Traditional Anglican Communion Seeks Full Union With Rome

[Secundulus]

PORTSMOUTH, UK: Traditional Anglican Communion Seeks Full Union With Rome

Statement authorized by the TAC Primate

16th October 2007

"The College of Bishops of the Traditional Anglican Communion (TAC) met in Plenary Session in Portsmouth, England, in the first week of October 2007. The Bishops and Vicars-General unanimously agreed to the text of a letter to the See of Rome seeking full, corporate, sacramental union. The letter was signed solemnly by all the College and en-trusted to the Primate and two bishops chosen by the College to be presented to the Holy See.

The letter was cordially received at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The Primate of the TAC has agreed that no member of the College will give interviews until the Holy See has considered the letter and responded."

+ John Hepworth
Primate TAC

[longhair75]

I wish them success in their endeavor.

JFTR: If the ECUSA, for some reason reunites with Rome, it will do it without me.

[PaladinValer]

What if the Vatican...

1. Completely suspends all disciplinary demands of priests to embrace celibacy?
2. Drops its extra-Ecumenical dogmas?
3. Finally accepts the validity of all Anglican Orders?

Not meant to a challenge; just purely curious as to what your position might be there. :)

[longhair75]

Friend PV

Those are not the primary issues I have with Rome.

There are no circumstances under which I would return to a church under the authority of Rome.

One time through was quite enough, thank you.

[Secundulus]

What if the Vatican...

1. Completely suspends all disciplinary demands of priests to embrace celibacy?
2. Drops its extra-Ecumenical dogmas?
3. Finally accepts the validity of all Anglican Orders?

Not meant to a challenge; just purely curious as to what your position might be there. :)

I do not have any inside information on the specifics of the TAC's proposal.

1. I doubt that would happen for Bishops simply because it would create problems in a long term desire to unite with the Eastern Orthodox. In the short term, all the TAC Bishops have offered to step down if necessary. I read a rumor somewhere that the proposal contains some sort of transition period for Bishops after which only celebate unmarried Priests could be Bishops.

As for Latin Rite Roman Catholicism, I don't think this is going to happen any time soon. What this means for TAC priests I do not know. However, it is possible to retain married priests depending on what the specifics of the proposal are and on how the Vatican responds. My guess is that this is what is being sought.

2. I don't understand this question.

3. The TAC's orders are not in question right now due to earlier ordinations by Old Catholic and other Bishops in communion with Rome. This issue has already been settled with the Vatican in earlier discussions. If this were to come about, maybe there would be conditional ordinations required to which I think most, if not all, of the TAC Clergy would not object.

I think the possibility of Rome's recognizing Anglican orders in the Anglican Communion at large is exactly zero at this point in history because of Women's ordination.

[AngCath]

PORTSMOUTH, UK: Traditional Anglican Communion Seeks Full Union With Rome

Statement authorized by the TAC Primate

16th October 2007

"The College of Bishops of the Traditional Anglican Communion (TAC) met in Plenary Session in Portsmouth, England, in the first week of October 2007. The Bishops and Vicars-General unanimously agreed to the text of a letter to the See of Rome seeking full, corporate, sacramental union. The letter was signed solemnly by all the College and en-trusted to the Primate and two bishops chosen by the College to be presented to the Holy See.

The letter was cordially received at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The Primate of the TAC has agreed that no member of the College will give interviews until the Holy See has considered the letter and responded."

+ John Hepworth
Primate TAC
I wish them the best, but I really have never understood why TAC keeps running toward Rome.

[Secundulus]

I wish them the best, but I really have never understood why TAC keeps running toward Rome.

Because of this:

John 17:20-21

and this from the 1977 Affirmation of St. Louis:

Unity with Other Believers
We declare our firm intention to seek and achieve full sacramental communion and visible unity with other Christians who "worship the Trinity in Unity, and Unity in Trinity," and who hold the Catholic and Apostolic Faith in accordance with the foregoing principles.

[karen freeinchristman]

PORTSMOUTH, UK: Traditional Anglican Communion Seeks Full Union With Rome

Statement authorized by the TAC Primate

16th October 2007

"The College of Bishops of the Traditional Anglican Communion (TAC) met in Plenary Session in Portsmouth, England, in the first week of October 2007. The Bishops and Vicars-General unanimously agreed to the text of a letter to the See of Rome seeking full, corporate, sacramental union. The letter was signed solemnly by all the College and en-trusted to the Primate and two bishops chosen by the College to be presented to the Holy See.

