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

Dear IncarLogosTeen:

It's a complex question.

and I am far from being any kind of expert either in theology of AngloCatholics (High Church Anglicans) or the Latin church for that matter, but I'll give it a go!

It's complex, for example, because some AngloCatholics would want to hold almost all the (if not all) theological positions that the Church of Rome holds - but prefering to work for unity from their side of the divide (like Eastern Catholics vis a vis the Orthodox Orthodox).

Others would take issue on various matters, e.g. the Absolute Power of the Bishop of Rome as being basically the bishop of every diocese (immediate universal jurisdiction etc.), opting for an earlier and arguably more Patristic Tradition.

I woud also think that the different Eucharist Liturgies indicate a different theology (not necessarily contradictory, just different). So compare the Tridentine Mass and the (imho absolutely gorgeous) Service of Holy Communion in the Book of Common Prayer - quite different, don't you think?

On the other hand there is what used to be called the "Series Four" Services which are almost indistinguishable for the "Novus Ordo" services, so....

Of course on the other end of the spectrum is the 39 Articles (which are NOT an AngloCatholic position, but rather an expression of the Protestant position within the Anglican Communion - so not quite fair to use that for comparison).

You might want to read some of the stuff from the Oxford movement or Keble or pre-Catholic J.H. Newman to see some of the differences.

I think the Authentic AngloCatholic position might be closer to some aspects or dynamics of Orthodox theology, since the former is trying to reform their church on Patristic lines.

(maybe you can spearhead the establish of an Anglican Autonomous Church within the Catholic Communion) - as St. Paul said to St. Timothy, "let no one dis you on account of your youth!" (loosely translated)

Christ is Baptised!

Herb

It's time for me to leave this listserve. I'm absolutely amazed that civil conversations seem not to be able to be had here; instead, I hear mean-spirited attacks against all those who are outside the Roman Catholic Church.

My final thought: 20 years from now (if I'm still alive and if this list is still going) I'd like to see what's happened with the church's treatment of homosexuals. I'll bet also that the RC church will have gone through the process of ordaining women to the diaconate (and once that door is opened, you know what happens next).

Blessings to those of you who have welcomed me into these conversations. For those of you who think only in terms of black and white, I shall pray for you.

Fr. Mike

Well, speaking as a woman, I hope the Church does NOT ordain women as deacons. Deacons do a lot of work, and women have already historically been responsible for most of the "grunt work" in the Church. Why do you want us to do more? Why don't more of you men step forward and be ordained as deacons, so the women can take a well-deserved break??

I respectifully disagree with you here and find it odd that you would make this statement.

All I saw was questions asked of you, which you have declined to answer, after you made the statement that your church had done what was right.

The Church treats everyone the same. We are all called to chastity according to our station in life. Single people are called to be chaste and not indulge in sex outside of marriage. Sex within marriage has to be open to life.

Homosexual tendancies are unnatural.

I would still like you to answer my quesiton about what is right about appointing a bishop who is in a sexual relationship outside of marriage. This is the main point for me, him having homosexual tendancies is something extra. As I said, if he was living with a woman outside of marriage he never would have been made a bishop.

As for women being ordained, I do not see it happening, not even to the diaconate for the very fact you state.

This is a sad comment from a priest, even an Episcopal one. I think this shows how your church got into the problems it is in...

The Gospel is just that black and white, there are no gray areas as far as the truth is. To say that there are is to water down the Gospel.


David, the Byzantine Catholic

This topic has become heated!! I will welcome all who want to enter the Catholic faith.

Glad nobody told "Fr" Mike that his ordination is invalid and he should be addressed as an Episcopal minister not priest.

Fr. Mike,

It is certainly your perogative to leave this forum for any reason, but to generalize and state that "civil conversations seem not to be able to be had here" is an unfair characterization of the members' posts on this forum. Although Daniel did unfairly characterize those seekers in your parish (whom you identified as Roman Catholics) as dissidents, his posts in this regard are not "un-civil". (That there are Roman Catholic "seekers" in your parish does certainly bring up other questions, but these are for other topics and forums.)

I wish you well, and as we say in the Southwest, "Adios."

I see that this has already been addressed by many but I just have to add some to it.

I understand and I see where my misunderstanding took place.

You are not calling for an Anglican Rite, as I said, there is one, it is the Anglican Use, what you are calling for is an Anglican Church (sui juris). Even if this occured, it would still be part of the Latin Rite as it is a western tradition.

The use of sui juris only goes for churches, not rites.


