www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Cardinal pours cold water on union with rebel Anglican group

Dear Terry,

Your last sentence - so you are against the mass baptisms of St Volodymyr, against the Union of Brest that folded in thousands upon thousands of people without every asking them for their consent?

If these TAC people did not want to be a part of the "Go Home to Rome" movement, they could easily NOT be.

But they want to be. These TAC people need no experience of "conversion." They already sincerely believe what the Catholic Church believes and want corporate union, as Anglicans, with Rome.

Yes, we must pray. But sometimes what is pleasing to God is not always what is pleasing to the Church (politicians and tacticians).

It is better, the New Testament reminds us, to please God rather than (ecu)men(ism).

The same goes for the Union of Brest that had more of politics than prayer about it, something RC historicans (as in the New Catholic encyclopedia) have affirmed themselves.

Alex

TERRY:

We may be a long way in time from early missionary efforts, but didn't some of the early conversions of whole peopls involve large groups being incorporated in a short period of time?

I recall the Baptism of Rus as one example.

In Christ,

BOB

Dear Bob,

Have I told you how wonderful you are . . . lately?

Alex

Alex;

How did we get the Russians mixed in with the Anglicans
anyhow? I fear we have veered wildly off-topic.

I am glad to learn that the Russicum is working with the
ROC. At least someone is talking to someone. I know other
Catholic agencies like Aid to the Church in Need are also
helping the ROC.

Since there are Latin Catholics in Russia and since they
need to have a hierarchy that problem is not going to go
away. I had been skeptical about Moscow's complaints that
the Latins have been prosyletizing RO people, but have been
told reliably that this is true. How widespread it may be I do not know. This needs to stop. There are plenty of unchurched
people in Russia to go after.

I cannot tell whether your take on the Patriarchate's attitude
toward the Byzantine Russian Catholic Church is correct or not.
I must believe that they are at least aware of its existance, but
don't know if the ROC has made any public comments about them. The only way to find out, I suppose, would be to revive
the Exarchate, which doesn't seem to be anything that might happen soon.

Edmac

Dear Edmac,

I believe SS mentioned the Pat. of Moscow and Rome in a previous post which is why I took that up.

The Latin Catholics do indeed need bishops in Russia, but as for the proselytism - that is going on and even my in-laws, when they were there, were witnesses to it.

There are plenty of unchurched people in Russia and plenty of Westerners who are atheists and agnostics too, despite the best efforts of Western churches to "church" them.

Rome does say it respects the sensitivity about proselytism in Russia, but clearly does not know much about what goes on on the ground.

Again, the ROC has thanked the Russian Catholics for their efforts, Russian Catholic scholars and priests have been given awards by the hand of the Patriarch of Moscow himself (I wonder what kind of "hand" Cardinal Kasper would get?) and, as a further example, Fr. Keleher here, as I've seen and heard for myself, although an EC, has received accolades from all manner of Orthodox jurisdictions, including ROCOR, for his faithfulness to Eastern liturgical purity and tradition.

And the Benedictine Byzantine-Slavonic Rite of Chevetogne recently received ROC members who brought relics of St Seraphim for veneration and congraulated them.

Alex

Hmmm...I wonder which matters more, Cardinal Kasper's support, or Pope Benedict's?


Translated: "It's not my policy to bring that many Anglicans to Rome."


Ah, yes, the always-desired "good terms". Considering that parties within the Anglican community wish to separate themselves completely from Christian Tradition, why exactly would "we" want to keep them together?

Cardinal Kasper has always had a soft spot for Anglicanism, but, frankly, he has become a dinosaur in these discussions. This is not the 1960's or 1970's, when there was hope of corporate reunion between Rome and Canterbury. With the developments of the past 30 years - women priests, homosexual bishops, et. al. - there is no chance of the corporate union which Cardinal Kasper hopes for. Fortunately, Pope Benedict seems to realize this, and is working to reunite with those who wish to follow the Tradition of the Church.

