Angelqueen.org

[Roberta Fry]

This timely Question and Answer from Fr. Peter Scott, SSPX, is taken from the discussion group RomanCatholics@yahoogroups.com where it appeared this morning. Father Scott provides us with critical information and sound reasoning to form a proper sensus Catholicus regarding the Pope's latest effort to unite Catholicism with heresy.


Question: Can one be now Anglican and Catholic at the same time?

Answer: The November 4 Apostolic Constitution of Pope Benedict XVI opened up a new path for Anglicans “to be received into full Catholic communion individually as well as corporately” (Anglicanorum coetibus). It is a revolutionary new approach to the problem of “separated brethren”, and one which some have called the Church’s boldest move since the reformation.

The novelty here is that Anglicans are being treated in the same way as the schismatic Eastern Orthodox when they return to the true Church. They will be allowed to retain their Anglican identity at the same time as becoming Catholic. They will be canonically and liturgically distinct from the rest of the Catholic Church, and will consequently be allowed their own parishes, bishops, married priests, liturgical and spiritual customs. This is normal for the Eastern rite Christians who return from schism to the bosom of the Church, for their liturgy, spirituality and traditions are ancient, just as those of the Latin rite. Moreover, they are essentially schismatics, not heretics, the few heresies being of recent origin and easy to correct (such as the denial of Purgatory, the Immaculate Conception or Papal Infallibility).

Is this a just and correct analogy? A careful examination shows a multitude of differences:

1) There is first of all the motivation. The majority of those who request to enter into the Catholic Church have already separated themselves from the Anglican “Communion”, such as it is. They have done so not so much because of their rejection of Anglicanism itself, but because of the new orientation of the Anglican church since 1991, that has opened the priesthood and episcopate to women and active homosexuals, and blessed same sex unions, all of which are manifestly opposed to the Bible, foundation principle of Protestantism.

2) The second major difference is that Anglicanism has invalid orders and consequently no other sacraments than baptism and matrimony, unlike the Orthodox who have all seven valid sacraments.

3) A third difference is that Anglicanism is from its very origin entirely heretical and protestant. From the time of Thomas Cranmer down, all the Anglican divines embraces the theories of Luther and the other Protestant reformers. Anglicanism truly is a form of Protestantism, which is why intercommunnion with all protestant sects has always been accepted. If it is true that the Oxford movement in the mid 19th century, brought a return towards a more traditional form of spirituality, worship and piety, this was not a rekindling of interest in Catholic aspects of Anglicanism, for these never existed. It was a discovery of some of the treasures of the Catholic Church. However, these high church Anglicans, as they became called, did not follow Cardinal Newman’s conversion of 1845, but chose to stay Anglican. High Church Anglicans then did not have the courage to convert to the true Church, just as now.

4) A fourth difference and consequence of the fact that Anglicanism is a protestant sect, is that it has no doctrinal authority or unity. There are as many different brands of Anglicanism as there are Anglicans. It is this broad latitude that they like, so that each one can chose his religious practice for himself.

5) A fifth difference is that Anglicanism does not have the spiritual and monastic Tradition of the Eastern rites. It was the founder of Anglicanism, Henry VIII, who was responsible for the destruction of 1,000 monasteries in England. If in the past century some little effort has been made to form some religious communities, it is only by the rubbing off of some Catholic spirituality, not because it is an Anglican tradition.

6) A sixth difference is that there is in Anglicanism no liturgical uniformity. The entirely protestant prayer books of 1549 and 1661 pretended to give such uniformity, but they have been supplanted in recent years, and the high church Anglicans have in large part rejected or adapted them, following a variety of combinations between the new Anglican liturgy, and certain borrowed uses such as resurrecting the old Sarum rite in use in England before the Reformation, or the Tridentine rite in English, or the New Mass. There is no such thing as an Anglican liturgical Tradition, if it not be the 1661 prayer book.

Why, then, would the Pope be so determined to treat them in the same way as the Eastern Orthodox? He gives the explanation very clearly in this very Apostolic Constitution; namely the new definition of the Church of Christ given by Vatican II. It is said to “subsists in” the Catholic Church, rather than to be identical to it. It is for this reason that divisions among the baptized are to be considered as divisions within the Church, and are considered to harm the mark of unity that characteristizes the true Church. Hence it is that Benedict XVI states in Anglicanorum coetibus that “every division among the baptized in Jesus Christ wounds that which the Church is and that for which the Church exists”. Hence it is that unity amongst the baptized is an absolute to be sought after at any cost, so much so that it is now “unity in diversity“ that is the goal to be sought after. Traditional Catholic teaching makes the Faith, worship and sacraments the absolute, that determine the unity of the true and Catholic Church, as can be seen from the definition of the Church in the catechism. The separation of heretics and schismatics, as deplorable and sad as it might be, in no way harms the Faith, worship, sacraments and hierarchical authority because the Church of Christ is identical to the Roman and Catholic Church.

