www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Personal Prelature to be offered to Traditionalist Anglicans?

Father Stephanos:

Christ is in our midst!! He is and always will be!!

I think there is a great deal more to be done here than among Anglicans. Part of it has to do with the Lutheran idea of bishops that came out of a consultation about having clergy be able to move from one community to another. The Lutherans with whom I have discussed this issue think a bishop should be elected for a specific term and cease to be a bishop at the end of that term. That made it impossible for the Anglicans to enter a formal structure with them.

The Eucharist is another interesting issue. Lutheran practice in many areas here suggests that the consecrated elements return to their original state at the end of their Worship Service. They seem to have no trouble just putting them back into the box and putting the box back on a shelf. Or to returning any leftover contents of the chalice back into the bottle it was taken from. That's mind-boggling to me. This doesn't even begin to touch the theology of consubstantiation which Trent declared to be heretical.

But we're off on a tangent.

BOB

Bob
I am aware of the Lutheran "in usus" belief in the Eucharist.
I was just arguing for a type of liturgy based on the Lutheran Book of Worship, with a married clergy, to receive the flood of converts that are coming in the future.
Stephanos I
As a former Lutheran I would be happy to lead such a community.
Of course as a celebate. And obviously the liturgy would have to be revised to make it more in line with Catholic Faith.

Then why the delay? If submitting to Rome is sine quo non of salvation (as the CCC claims), then there is no reason for the delay, if they believe everything in the CCC.

And they would be joining the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostoic Church via Antioch, not just Antioch.

Don't see what the point of this post is. The TAC believes the CCC, that the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church subsists in the Churches in full Communion with the Bishop of Rome.

Part of the delay is to discern the intentions and priestly orders of individual clergy, some of the delay entails bureaucracy, and most of the delay regards the Pope's decision on how they will be accepted.

Why unnecessarily rush into this and create further trouble?

Well, if they really believe the CCC, then they must believe that their orders are invalid. Rome has already said so.

Mar Bawai Soro and his Assyrians (a church from the East, unlike the TAC and the Vatican, neither of which is in the Christian East, but I digress), once you clarify the murky reasons of why he and his followers swam the Tiber, did so well within 3 years. How long has TAC been knocking at the door?

Despite my open preference for the WRO, something here isn't passing the smell test.

The TAC is among the Anglican groups that responded to Rome's declaration by changing its Rite of Ordination and aquiring valid Orders from vagante Bishops. At least that's the case with some of their Bishops, Priests, and Deacons; there may be some who do not fall into that category. This, so far as I know, is part of the delay, or it will be part of a further delay, as an investigation must be made as to who must be ordained.



Mar Bawai Soro's group was in full conformity with the Chaldean Catholic Church, and sought to enter that Church directly and unconditionally. The TAC has certain irregularities, such as married Bishops, which complicate things even though they don't automatically invalidate such a reunion. They're also looking for something a bit different than simply becoming "vanilla" Latin Catholics; they'd like to preserve their pre-Trent Catholic traditions despite being a Western/"Latin" group. This wasn't an issue with Mar Bawai Soro because they were already totally "Chaldean" and didn't need a judgement to be made on whether or not they would retain their practices. Another thing to consider (and I don't know if this is absolutely true or not) is that Mar Bawai Soro sought approval of the Chaldean Church and its Patriarch, who's decision was then passed on to Rome; the TAC is dealing directly with the snail-paced Vatican.

So this issue is not a simple one, though it is clearly moving towards resolution, and certainly not towards a TAC-Orthodox union.

Peace and God bless!

Unfortunately we (or actually, you) are dealing with Anglicans. They have been "resolving" Calvinism and Catholicism for going on five centuries now.

You are right in that Mar Bawai Soro benefited by having his conditions already approved some centuries ago. The standard deal in the East (the Copts and Melkites alone I believe being shortchanged, their primate of Alexandria not being able to claim the title "pope" as his Orthodox correspondent), pretty much the same deal struck by Cramner in the first Book of Common Prayer. And therein lies the diffrence of why TAC signs its extinction if it signs on. The Eastern sui juris groups can be justified/dismissed as an ethnic peculiarity, which doesn't challenge the Vatican. But the TAC cannot: their liturgy is something formulated in contrast to the TLM, its usages, like married clergy, in contrast to the Vatican's.