The letter was cordially received at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The Primate of the TAC has agreed that no member of the College will give interviews until the Holy See has considered the letter and responded."

+ John Hepworth
Primate TAC
1. Secundulus, are you TAC? I keep forgetting who is what around here.
2. How would you feel about this if it happened?

[Secundulus]

1. Secundulus, are you TAC? I keep forgetting who is what around here.
2. How would you feel about this if it happened?

Yes, I am in TAC. I pray for the unity of the Church every day

[ContraMundum]

What if the Vatican...

1. Completely suspends all disciplinary demands of priests to embrace celibacy?
2. Drops its extra-Ecumenical dogmas?
3. Finally accepts the validity of all Anglican Orders?

Not meant to a challenge; just purely curious as to what your position might be there. :)


For the record, as far as the TAC is concerned, Rome hasn't been overly concerned with the orders. It's been discussed, of course, but it hasn't been the main issue.

I can't say more yet, but I have a lot to say about this.

[ContraMundum]

I wish them the best, but I really have never understood why TAC keeps running toward Rome.

As is outlined above, it is because of Christ's command to be unified- or so the story goes.

Knowing what I do, I would say there are lots of other reasons- some good and some less than good.

[Albion]

As is outlined above, it is because of Christ's command to be unified- or so the story goes.

Knowing what I do, I would say there are lots of other reasons- some good and some less than good.

Here's the forgotten story in all of this...

Archbishop Hepworth has for about two years been saying that Rome would accept the TAC as an equal, recognize it, have intercommunion status with it. He assured all his people that they would remain Anglicans.

Many observers thought it unlikely that Rome would do this. Well, she didn't.

++Hepworth finally admitted that there is nothing being discussed between the two churches at present.

What then?

The Portsmouth decision was to give the venture up and simply join the RCC.

This is not what had been promised, but many in the TAC seem still (from what I have read elsewhere on line) to think that it is!

Secundulus, I take it, is more than willing, because of the principle of unity, to become part of the Church of Rome. I will be very much surprised, however, if all of TAC's members decide the same way once they find out that they are not, after all, going to be Anglicans in some Uniate status, etc. with the Vatican.

The Vatican may admit them as a few more of the "Anglican Use" parishes she has. That might mean, in my estimation, a couple dozen in the USA formerly affiliated with TAC. These Anglican Use parishes are Roman Catholic, not Anglican, except that they are permitted temporarily to use a Roman Catholic Mass book with language taken from the BCP's Holy Communion service.

[Fish and Bread]

I think the issue may be that in essence, if you accept the Roman Catholic Church's claims about the Papacy, and you want to follow God, you have to become Roman Catholic. If these bishops truly have a conviction that the Pope is who he says he is, then they're ultimately going to have to become Roman Catholic. They may play around with it for a while and try to cut the best deal, but if this is truly what they believe, ultimately they have to take whatever the Pope offers them. They're old men who may not have a lot of time left on this earth, they don't have time to mess around with their eternal souls. They also know they may be judged for how they led others, whether their orders are valid or not.

On the other hand, if they do not believe the Pope is who he says he is and that the RCC is the one true Church, I don't see the point of what they're doing at all. They're not going to double-fake this particular Pope into accepting them without them accepting him as their Vicar. But the way they phrased their letter seems to make it clear that that is not the case and they understand that they will only achieve unity through submission.

The question is: What can they get? Minimally, an Anglican-Use arrangement like the one that already exists in the United States, I think. Maximally, perhaps their own rite or personal prelature. Should be very interesting. May take some time, though. Rome generally moves very slowly.

[Ravenonthecross]

I pray that God may soon speed this unity of the Traditional Anglican Communion, and the Holy Catholic Church, so that the schism between us may indeed be soon healed.:prayer::crossrc:

[Fish and Bread]

As is outlined above, it is because of Christ's command to be unified- or so the story goes.

Knowing what I do, I would say there are lots of other reasons- some good and some less than good.