The consequences of this urgent need for a false unity with little real foundation cannot be acceptable to the Catholic mind. Hence are some of them:

Ÿ There is to be no conversion properly speaking, with abjuration of heresy, public profession of the Catholic Faith and absolution from the censure of excommunication. It is simply stated that the lay faithful “originally part of the Anglican Communion, who wish to enter the Personal Ordinariate, must manifest this desire in writing.” (IX) There is no admission of fault in being outside the one true Church, nor request to be admitted into the one true Church.

Ÿ There is no profession of Faith in any of the articles of Faith that have been denied by the Anglican church for 450 years. All that is required is the implicit acceptance of this statement: “The Catechism of the Catholic Church is the authoritative expression of the Catholic Faith professed by members of the Ordinariate”(I, §5) . This 1993 Vatican II catechism is quite ambiguous, especially on points of doctrine in which protestants disagree with the Catholic Church, and the implicit acceptance of this statement is something quite different than the oath condemning all the protestant heresies found in the Tridentine Profession of Faith of Pius IV.

Ÿ Anglicans are allowed to retain their Anglican liturgical books and prayers, their Anglican spirituality and pastoral customs: “The ordinariate has the faculty to celebrate the Holy Eucharist and the other Sacraments, the Liturgy of the Hours and other liturgical celebrations according to the liturgical books proper to the Anglican tradition, which have been approved by the Holy See, so as to maintain the liturgical, spiritual and pastoral traditions of the Anglican Communion within the Catholic Church” (III). The small proviso of approval by the Holy See does not take away from the profoundly novel character of this provision that considers anti-Catholic Protestantism and liturgy to be a tradition that is to be maintained within the Catholic Church. The document goes on to state that all of this is a “precious gift” and “a treasure to be shared”. What an insult to Catholics such as St. Thomas More, St. John Fisher and St. Edmund Campion who gave their lives rather than become Anglican, and to true converts such as Cardinal Newman, who willingly, but necessarily, abandoned the invalid, heretical protestant Anglican ceremonies to become true Catholics.

Ÿ Married priests are to continue to be a way of life in this ordinariate, as in the Anglican church. Married ministers who enter the Ordinariate can be ordained, and future priests who are already married can be ordained. This is a very effective way of undermining the treasure of clerical celibacy, one of the great outward signs of the Church’s holiness. If married bishops cannot be accepted, such men can become priests with jurisdiction of an Ordinary all the same (Cf. Note published by the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith on October 20), thus getting around the “problem“ of clerical celibacy that these Anglicans are not willing to embrace.

The tragedy of all this is that these Anglicans will be considered as Catholics and as Anglicans at the same time, thus blurring greatly the distinction between truth and error, Faith and infidelity, submission and independence. Cardinal Levada himself admits this, when he describes the tenuous and vague basis of this unity: “They have declared that they share the common Catholic Faith as it is expressed in the catechism of the Catholic Church and accept the Petrine ministry as something Christ willed for the Church. (What does that mean? Papal infallibility? Real power of government, or just a place of honor?) For them, the time has come to express this implicit unity in the visible form of full communion.” (Ib. in zenit.org).

If we must certainly fear that this acceptance confuse Catholics and only confirm these Anglicans even more in their false principles and traditions, we must nevertheless pray that they eventually truly convert to the full and entire practice of the Catholic Faith, outside of which there is no salvation.

[And now...]

[Vadis]

[gpmtrad]

[rebecca322]

There is so much misinformation in this post that I would recommend that the people really interested in the Traditional Anglican Communion - their intentions and beliefs do some homework. How I wish Michael Davies were still alive to see this come to fruition. He could tell you about Anglicanism but for starters go to

http://acahomeorg0.web701.discountasp.net/tac/tac_index.aspx.

This link should bring you to Traditional Anglican Communion homepage. If not just "google" Traditional Anglican Communion.