The Latin rite can't stomach married priests: I've listened to how the "Eastern Catholic view" on this is lost (if it ever was there) in discussions on Relevant Radio, EWTN, etc. Hence the history of Archbishop Ireland, the Father of American Orthodoxy, and the ban of Cum Data fuerit still casts its shadow. But with TAC, there is no place to hide. No homeland to send married men to be ordained (England is Latin territory), no "seperated" churches to draw on (as Anglicans' corresponding rite under the Vatican rules on such things is the Latin rite. The personal prelature it would seem, as opposed to sui juris status, is in part to guard against the infusion that come automatically with conversions. And we all know, given the trend and situation in Anglicanism, more conversions down the Tiber and Orontes and Bospohoros are coming), no ethno-historical excuse for the exceptions.

So yes, I don't see a TAC-Orthodox union. More the pity and TAC's loss, as I think the delay has more to do with coming up with a scheme to contain TAC than to come up with a viable structure within the Latin rite. TAC isn't going to get its usage in perpetuity, if that is what it is after. They had better decide whether they like "vanilla" or not, because that's what is on the menu.

There seems to be an unnecessarily suspicious and distrustfulness of all things Latin in the above post. Do you honestly believe the WRO within the Antiochian Vicariate would accept married bishops without question?

The "Anglican Orders" are another reason for the delay - it is quite possible that these TAC bieshops were ordained by non-Anglican bishops. If this can be found - a link between Old Catholics or Scandinavian Lutherans - then the Pope wouldn't regard their orders as Anglican Communion "null".

In any case, I am sure the Antiochians wouldn't rush into ordaining any large group of protestants and making them priests and bishops without first properly catechisizing the faithful and doing some background checking.

Beware Greek bearing gifts, and Latins seeking union. Read the fine print.


I honestly believe the WRO within the Antiochian Vicariate would not accept married bishops, as bishops, at all.

Neither will the Vatican, Antioch is just up front about that.

The WRO have accepted married "bishops" as candidates for ordination to the priesthood.

The Vatican has done the same with Anglican priests. In fact, one of them has become quite the Apologist of the mandatory celibacy, even promoting the new mythology that the married clergy is the innovation.


Such things don't take forever, and if they did, they are suspect. Ordinations are public acts, there are records. The positions on Orders has been stated by the Vatican. It need only apply the rules.

I'm curious: has the Vatican issued a position on Swedish and Finnish orders? (it's not just Scandinavian orders: the Norwegian, Danes and Icelanders are with the rest of the Protestants).


No we wouldn't, but they would be in the catechumenate. How long is TAC planning on prolonging RICA?

According to the TAC primate Hepworth, they have been being catechized since they declared this intention.

And Rome hasn't been? Hepworth has stated his intention to resign should union occur, that means Rome has stated that married bishops most likely would not happen - perhap they have a widower or celibate among them?

Why take everything as suspect? The TAC has roots in the multiple Continuing Anglican groups, such as the ACA, ACC, ACCA, etc; some of these have Old Cath links, others don't, all accept an all-male sacrificial priesthood, but some have preserved the proper Rites, others have not. Which consecrators were true bishops, if any? Were they using the proper prayers to ordain or did they just lay hands? Were there any other issues involved? Was one or more of these ex-Catholic priests (like Hepworth), which could be problematic? -- These along with Vatican bureaucracy takes time.


Not that I'm aware. Icelanders had true priesthood until the State Lutheran Church was established, all who came under this formed State Church were Latin Catholic.

By the Catholic News Agency:

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=14963

Amado

Sounds like the Msgr. in the article Amado quoted just has his cassock (actually, it's probably just a clerical suit) in a wad. Too bad.

Alexis

He also said:

Sounds like he's unfamiliar with the aforementioned Mar Bawai Soro and his diocese entering the Catholic Communion last year.
Peace and God bless!

He also said:

I'm not buying it: if he could get EP Bartholomew and the Holy Synod to sign the CCC, he would be jumping on it as Florence II and insist that the Faithful follow their bishops (though the results would be the same).

Just read a brief bio posted by someone on Fr. Z's blog regarding Hepworth and multiple American TAC hierarchs, the gist of the "issue" is as follows:
TAC primate Hepworth is twice married - the first marriage took place in 1976 after his laicization from the Catholic priesthood, and ended in divorce. He remarried shortly after and became an Anglican. The first marriage was later annulled - unknown whether by the Catholic Church or by a tribunal within the Australian Anglican diocese of Ballaratsee under ultradox Anglo-Catholic hierarch John Hazlewood. When the Anglicans started ordaining women, Hepworth left to the "Continuing Anglican" movement and later was given episcopal standing.

According to this same blogger, 3 American hierarchs of TAC in the US are divorced and remarried.

This is why Rome is taking her precious time. Should they become Catholic, these divorced and remarried men and those who left the Catholic priesthood for TAC would probably be accepted as laymen, definitely not as bishops and probably not as priests.


Let's just say the EP and the Holy Synod don't have the same "difficulties" and "irregularities" as the TAC.