Can you share any of them with us? Most of us have been speculating wildly for months because there is so little real information that's publically available. It'd be nice if we could get a little bit of an inside scoop. Obviously, I wouldn't want you to say anything that might get you into any trouble, but if there are any harmless tidbits you can drop, I think we'd all love to hear them. :)

[ContraMundum]

Can you share any of them with us? Most of us have been speculating wildly for months because there is so little real information that's publically available. It'd be nice if we could get a little bit of an inside scoop. Obviously, I wouldn't want you to say anything that might get you into any trouble, but if there are any harmless tidbits you can drop, I think we'd all love to hear them. :)


I can't say much, sorry. Maybe when things are clearer. :)

[Albion]

I think the issue may be that in essence, if you accept the Roman Catholic Church's claims about the Papacy, and you want to follow God, you have to become Roman Catholic. If these bishops truly have a conviction that the Pope is who he says he is, then they're ultimately going to have to become Roman Catholic. They may play around with it for a while and try to cut the best deal, but if this is truly what they believe, ultimately they have to take whatever the Pope offers them. They're old men who may not have a lot of time left on this earth, they don't have time to mess around with their eternal souls. They also know they may be judged for how they led others, whether their orders are valid or not.

On the other hand, if they do not believe the Pope is who he says he is and that the RCC is the one true Church, I don't see the point of what they're doing at all. They're not going to double-fake this particular Pope into accepting them without them accepting him as their Vicar. But the way they phrased their letter seems to make it clear that that is not the case and they understand that they will only achieve unity through submission.

The question is: What can they get? Minimally, an Anglican-Use arrangement like the one that already exists in the United States, I think. Maximally, perhaps their own rite or personal prelature. Should be very interesting. May take some time, though. Rome generally moves very slowly.

Two comments.

1) They had been willing to accept the Pope from the beginning. It was only keeping their Anglican identity in some way while doing that which they hoped to have as well.

2) What they "can get" does not appear to include any "own rite," etc. The point of the Portsmouth declaration was the BECAUSE ROME WAS NOT ABOUT TO GIVE THEM THIS, they were throwing in the towel and just applying to be Latin-Rite Roman Catholics (as the Anglican Use provision would amount to).

[Albion]

I pray that God may soon speed this unity of the Traditional Anglican Communion, and the Holy Catholic Church, so that the schism between us may indeed be soon healed.:prayer::crossrc:

Keep in mind that there is nothing special happening here.

There has always been a trickle of Anglicans, clergy and laity, to Rome (as well as another trickle coming in the opposite direction). If anyone thinks that the handful of Anglicans that this would involve represents any general move of Anglicans, or even among Continuing Anglicans in particular, it's not. I sometimes get the sneakin' suspicion that when we speak of the "Traditional Anglican Communion" it is thought that this represents most Continuing Anglicans or, worse, all of them. TAC is just one of many Continuing Anglican organisations.

[Aymn27]

Keep in mind that there is nothing special happening here.

There has always been a trickle of Anglicans, clergy and laity, to Rome (as well as another trickle coming in the opposite direction). If anyone thinks that the handful of Anglicans that this would involve represents any general move of Anglicans, or even among Continuing Anglicans in particular, it's not. I sometimes get the sneakin' suspicion that when we speak of the "Traditional Anglican Communion" it is thought that this represents most Continuing Anglicans or, worse, all of them. TAC is just one of many Continuing Anglican organisations.
This is true - but there ARE about 400,000 of them - which is a good bit. However, I don't think all will jump over...no idea as to how many will....

Also, wasn't it this time last year that someone from the Vatican told them and the Charismatic Episcopal Church that what they wanted would never happen? I need to find the article b/c it seems like they said the only was this would happen is that they would have to come aboard as Latin Rite with an Anglican Use liturgy...

I honestly don't understand the want to be yoked to Rome.

[Fish and Bread]

I honestly don't understand the want to be yoked to Rome.

That's because you're probably thinking "bad liturgical translation", "cheesy music", "too many rules", "too many strict rules", etc., etc.. What people who want to become Roman Catholic or who return to Roman Catholicism are generally thinking is "This is Christ's Church, and, knowing that, if I want to follow Him, that's where I have to be.". If you have that conviction that Jesus established an institutional Church and that the Roman Catholic Church is it, deciding where you go to church stops being about picking the music or the liturgy or the rules or the people or the stances on the issues you like best. It becomes all about where Jesus is present most fully, and nothing else matters.

[Albion]

This is true - but there ARE about 400,000 of them - which is a good bit.