[CatholicThurifer]

[gpmtrad]

[archlayman]

http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/features/f0000491.shtml

[LogosTeen]

There is indeed quite a bit of misinformation in the post, but not in regard to Anglicans (well...there may be, but I just quickly perused the article, don't have time to read it fully right now, and so will comment only on the mistakes that immediately caught my eye).

Fr. Scott seems remarkably uninformed about the Orthodox. Merely schismatic? They deny dogmatic truths handed down to the Church by our Lord and His Apostles! Papal Infallibility didn't just fall out of the sky in the late 19th Century!

Secondly, Orthodox don't deny Purgatory - at least they don't deny anything that Catholics are required by faith to believe about the purgative process that occurs after death but before entrance into Heaven. Basically all we know (for sure, based on Church teaching) about Purgatory is that it is a place of cleansing of sin and that prayers are efficacious for souls there. The Orthodox believe the same thing; they simply wouldn't sign on to certain Latin theologoumena.

Thirdly, a disagreement about Papal Infallibility is NOT "easy to correct." That statement is just blatantly asinine. Compounded with the Orthodox Churches' refusal to acknowledge the Universal Jurisdiction of the Pope, I don't see why they are merely "schismatics" - they seem clearly to be out-and-out heretics, at least if the Catholic Church is going to be logically consistent about it. I mean, dogmas don't just pop up fully sprung out of nowhere - they have all been implicit since the founding of the Church.

Believe me, the 1000 year-long schism between the Orthodox and us Catholics is not easy to fix. Any priest who purports to say such a thing loses all credibility in my eyes.
_________________
Pax,
Logos Teen

[ghebreyesus]

Father Scott has been quoted to say:

[rebecca322]

Incorrect......

1) There is first of all the motivation. The majority of those who request to enter into the Catholic Church have already separated themselves from the Anglican “Communion”, such as it is. They have done so not so much because of their rejection of Anglicanism itself, but because of the new orientation of the Anglican church since 1991, that has opened the priesthood and episcopate to women and active homosexuals, and blessed same sex unions, all of which are manifestly opposed to the Bible, foundation principle of Protestantism."




It is incorrect to say that Anglicans wishing to unite with Rome merely are doing so because of the recent modernization of women priests, etc. The Traditional Anglican Communion was formed by many groups that have been fighting the modernization of the Anglican Church for decades. Very similar to traditional Catholics fighting the errors of Vatican II. The liturgy is very uniform.

Understand that this group of Anglicans are not "in communion" with the worldwide anglican communion. They are the Traditional Anglican Communion- a group of traditional Anglicans that are seeking communion with the Catholic Church- they are the "english expression of the Catholic faith".

[dcs]

[TKGS]

I have not seen the actual document, but is it safe to assume that the Anglican clergy involved will be [unconditionally] ordained by a Catholic bishop?

[dcs]

[St.Justin]

[fr.domenico]

[rebecca322]

Perhaps it would be of benefit to find out about the TAC and then continue the discussion. As a matter of fact it is known of at least one Priest of theirs does say the Sarum rite.

Their (the TAC) profession of their dogma and doctorine of the faith is the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Is that not good enough?

[Sydney]

I agree with rebecca322 - What more do you want?! The TAC bishops signed the Catholic Catechism!

As to their liturgical practices, have any of you actually looked at the "English Missal'? I have. I've seen a full size altar copy of it. What a beauty of a rite! It's basically the Tridentine Rite in English with a few additions here and there, and some Sarum rite hang-over. A product of the Reformation? Not really. More likely a product of Newman's Oxford Movement. And, to be honest, most of you would be more at home with Cranmer's English prose than ICEL's offerings. Edited to remove the heresies, some of Cranmer's English translations are a pleasure to read. Am I endorsing Cranmer here? No! But any person with a love of good English prose would have to - even grudgingly - admit that some of his writing flows beautifully.

John Henry Newman, pray for us!

[gpmtrad]

Sorry, Syd and Rebecca: Father nailed it.

Looks like somebody's just got to be "special", doesn't it?"

( Sorry for the sarcasm, but the fact is that ALL Catholics must renounce ALL allegiance to ANY heresy. Period. Otherwise, they're still heretics.)
_________________
Salus animarum prima lex

[Sydney]

Check your facts, gpmtrad. Start by getting a copy of the "English Missal" and (from a few years ago) the "Book of Divine Worship." You are attacking what is essentially a good English translation of the Tridentine Rite with a few interpolations.

There's too much attack going on here, without much idea of what is being attacked.

