www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Traditional Anglicans Seek Union with Rome

Orders and mysteries performed by the Utrech group were originaly regarded as valid but irregular, and the orders of the Old-Catholics in Europe after the 1800's continued to be regarded as valid by Rome.

However, and even though there's no official statement by the Vatican, this is not the case of these Churches in America and England for many reasons:

They come from Jean Villatte who got a consecration by cheating a monophysite bishop in India. His "successors" were Rudolph Landas Berghes, an "Austrian noubleman" who had no training and religious knowledge at all, and Carmel Carfora who performed dozens of consecrations (who knows which are true).

The second source, in England, was Arnold Harris-Matthews, a crazy Englishman who claimed dozens of titles (nouble and religious). Among the men he consecrated are Rogers, an Afro-Caribbean man who didn't even have basic studies!

(For those who do not know, Carfora, an apostate Roman monk, was one of the first agents of the USSR in this Continent. He performed the consecration of Joaquin Perez Budar, a masonic priest hired by Mexican Revolutionaries to create an Independent Church, a copy of Lenin's Living Church in Russia. The Mexican Catholic hierarchy always treated this sect's mysteries and orders and graceless and null.)

Dear ProC:

That's why I had to revisit this post because, as I go along with these developments in the Anglican Communion and in those ecclesial communities claiming to have "traditional" Anglican-derived mimistries, there arise so many surprises!

The first TAC refers to themselves as "Traditional(ist) Anglican Christians" (and at this Cairo meeting, also, as the "Global South" ) and the second TAC refers to "Traditional Anglican Communion" as you explained but the latter is, in reality, a diverse and disparate group, from one extreme to the other end of Protestantism! There is no "traditional" about them in our normal understanding of the word.

It is getting more interesting, though!

Amado

dear Stephanos:

I well appreciate the theory about "Correct Lineage", but seems to me, one can argue and argue and argue and research and research and let's say even ostensibly prove "correct lineage" all one wants, but at the end of the day, if one do not profess an apostolic faith that is in agreement with that held by either the Catholic or Orthodox Communions, that "lineage" does not mean much and I (were I anyone important) would not receive any group into Communion based on pure lineage alone (i.e. without true faith).

That is certain the position, I believe, of the Orthodox churches on the validity of Anglican orders.

I'm not dismissing the importance of Apostolic Succession and all that that entails, but in this situation, I would first ask: do these Christians profess the Catholic/Orthodox faith? If not, any issue of ordinational lineage is moot, seems to me.

Herb

I want to touch on something that I am not sure has been brought up here.

This was discussed at another forum I participate on more than I do here.

The article says that the Traditional Anglicans seek intercommunion with the Catholic Church.

Not that they want to enter into communion wiht the Catholic Church.

I think intercommunion is different than entering into full communion with the Catholic Church.

Dear DavidB:

No, the point your raise HAS NOT been discussed here.

Yes, the TACs have been emphasizing "intercommunion" in their preparation for talks with Rome.

Even before it was affirmed recently by the 11th Synod of Bishops, the Catholic Church has said that "open" intercommunion with Protestants and other ecclesial communities is a no-no, except in extraordinary and special circumstances like in the case of the late Taize founder, Brother Roger, and of PM Blair of the UK.

So, I myself think that it is either "full communion" or "no, thank you!"

In the scenario of "full communion," I think that the TACs have been insinuating also that they will request Rome to allow them to have their own separate "Anglican rite!" Again, this seems to be far-fetched as we already have the "Anglican Use" under the Roman Rite.

Can you refresh us with what has been discussed in the "other" Forum?

Amado

No one was questioning that they would have to come to a correct Orthodox and Catholic understanding of the faith.
Stephanos I
Unworthy monk and arch sinner.

Amado,
It was mostly what little bit I read at the beginning of this thread.

All praise and hope, the talk of a possible Anglican rite being created and such things.

That is until I spoke up and stressed that intercommunion is not the same as entering into communion with the Church.

Intercommunion is the continuation of the error that has occured but with the approval of that error by the Church. They want to stay as they are but recieve communion of the Catholic Church.

This could never happen as the Church does not even recoginize their "orders" as valid. So how could we enter into intercommunion when we do not believe that they even have a true Eucharist.

