www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Episcopal Diocese Seeks to Unite With Rome

Not soon enough to suit me! I much prefer the Anglican mass to Novus Ordo. If there were a true Anglican Use rite then perhaps parishes would pop-up all over and more could attend.

Eric,

Let us hope that the creation of the Anglican Rite occurs in our lifetime.
As of late the ECUSA has split into several factions and Anglicans are left with many options open to them, as I have stated in an earlier reply. Let us continue to pray for their church.

ProCatholico

There is an Anglican Rite, it is called the Anglican Use Liturgy.


David, the Byzantine Catholic

David,

If you had read my previous posts you would realize that I made a distinction in the calling for the formation of an Anglican RITE (sui juris). The current Anglican Use Liturgy is the only approved variation of the Latin RITE in the United States thus not a particular sui juris RITE. Hope you understand.

God Bless,

ProCatholico

I'm not sure I know what a "sui iuris rite" is, but here's an idea: how about offering Anglicans a sui iuris Anglican Church within the Catholic Communion - some of whom can follow an Anglican Rite and some can follow a more Latin Rite (as some Anglo-Catholics presently do).

Christ is Born.

Herb

ProCatholico,

I'd have to agree with David; the existing Anglican Usage, the present venue for Anglicans in Communion with Rome, is likely to be the entry route available to their former co-religionists for the time being, and probably the immediate future.

There isn't any such configuration as a Rite sui iuris and, I can't concieve how you would model such a concept. To my mind, notwthstanding inclusion of the phrase "disciplinary patrimony", the definition of a "Rite" ("... the liturgical, theological, spiritual, and disciplinary patrimony, culture and circumstances of history of a distinct people, by which its own manner of living the faith is manifested in each Church sui juris." Canon 28.1), doesn't lend itself to a hierarchical governance structure (which is inherent in the concept of any body sui iuris). Additionally, it would establish two entirely different concepts of Rite in Catholicism, which seems undesirable.

Herb's idea of a Church sui iuris is attractive; but, does anyone really see Rome creating a second sui iuris entity on the Western side of the center aisle down which we all walk? Although we of the East are, and will always be, fewer in number than our Western brethren, is there anyone who doesn't believe that we would be more of a force with which to be reckoned by Rome if we weren't divided among 22 entities?

I think that the concept of a "Use" is likely to be the route of entry for Anglicans in the foreseeable future. Restructure Herb's concept to be 2 sub-rites ("High" and "Higher") within an Anglican Usage however, and it sounds very workable and attractive, to my way of thinking.

(If one thinks about it, the Ambrosian, etc. "Rites" would probably be termed "Uses", if they were being introduced today).

Many years,

Neil

All,

It appears that I must clarify myself. The Anglican Use within the Roman Catholic Church is the only approved variation of the Latin Rite in the United States. Therefore any Anglican/Episcopalian who wishes to convert to Catholicism, but retain elements of his/her former Anglican liturgy may do so by attending an Anglican Use parish set forth by a special Pastoral Provision. Or if they do not wish to do so they may incorporate themselves into a local Latin Rite Roman Catholic parish. This provision also allows married ex-Anglican priests to become Catholic priests. So as of now, Neil, you are correct in stating that the current Anglican Use is the only venue for Episcopalians currently in place in the Roman Catholic Church. What many Anglicans and non-Anglicans are now calling for is the creation of an Anglican Church "sui juris" within the Catholic Church. In other words, take the Byzantine Catholic Church for example, they are a church (sui juris) belonging to the Eastern Byzantine Rite in full communion with Rome. The Anglicans are asking for a similar structure, a strcture which the Pastoral Provision does not provide for. Anglican Use parishoners are currently subject to their local Latin Ordinary, as you know Byzantine Catholics have their own eparchies and bishops and therefore are not subject to either local Latin bishop in the United States. An Anglican rite would mean a seperate structure for the Anglicans who convert to Catholicism and they would have their own bishops and presumably form their own code of canons. As hard as this is to imagine by some, this is what is being proposed. So like the Eastern Church with its many churches of different Rites the Western Church would create a new church. However in the end I imagine that this is all about perspectives and how we each see things. In the end, whatever happens will happen and we must trust in God's plan for us.