Well, that's what TAC reports. A couple of years ago, it reported 200,000. Almost all of it is in non-Western nations where, as everyone knows, figures are unreliable, not kept in the way we usually do, etc. How many parishes are there in the USA and Canada, for example? About 140. If ALL of them go to Rome--which will not happen--and they average what most Continuing Anglican parishes do average--about 40--then we are talking about a whopping addition to the Roman Catholic Church of about a couple thousand souls or the equal of maybe four typical American Roman Catholic parishes.

Also, wasn't it this time last year that someone from the Vatican told them and the Charismatic Episcopal Church that what they wanted would never happen? I need to find the article b/c it seems like they said the only was this would happen is that they would have to come aboard as Latin Rite with an Anglican Use liturgy...

I seem to remember that too, but I don't know from where.

I honestly don't understand the want to be yoked to Rome.

For myself, I can appreciate it (although I would not do this), but what has been stopping any of TAC's members so far? There's always a Catholic church nearby.

[Albion]

That's because you're probably thinking "bad liturgical translation", "cheesy music", "too many rules", "too many strict rules", etc., etc..

On the contrary, I think he, like me, simply believe in what Anglicanism has always believed. And that's not Roman Catholicism. So when an Anglican says he's yearning to be a Catholic, we 1) are surprised at the conversion, and 2) wonder what's been keeping them away from joining all along.

[Colabomb]

I support true unity, but not at the price of Doctrinal integrity.

I consider the Romans to be my brothers, but my brothers in serious error.

To me this does not appear to be unity, but rather submission. The TAC has abandoned its protestant roots, roots they should be proud of rather than ashamed of, as so many anglicans sadly are these days.

[Secundulus]

I support true unity, but not at the price of Doctrinal integrity.

I consider the Romans to be my brothers, but my brothers in serious error.

To me this does not appear to be unity, but rather submission. The TAC has abandoned its protestant roots, roots they should be proud of rather than ashamed of, as so many anglicans sadly are these days.

It is becoming apparent that Protestant Roots is nothing but unending schism as each individual submits himself to whatever "Pope" he fancies at the moment.

Anglicanism is no exception.

[Colabomb]

I pray that God may soon speed this unity of the Traditional Anglican Communion, and the Holy Catholic Church, so that the schism between us may indeed be soon healed.:prayer::crossrc:

Since when were Anglicans not united with the Holy Catholic Church?

[Colabomb]

It is becoming apparent that Protestant Roots is nothing but unending schism as each individual submits himself to whatever "Pope" he fancies at the moment.

Anglicanism is no exception.

That may be so in the modern day amongst various evangelical protestant Groups.

But Last I checked we Anglicans profess the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Faith.

Every single day, Anglicans across the world join their voices in unity and proclaim themselves in Union with the Holy catholic and Apostolic Church, and with Christ, which no man can even dream to monopolize.

Last I checked, our Table was open to all Baptized Christians.

Frankly, we are more Catholic than the Romans, who demand submission to their various unScriptural and unTraditional doctrines, before they "allow" us to approach their table.

Which is in reality not their table, but rather Christ's.

Union with Rome, means union with Rome only. They are breaking themselves off from the Rest of the Holy Catholic Church in order to commune with a singular prideful body. They will shun their brothers from the table.

This is a sad and terrible day.

[Secundulus]

Since when were Anglicans not united with the Holy Catholic Church?

Anglicans are not even united with themselves anymore.

[Colabomb]

Anglicans are not even united with themselves anymore.

Speak for yourself. Last I checked, all of my brethren Baptized into the one Christ are welcome at His Table.

I have never seen a professing Brother turned away in an Anglican Church.

I have seen it with the Romans.

[Fish and Bread]

But Last I checked we Anglicans profess the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Faith.

Which Anglicans? Which faith? A faith involves doctrinal agreement by definition -- a common set of beliefs.

Speak for yourself. Last I checked, all of my brethren Baptized into the one Christ are welcome at His Table.

I have never seen a professing Brother turned away in an Anglican Church.

I'm surprised to read that coming from you. That's fundamentally a modern liberal argument, you know, that the only measure of unity is common reception of the Eucharist. Traditionally, there has always had to be not only Eucharistic unity, but also doctrinal and institutional unity.

[Albion]

It is becoming apparent that Protestant Roots is nothing but unending schism as each individual submits himself to whatever "Pope" he fancies at the moment.

Anglicanism is no exception.