The TAC is questioning this, why else use the word "intercommunion" which has a very specific definition?

As to the matter, form and intention of Holy Orders:

a) the matter - a baptized male human being of sufficient age (a newly - baptized infant cannot be validly ordained, even if some insane bishop were to attempt it) and an ordaining bishop who has himself been validly ordained;

b) the form: this is tricky, because the Church knows any number of ordination rites, many of which are still in use and others which were in use at one time but have fallen out of use. It must involve the laying on of hands by the ordaining bishop and a clear indication of the invocation of the Holy Spirit to raise the ordinand to the diaconate, the presbyterate or the episcopate. Just what constitutes this "clear indication" is open to discussion.

c) the intention - to do what the Church does. This need not include an awareness of what, precisely, that is!

The validity of Holy Orders - or any other Sacrament - is unaffected by the presumed bad morals of the minister of the Sacrament. Thus Carmel Henry Carfora's politics have nothing to do with the question of the validity of his ordinations.

Incognitus

incognitus,
Not sure what your getting at here, or who you are replying to, but that does not change the fact that Anglicans do not have the Eucharist.

So even if intercommunion was possible why would the Catholic Church want to enter into such a thing with a group who does not have the Eucharist?

As to the matter of a validly ordained bishop, to be such does there not need to be a mandate from the Church stateing that there is a need for a bishop and that bishop to actually function within the Church?

David B asks "As to the matter of a validly ordained bishop, to be such does there not need to be a mandate from the Church stateing that there is a need for a bishop and that bishop to actually function within the Church?"

No. There is a need for such a mandate in order for the consecration to be licit under Catholic rules, but it is valid even in the absence of such a mandate.

Incognitus

Has anyone defined "intercommunion"? I understanding being "in communion" or not being "in communion". But what exactly is intercommunion?

If it is sharing communion while you are not "in communion" it sounds like it contradicts itself?

the unworthy,

Elias

I suppose one might think that "intercommunion" is (if it is anything at all) an intermediate state between a breach in communion and full communion. A current example would be the relationship in the USA between the Catholic Church and the Polish National Catholic Church: members of one may receive Holy Communion from the clergy of the other, but the clergy may not concelebrate.

Theoretically one could imagine a higher intermediate state - this would allow concelebration by presbyters, but not by bishops!

Incognitus

That "intermediate state" could be a recognition by one, or by the other, or mutually by both in the divide, of something "shared in common."

From the point of view of the Catholic Church, as again affirmed by the 11th Synod, we share in the belief of the "real presence" of the Lord in the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist with the Orthodox Churches (Eastern and Oriental) and with the PNCC. Although, this "recognition" has not been reciprocated, except in a few places by the Antiochians and some other Orthodox (Eastern and Oriental) who I can't now recall.

Thus, Canon 844 (of the Latin Code) allows the reception of Catholic Holy Communion by the faithful of the above-named Churches ONLY (granting their own rules of reception are followed) and not by Protestants and other ecclesial communities. (Extraordinary circumstances allowed the reception by the late Brother Roger of Taize and by PM Blair of the UK.)

I foresee, therefore, that the TAC's request for "intercommunion" would not be smooth-sailing as these essentially Protestant groups perceive them to be.

The Eucharist is and remains central to, and the apex of, our Catholic (and Orthodox) faith! Protestantism, in general, seems to fail to grasp the significance of our apostolic beliefs.

This is a good "rule of thumb" to follow, I think!

Amado

If I may be allowed to offer a suggestion: it is well to be cautious about the use of unqualified assertions that the Anglican Communion does not have the Eucharist. It is true that the Catholic Church receives the teaching of Pope Leo XIII that Anglican Orders are null and void - but that does not necessarily mean that an Anglican celebration of the Eucharist is completely inefficacious.

Moreover, a careful study of Leo XIII's Bull Apostolicae Curae reveals that it is not altogether clear precisely what forms the basis of Leo XIII's conclusion. "Defect of form", as the Archbishops of Canterbury and York pointed out at the time, will not do. Defect of intention might well do, but not if Leo XIII was relying on an attempt to attribute "intention" to the rite itself rather than to the ordaining prelate. Please note: I am not accusing Leo XIII of error; I am saying only that this particular document lacks clarity.

Incognitus