David, the Byzantine Catholic

Attention Father Mike: allow me to add my hope that having come among us, you will not go away! There are those of us who are glad to make you welcome and who will at least try to do so without discourtesy.
The issue which has brought on the discourtesy is one which has been plaguing the forum for some time; for whatever reason some of the participants seem unable to discuss the matter without rancour. That in itself could be cause for a certain caution on the part of the rancorous - if one cannot articulate one's ideas without becoming explosively angry and resorting to ad hominem tactics, perhaps it would be well to reconsider those ideas?
Anyway, please don't go away. Not only are you welcome, but your witness is of considerable value.
fraternally in Christ,
Incognitus

David,

Again I do not think you fully understand my position. You are correct in saying that many Anglicans and non-Anglicans, including myself are calling for the creation of an Anglican sui juris church in union with Rome. Not just a liturgical usage (or rite as you call it) that is currently in place. You said You are incorrect. While this Anglican sui juris church would be Western Rite, just as the Byzantine Catholic Church is Eastern Rite it would not be Roman Catholic, rather, it would be Anglican Catholic. As it has been mentioned previously the Anglican theology and their outward practice is markedly different from that of the current Roman Catholic Church. Almost as different as that of the Eastern Catholic churches when compared to the Roman.

For a point of reference the Maronites often call their sui juris church the Maronite RITE, because there are two forms of the term rite. Though often in the Byzantine Catholic Church we hear that the latter usage is incorrect, but obviously not all people think so.

I still pray for the Anglican Communion and hope that whatever decision they reach, that God wil continue to guide them.

God Bless,

ProCatholico

I can't think of who else you may be refering to , but if you are talking about me I am astonished. There was no rancor, no adhominem attacks and believe me, nothing remotely resembling "explosive anger". I am amazed at what people read into postings sometimes.
I certainly spoke harshly of something that merits it; let us not replace the Faith with the religion of Niceness, where no one ever gives offense for the sake of the Gospel and everything is tolerated [except of course those nasty intolerant bigots].
And what, praytell, was Mr Mike "witnessing" in your estimation? He can't even claim invincible ignorance, having been raised in the Byzantine Church. I wanted to ask him "What's a nice Ruthenian like you doing in a church like this?"

as long as you don't deny that there are nasty intolerant bigots!!!!! There ARE you know!!

Of course there are! But when this label is applied to anyone who does not hop on the bandwagon of the current cause, or applied hypocritically to anyone who objects to trashing the Tradition it is just another debating tool.

Daniel and Byzantine Learner,

The first rule of The Byzantine Forum is charity. Charity demands that we address clergy from other Christian denominations by the clerical titles that are correct for them in their denomination. Further, your tones in this discussion has been very condescending and judgmental. You both should be able to present Church Teaching on this issue in a civil manner. If you feel you cannot abide by this rule of charity please refrain from posting on the Forum in the future.

Admin

--

Fr. Mike,

Thank you for you participation here and I pray the Lord will bless you at all times.

I do disagree with the Episcopal Church�s position on many issues, including its position on the issue of homosexual activity (that is under discussion in this thread). Individuals who have homosexual tendencies have an especially burdensome cross to bear. The worst thing possible for the Church to do is to bless that which God had deemed immoral. [What the Episcopal Church has done is very much like telling an alcoholic that it�s ok to drink and calling his disorder wholesome and holy.] The correct response of the Church is to nonjudgmentally assist such individuals in living the Commandments as best they can.

I do agree that the Catholic Church has fallen short in its treatment of homosexual individuals. Too often we condemn people rather than focusing on helping them to follow Christ.

When next you visit Washington, DC please allow me the privilege of inviting you and your wife out to lunch or dinner. [Sadly, there is no �Holupki Hut� or �Pirohi Palace� so we have to choose American or other ethnic fare. ]

Admin

And I would place at the top of the nasty intolerant bigot list, those that fanatically oppose the Catholic Church's traditional teaching concerning homosexuality, abortion, marriage, and the ordination of women.

On the specific issue of how one might refer to the Episcopal clergymen: as Father Archimandrite Robert Taft has commented, one politely addresses people in the manner which those people prefer. The Book of Common Prayer has always referred to what the priest says and does in the Holy Communion and certain other services. A large proportion of Episcopal priests prefer to be called "Father", and since that is how Father Michael identified himself, it seems safe to assume that he prefers that form of address. To quote Father Taft, we call various clergy "Reverend" without necessarily affirming that we find them worth revering, and we call people who have attained a particular academic standing "doctor", even though a bearer of this title might not seem outstandingly "doctus". If one should chance to meet the Dalai Lama, one may safely call him "Your Holiness" without thereby compromising one's Christian faith - or even necessarily expressing one's personal opinion of the Dalai Lama's spiritual condition.
As either Belloc or Chesterton famously remarked, "the grace of God is in courtesy".
On one point, our Administrator doth protest too much - Washington has some very good restaurants, as I know from happy experience, and our Administrator has good taste, as I also have reason to know. So I wish Father Michael and our Administrator a happy appetite!
Incognitus