I always have to laugh at that one, considering that there is no Church in Christianity that has suffered or experienced more losses to schisms than the Roman Catholic Church.

[Albion]

Which Anglicans? Which faith? A faith involves doctrinal agreement by definition -- a common set of beliefs.

The Anglican churches do indeed have a common set of beliefs. I know of none that renounces the Nicene and Apostles' Creeds.

I'm surprised to read that coming from you. That's fundamentally a modern liberal argument, you know, that the only measure of unity is common reception of the Eucharist. Traditionally, there has always had to be not only Eucharistic unity, but also doctrinal and institutional unity.

Well, from which flank are we supposed to attack our brother? If he says that he's for a unity of belief, that's belittled, but if he says that the church is welcoming (in reply to someone else saying this is not so) THAT becomes the point of attack.

With all due regard, we have two men who are moving from their Anglican past into Roman Catholicism attacking an Anglican for being an Anglican on an Anglican board. Is this really fair? Would it better be placed on another forum?

[Colabomb]

Which Anglicans? Which faith? A faith involves doctrinal agreement by definition -- a common set of beliefs.



I'm surprised to read that coming from you. That's fundamentally a modern liberal argument, you know, that the only measure of unity is common reception of the Eucharist. Traditionally, there has always had to be not only Eucharistic unity, but also doctrinal and institutional unity.

Unity is in Christ and His Gospel. He who does not believe this Gospel is not a brother, and is thus not called to the table.

The modern Liberal argument is "who am i to say you are not a Christian."

Christian Unity is expressed in the Eucharist. The difference between liberals and conservatives in this is not in the Christian unity of the Eucharist, but rather in what a Christian really is.

Those who do not believe the Gospel of Jesus Christ, are not welcomed to the table, as it would be detrimental to their soul. The Gospel is the Good News that Man can be Saved from his sin through believing in the Glorious Sinless Life, Perfect Sacrifice, and Bodily resurrection of the One Holy Christ.

[Albion]

Unity is in Christ and His Gospel. He who does not believe this Gospel is not a brother, and is thus not called to the table.

The modern Liberal argument is "who am i to say you are not a Christian."

Christian Unity is expressed in the Eucharist. The difference between liberals and conservatives in this is not in the Christian unity of the Eucharist, but rather in what a Christian really is.

Those who do not believe the Gospel of Jesus Christ, are not welcomed to the table, as it would be detrimental to their soul. The Gospel is the Good News that Man can be Saved from his sin through believing in the Glorious Sinless Life, Perfect Sacrifice, and Bodily resurrection of the One Holy Christ.

What a good answer. The alternative would be to attach a legalistic and extra-Biblical set of demands upon the would-be communicant, OR, if not that, to pretend to reach into his mind and decide whether he makes the grade or not.

If anyone thinks that latter--that every communicant in X church believes that church's creeds, whatever they are--he's living in fantasy land. The church may have a narrow or strict set of stated beliefs that every member is expected to adhere to, but in no way does that translate into who goes to the communion rail! A recent poll of American Roman Catholics revealed that only 1/3 of them believe in the Real Presence, let alone Transubstantaion, but that doesn't prevent debates which turn on the notion that there is actual "unity" of belief among all the members and that only such Christians as do accept the Church's official positions can be, and are, admitted to Holy Communion.

[Colabomb]

What a good answer. The alternative would be to attach a legalistic and extra-Biblical set of demands upon the would-be communicant, OR, if not that, to pretend to reach into his mind and decide whether he makes the grade or not.

If anyone thinks that latter--that every communicant in X church believes that church's creeds, whatever they are--he's living in fantasy land. The church may have a narrow or strict set of stated beliefs that every member is expected to adhere to, but in no way does that translate into who goes to the communion rail! A recent poll of American Roman Catholics revealed that only 1/3 of them believe in the Real Presence, let alone Transubstantaion, but that doesn't prevent debates which turn on the notion that there is actual "unity" of belief among all the members and that only such Christians as do accept the Church's official positions can be, and are, admitted to Holy Communion.

The Romans are as United as the Orthodox. Its a show, a facade.

I know my Orthodox and Roman Brothers will balk at that, but I have too much personal experience to say otherwise.

My father taught RCIA, and I have been involved with, including working charity with, several Orthodox Churches.

They Bicker and fight, as bad as, and often worse than, the average Anglican.

