If only God can judge then why do you judge with your uncharitable remarks? Charity is the first rule of the Forum and if you cannot bring yourself to address a cleric by the title given him by his Church then I ask you to refrain from all participation in this Forum.

I do not believe that your posts were moderate in tone. They were rude and sarcastic. Such behavior will not be tolerated on this Forum.

If the Lord decided to post on this Forum He would of course be given free reign (which He already has). You are not the Lord.

Admin

I said only God can judge his motives. However, we are called to make right judgement concerning what he endorses. As he endorses episcopal consecration of a man who abandonded his wife and children and took up with another man I think it is a no-brainer. Am I missing something? Do you really think this is what our Lord [or St Paul?!] meant by "charity"? What next? What if the Episcopal church next endorses sex with children? Must we still accept their opinions in "charity"?

Objectively, one can in principle agree or disagree with virtually anything in a courteous fashion - indeed, a strenuous disagreement expressed in a courteous fashion is often more effective. Subjectively, however, most of us, being weak and sinful people ourselves, have various achilles heels which are apt to provoke us to discourtesy and wrath. Before posting the discourtesy and wrath, it's well to look carefully, a second time, and ask oneself just what may cause the reader to dismiss the point because of the packaging. Incognitus