God Bless,

ProCatholico

Maybe the problem is that the setting of a sui iuris separated hierarchy for Anglicans by Rome, could imply a recognition of some "legitimacy" in King Henry's original revolt.

In the case of the Eastern Catholic Patruarchates and Churches, they come from Churches whose independence (Antioch, Constantinople, etc) was recognized by the whole Church before 1054.

The "Church of England" was never that before King Henry's revolt and if that revolt had not happened, England would still be a part of the Western Rite Church of Rome. Latin Rite Christians suffered horrible persecutions under the Anglicans and it would be offensive for their martyrs if they're placed under an Anglican sui iuris Church.

Any thoughts?

Mexican,

Here are my thoughts. I in no way believe that the creation of an Anglican sui juris church would in essence "legitimize" the revolt of Henry VIII. Any former Anglican to come to Rome would in fact denounce any heresy promulgated by their former religion. In other words one cannot say that historical heresy in Anglicanism is carried with a convert upon his/her entrance into the Catholic Church. As converts they accept all the teachings of the Catholic Church. What the Anglican sui juris church would include would be the outward rituals (the way the mass is conducted) that these people had as Anglicans, and that within itself is not heretical or a form of legitimization of Henry's revolt. Also many, many years ago the Roman Catholic Church taught that Eastern Orthodoxy was schismatic and heretical. Yet those Easterners who decided to come into communion with the Roman Catholic Church were not said to carry with them any schism and/or heresy that may have been promulgated by their former churches. The point is that today's Anglican Use liturgy is very different from the Novus Ordo, and many seek to see an Anglican Rite distinct from the Latin Rite. Like I said in a previous post, just like the Eastern Churches, a new church sui juris would be created but this time in the Western Church. And no I do not feel that we would be doing martyr saints of England a diservice by creating an Anglican Rite. No saints are petty, I am sure they would be pleased to know that their Anglican brothers and sisters in Christ would come into communion with Rome finally. Those are my thoughts.

Que Dios te Bendige,

ProCatholico

God knows that I am no admirer of Henry VIII and/or his putative daughter Elizabeth; I yield to no one in my veneration for Saint Thomas More, Saint John Fisher, Saint Edmund Campion, Saint Margaret Clitherow and the other martyrs of England.
However, it remains true that the Catholic Church in England prior to Henry Bluebeard and the daughter of his most notorious concubine had its own distinct liturgical Use(s). It certainly did not use the Tridentine Missal, nor did it use the Missal of Pope Paul VI. One can still find Catholics in England making use of the Sarum Missal (I've been privileged to attend Mass according to the Sarum Missal several times). I've not yet seen a copy of the US Anglican-Use Book of Divine Worship, so I'm not yet in a position to express an opinion regarding whatever that book contains.
Besides that, there is another consideration. Thomas Cranmer was a time-serving oath-breaker with the morals of a snapping turtle and the crust of a mass-produced pie, but when he set himself to write good English prose he had real talent - his translations of the Collects, for example remain unsurpassed. Worse yet, perhaps, is Miles Coverdale, who was an arch-Protestant, but produced a remarkably good translation of the Roman Canon of the Mass (though that particular prayer does not lend itself to translation). We are not bound to ignore these linguistic achievements.
I am not being hypothetical. When Mary Tudor (the best of that horrible family) restored the Catholic Church with the aid of Cardinal Pole, they did not attempt to throw away everything that had happened in the immediately preceding two decades - the Primer they issued, for example, includes some carefully selected materials in English from the first Primer issued after the schism. For a lengthy discussion, cf. *The Stripping of the Altars*. Incognitus

You may be right when you say (though I don't see why not):

They are infact a different Church in spirituality and liturgy from the latin Church. The theology of AngloCatholics is a more complex matter. I don't see why the Catholic Communion should not accept another Sui Iuris Ecclesia with at least 1 other rite there in on the Western side of the aisle.

With respect to...

While you are probably right, it is a VERY sad commentary that it is Necessary for us to be "more of a force to be reckoned with" and the force we need to be reckoned with is our very dear Sister Church - the Latin Patriarchate.