Dear Francis,

Well, Pope John Paul II, of most holy memory, once apparently said that if Card. Kasper agrees to a UGCC patriarchate, then that is what the UGCC will have . . .

FYI, the Cardinal did not agree. Just in case you were wondering!

Go Francis Go!!

Alex

Alex,

I do not judge St Volodymyr nor would I argue against that mass baptism or any other mass baptism during the history of the Church. Judgment on that matter is reserved to the discernment of Christ and opposing arguments falter against the evidence of Grace even where there was opposition (like with those who opposed St. Olaf). I do not categorically oppose mass baptism. The mass baptisms of the Goths, Norse, Irish, and others were occasioned with certain practical limitations for the priests, who would ideally catechize individuals and with a certain wilfullness by the people or the kings who represented them. I would say that mass baptism to bring a people into communion with Rome should be implemented with great care. Modern technological advancements may ease the strain which limited priests in early times, it might be necessary and it may be wise in this case.

We can make speculations about the temperament of a people, such as when a group of "people need no experience of 'conversion,'" but when matters are spoken of in that manner it may not apply to each person. There are many people in official communion with Rome who would not be hurt by a private conversion that brings them closer to God's will and a purer love of Christ. I personally hope for such a maturing transformation in my life and it would be more of a blessing and a grace than a willful submission to a certain theology or dogma.

I hope that this Anglican group comes into communion with Rome, but there are practical questions that need to be discussed before that happens.

Terry

Is it baptism that is being discussed here, or mass confirmation?

I was under the impression that Rome recognizes the baptism of the Anglican communion.

Dear Terry,

The only real matter that needs to be discussed with respect to TAC is the view of some Vatican tacticians that such a reception would offend the Anglican hierarchy in Canterbury and elsewhere.

It is these tacticians who cling to a belief that Anglicanism will somehow, as a body, come into union with Rome (married priests et al.).

What is their problem? But as someone said, it is up to His Holiness who is very open to these Anglicans who feel that union with Rome will make them "fully Anglican." After all, the term "Anglicana Ecclesia" was coined when England was still Catholic.

Anglicana Ecclesia Salutat Benedictus XVI!

Alex

You are forgetting the effect Newman and the Oxford Movement had on Anglicanism. Any angloCatholic parish that has religious orders, confession, Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament, Mass for the Immaculate Conception, and prayers for the pope is hardly "crypto-Protestant". What must always be kept in mind is that there is NO uniformity whatsoever in Anglicanism. The reason that this groups wants speacial privilege is that they do not want to be Novus Ordo-fied. They want dignified orthopraxis, which, in many places, the Novus Ordo does not provide.

One thing that seems odd to be, however, is that Cardinal Kaspar does not want to offend the Archbishop of Canterbury. But the TAC is not in communion with mainstream Anglicanism! What gives?

HAHA. I'm replying to myself.

I thought I'd give more clarification since there seems to be confusion. The Traditinal Anglican Communion (TAC) is what many Anglicans call a "continuing body". These are the Anglicans that broke off from the Anglican Communion due to the liturgical changes and women's "ordination" that began in the 1970s. They reorganized themselves into various ecclsiastical bodies, not all in communion with each other. There are several Continuing Anglican Churches, most are of the Anglo-Catholic variety. The TAC is a collection of these churches who are in communion with each other and share beliefs in common; in many ways they are like a Western version of the Eastern Orthodox churches, as far as hierachy goes. Some of their bishops do have valid orders (by Catholic standards) through various lines.

From the traditionalist perspective they would be a most welcome addition to the Catholic Church. However, many liberals are VERY much against them coming in since they would be bringing a much more traditional orthopraxis with them, which could provoke the laity of the Roman Rite to wonder why their own parishes don't do things "this way". Being converts, I'm sure that they would also be fiercely loyal to the Holy Father--another aggravation to the liberals. What this comes down to is more of a battle betwen liberal and traditionalist. Plus, some Latin Rite bishops do not like having another Catholic bishop in their diocese.