[Sydney]

You will also note, by the way, that the TAC bishops came to the table without imposing any conditions. They signed the catechism and left it up to Rome to decide how best to address their situation.

[gpmtrad]

[Sydney]

Clearly it does, since they signed the Catechism.

[fr.domenico]

[fr.domenico]

[Sydney]

fr.domenico:
"No since like nearly all post-Vatican II formulas, it contains errors and ambiguities."

Prove it.

"Yes the prose of Cramner flows beautifully- in fact it flows almost as well as the blood of the martyrs that he caused to be shed."

This is great rhetoric, but doesn't actually do anything to address the issue of whether or not it is a good, reverent liturgical translation.[/quote]

[Columba]

[Columba]

[Land of the Irish]

[Columba]

I have read parts of Cranmer's Godly Order by Davies. I doubt if I would disagree with anything in the book. Your response did not address either of my questions.

[Sydney]

Land of the Irish, I am not suggesting that we support Cranmer per se. I am merely suggesting that he produced SOME good translations of SOME Latin texts. The Book of Common Prayer contains translations of some of the pre-Reformation collects. Obviously Cranmer was not merely a translator, and that's where you need the services of a masterly theologian to scour the texts for heresy and edit it out. If the translation is high quality and conforms to the original Latin text, why the consternation? In some cases, the prayer itself may contain nothing heretical.

What of these?

ALMIGHTY God, unto whom all hearts be open, all desires known, and from whom no secrets are hid; Cleanse the thoughts of our hearts by the inspiration of thy Holy Spirit, that we may perfectly love thee, and worthily magnify thy holy Name; through Christ our Lord. Amen.

ALMIGHTY God, the fountain of all wisdom, who knowest our necessities before we ask, and our ignorance in asking; We beseech thee to have compassion upon our infirmities; and those things, which for our unworthiness we dare not, and for our blindness we cannot ask, vouchsafe to give us, for the worthiness of thy Son Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

[Land of the Irish]

[Land of the Irish]

[Sydney]

Don't refer me to Davies' book. I am not debating the Reformation with you. I am disputing whether a set of translations produced by Cranmer must be rejected - even if they are a good and accurate translation and/or contain nothing contrary to faith or morals - simply because they were written by Cranmer. Tell me where the heresy occurs in the collects I have presented.

[Seraphim]

[Land of the Irish]

[Sam]

[rebecca322]

This is a very interesting topic and it seems that those who have disdain for this group of Anglicans wishing to return to Mother Church I would say you must understand it in the context of today. I agree that some of the Cranmerization will be addressed but quite honestly the liturgy is very solid. Very holy. One should not criticize something they are not familiar with. Get the facts.

This group of Anglicans (TAC) are ready and willing to accept that which Rome has offered. Currently the TAC is facing enormous fall out from their decision to unite with Rome. Let's route for them and pray they make it. Our Holy Father will see them safely home.

[Seraphim]

[Sydney]

Well, Seraphim, that all depends really, doesn't it? It depends on who did the ordaining. I'm not for one minute here refuting Leo XIII's 'Quanta Cura', but in the wake of this document, many Anglicans decided to get co-ordained/consecrated by Utrecht-line bishops to ensure validity.

A friend of mine was an Anglican priest, converted, and is now a Catholic priest. I can call him an "Anglican priest" because, up until the 1980s (he tells me), Anglicans in the UK were using Utrecht-line bishops at ordinations etc to ensure validity. So one has to be careful, even in a post-'Quanta Cura' world about indiscriminately using the label 'invalid' for Anglican orders.

Sam, I can't remember which one of the early theologians everybody studies that went into heresy, but the fact that his writings are still used indicates something less than a 'fruit of the poisonous tree' attitude.

[Savonarola]

It's my understanding that the English Missal has absolutely nothing to do with Cranmer, and was, in fact, produced quite recently as a product of the Oxford Movement.

Here is a link to the English Missal side by side with the Missal of Pius V. Perhaps someone can illumine us as to where the heresies are.

http://home.comcast.net/~acbfp/knottmissal.html

[Savonarola]

Rev. Graham Leonard was ordained sub conditione.

Here is Cardinal Basil Hume's reasoning: http://www.angelfire.com/nj/malleus/hume_statement.html

[Columba]

[St.Justin]

[dcs]

[dcs]

[Sydney]

Thanks, dcs. That's precisely why I said it was a beauty of a rite!

[Land of the Irish]

[dcs]

[Deacon Augustine]

[St.Justin]