And this is made all the more tragic and regrettable given that it's Patriarch is the Pope of older Rome, whose ministry inter alia is the Service of the Unity of the Catholic Communion.

Indeed and in addition, shame on us, that the 21 of us or even just the 11 Byzantine Churches - while keeping our structural autonomy, have not so far managed to become a "byzantine ecclesial caucus" for the service of the God within the Catholic Communion.

Of course, I have great hope that we will get there, given our very rapid progress in implementing Vatican II's call to re-Orthodoxify ourselves. So, First return to our authentic being, then act like true Churches.

Herb

ps: I also agree with you vis a vis the Henry VIII thing. That there are Syrian Churches or Coptic Churches in no way justifies monophysite theology (as condemned by Church Councils [versus miaphysite theology - as articulated by the churches themselves]), so why not an Anglican sui iuris Catholic Church?!

Many on both sides suffered during that period including those who were burned under Mary, many of whom were such simple people, they could not name a Sacrament.

Greetings to all,

I hate to have to make this comment, but it seems inevitable.

The only real interest I can have in this now is as a study in authority. This whole Anglican fiasco has really strengthened my views on hierarchical authority. As one website I read today proclaimed: He won fair and square! And so he did.

If that is to be the standard method of picking our teachers and sages, we do not have a teaching authority. It should not be a popularity contest, once the church panders to the cultures desires it's all over. Our shepherds should gather up the Apostolic teaching of the ages and pass it to us without corruption. We rely on our bishops and presbyters to teach us faithfully and usher us toward salvation.

Let us not be confused by the outward signs the church manifests, it appears to have a sacramental worship but it makes a mockery of the most fundamental elements of Christianity by making them negotiable, it's theology is on the rocks. Only a church like the Protestant Episcopal Church USA could tolerate a John Shelby Spong as long as it has, and now this!

The church has had to be accomodating to survive, it accomodated the monarchy in England, and later accomodated Parliament (this particularly alarmed John Henry Newman). When the United States was created it was left as a church of England in a country that had rejected it, the vast majority of Americans becoming Baptist and Methodists as my ancestors had, so it accomodated to the new realities in the U.S.A. to survive, today it is still accomodating to preserve it's precious assets and the livings of it's rectors.

In fact, the most conservative Episcopalians in the United States today appear to be Evangelicals, not Catholics, and the church is so concerned about it's property and cash flow that it exists in a state of suspended animation, unable to move forward and incapable of going back. The liturgy and vestments, incense and bells are all show, not essential for a church that cannot stand on a creed, it's Catholicism seems to be largely empty vestments.

I think we should forget about any talk of an Anglican church Sui Iuris, as a body they don't really want it. The pewpeople are voting with their feet and they aren't all thinking about Rome or Constantinople in significant numbers, they are thinking of their 8 acre parish complexes.

I really would like to be wrong about all this, I wish they would prove me wrong.

Here is an interesting article in the New York times:
Read Bishop Lee's Choice, you may have to register to access the article
http://www.nytimes.com/pages/magazine/index.html

Michael

I read with interest all this stuff about Anglicans running over to Rome as a result of the actions of our General Convention 2003.

I serve an Episcopal Parish in the Bible Belt South and can tell you that no one from my congregation is running to Rome. In fact, since August of 2003, we've seen a good number of visitors from Roman parishes visiting with us. Those who join us are young people who were raised RC but who hven't been in church in years.

The steam is running out with the continuing parish movement and I'd be surprised if more than 30,000 people make the move.

For what it's worth.

Blessings to you all in this new year.

Mike Dobrosky
(raised a Ruthenian Catholic)

Well, they may or may not make the move to union with the Catholic Church but I'd say that the Africans alone who announced that they are no longer in communion with a "church" that ordains practicing homosexuals constitute considerably more than 30,000. And I would add that if Rome has the sense and courage to make the transition easy [that is, to respect the liturgical and theological traditions that have developed insofar as they do not contain error] the number is likely to be in the millions worldwide.
And you're welcome to the Catholic dissidents who turn to the Episcopal church; I'm sure they will feel more at home and they'll cause less trouble. Of course I would prefer that they come to the truth but barring that, good riddance.