IMHO they should either be given sui juris church status or, probably more feasible, be set up along the lines of the Ambrosian Rite Catholics in Milan.

Dear Byzantophile,

Bravo! Bravo!!

Alex

"The only real matter that needs to be discussed with respect to TAC is the view of some Vatican tacticians that such a reception would offend the Anglican hierarchy in Canterbury and elsewhere."

The private opinions of Vatican officials on the Anglican hierarchy is not for us to change. One of the practical questions that needs to be discussed is whether this Anglican communion would fall under the authority of Roman bishops or under their current bishops and priests. This is one of the factors that distinguishes this case with the historical mass baptism you mentioned.

Personally my sympathies would fall to Rome. The Anglican-use parish where I hope to be a parishioner of when my priest retires falls under the authority of Cardinal DiNardo. There are members of Our Lady of Walsingham who feel separated from other parishes in the archdiocese, but such a discomfort may not justify a separate hierarchy. The rite is not different, the parish uses an older form of the Roman Rite as practiced in Tudor England (I don't know much more than that about its formation or historical context and use). I enjoy their high mass, it requires respect of the Eucharist by the clergy and laymen. The discomfort and disputation seems to be of the type that affects the first generation of believers rather than a separateness distinct enough to warrant a separate hierarchy.

Another question would be "what to do with the priests and bishops who commune with TAC". Are they accepted universally or considered particularly? Which leads to the question of authority and whether their churches are folded in under current bishops or if their bishops would maintain a separate hierarchy.

What is least painful and requires less change is not always the best option. Hard decisions will be made if TAC is brought into communion with Rome.

Terry

Dear Terry,

Fair ball.

But the decisions would perhaps be decidedly less difficult than the thinking that went into the Pope's decision on the Tridentine Liturgy recently.

Traditional Anglicans do indeed insist on having their Rite as a separate thing from the Roman Rite. They have a deep sense of their own patrimony (especially as it relates to the Sarum, Hereford and Bangor Rites).

In some countries, entire groups of traditionalist RC's are received as separate Prelatures as in Brazil - in any event, that is up to Rome, as you say, and it really shouldn't pose much of an adminisitrative problem. Anglican religious Orders have been defecting over to Rome for years as well.

They also do have veneration for their King Charles the Martyr and some other Anglican servants of God such as William Laud, James DeKoven, Edward King of Lincoln et alia.

The rule here that applies to Eastern Churches coming into communion with Rome might well be invoked with respect to these Anglicans. That rule being that the cultus of any Eastern saint on the calendar of a given Eastern church entering into union with Rome may remain as a result of his or her continued veneration in that Church and on condition that the said saint was not "anti-Roman" during his or her lifetime (in which case, the cultus of that saint would be expunged from the calendar).

Another case in point is the veneration of Pontius Pilate among the Ethiopians and this cultus was expunged from the calendar of the Ethiopian Catholic Church.

There are RC members of the Society of King Charles the Martyr who have even pressed Rome for his canonization by Rome (John Henry Newman and Ronald Knox, famous converts to Catholicism, both continued to privately venerated King Charles I and King Henry VI, petitioning Rome to have them placed in the Catholic calendar. One "breakthrough" occurred during the pontificate of Bl. Pope John XXIII when, during a meeting with an Anglican clergyman, the Pope saw the fellow pull out his very worn breviary. At this, the Pope graciously offered him his own breviary as a gift! But the Anglican fellow simply wanted to pull out a picture of King Henry VI that he had depicting him with a halo on a "rood screen." After speaking to the Pope about this, the Pope blessed his desire to create an ecumenical Society of King Henry VI to promote his eventual formal canonization. Members of this society are allowed to publicly invoke the king as "Blessed King Henry" and light candles before his picture in churches (known as "King Henry's Light). I was a Candian member of this society, but don't know whether it is still around today.

And, once again, I applaud Byzantophile's astute posts on this matter!

Alex