[Fish and Bread]

With all due regard, we have two men who are moving from their Anglican past into Roman Catholicism attacking an Anglican for being an Anglican on an Anglican board. Is this really fair? Would it better be placed on another forum?

I'm not trying to attack anyone, but I see your point. Maybe it's time I moved on. I'm not a practicing Roman Catholic, but at the same time I don't think the post-16th century structure of Anglicanism makes much sense anymore. I understand Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, I understand a sort of deism or agnosticism or atheism or liberal religion, but Protestantism no longer makes much sense to me. It seems to be trying to mesh traditional Christianity with modern western cultural values to the point where it undermines it's continuity with historic Christianity (And I think this is as true of conservative Protestants and liberal Protestants, honestly, just in different ways). So this probably isn't the best place to really maintain a presence anymore. I don't want to without meaning to cause any trouble amongst the people here, many of whom are dear friends of mine (At least as Internet friendships go). I'll be happy to discuss these issues in a forum where it's more appropriate, or via PM, but I think you're right, it's not really appropriate for me to discuss them here any longer.

[Albion]

I'm not trying to attack anyone, but I see your point. Maybe it's time I moved on. I'm not a practicing Roman Catholic, but at the same time I don't think the post-16th century structure of Anglicanism makes much sense anymore. I understand Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, I understand a sort of deism or agnosticism or atheism or liberal religion, but Protestantism no longer makes much sense to me. It seems to be trying to mesh traditional Christianity with modern western cultural values to the point where it undermines it's continuity with historic Christianity (And I think this is as true of conservative Protestants and liberal Protestants, honestly, just in different ways). So this probably isn't the best place to really maintain a presence anymore. I don't want to without meaning to cause any trouble amongst the people here, many of whom are dear friends of mine (At least as Internet friendships go). I'll be happy to discuss these issues in a forum where it's more appropriate, or via PM, but I think you're right, it's not really appropriate for me to discuss them here any longer.

I wouldn't go that far, but villifying Anglicanism per se, as not worth continuing to exist, does seem to be a little strong. As for individual issues, that would be different matter IMO.

My personal opinion about some of what you have said above is that you will find that the RCC is not much different from Anglicanism when you get there, just that it does its bickering more out of the view of the membership as we don't seem to care to do.

[Fish and Bread]

I wouldn't go that far, but villifying Anglicanism per se, as not worth continuing to exist

I love many aspects of Anglican tradition and spirituality and their off-shoots -- Cramerian English, the hymnals, the Book of Common Prayer, the KJV line including the NRSV which is my primary bible, and so on and so forth. At this point intellectually, though, I honestly don't "get it" anymore in terms of it existing outside of the Roman Catholic Church (or at least Eastern Orthodoxy) or, on the other hand, why it wouldn't drop the Christian mythos and form it's own religion. It seems kind of trapped between two things that can't quite be reconciled (Though either apart from each other would make sense to me). But it's produced a lot of wonderful things and I actually like it much better than the Latin-Rite RCC in terms of liturgy and culture. Honestly, a rite or a prelature like the one TAC is talking about would be great as far as I'm concerned, if I were to become (or revert to being) Roman Catholic (Which I have not made a decision to do at this point), and there were a TAC parish in my area (Which there isn't).

My personal opinion about some of what you have said above is that you will find that the RCC is not much different from Anglicanism when you get there, just that it does its bickering more out of the view of the membership as we don't seem to care to do.What I should state first is that I am not entirely certain I will be getting to the RCC. I do consider it to have the best historical and theological claim to being the institutional Christian Church, but for me I'm not at a point where I'm necessarily at peace with God. I look at my own life and my physical and neurological problems, my inability to earn an income or live a normal life, me constantly being on the abyss financially, the probability that I'll never marry which has always been my only real dream or goal, and so forth. Then, I look at the world, and I see the suffering that goes on in it. After that, I see hell, and I see a lot of these more abstract issues that I won't go into too much detail on here. And, ultimately, I wonder: Just what kind of God is this? And I've heard all the answers and explanations -- I've read the bible, the church fathers, theologians and scholars, talked to lay people and clergy, and ultimately I'm not ready to accept it as good. It's not so much a lack of information, it's more of a lack of concurrence.

So, I wouldn't bank on me being an anything anytime soon. Maybe one day. I'll tell you, the one thing that could probably do the most that might push be towards God, is if I married. From a less logical and more emotional perspective, that might make me believe at a very visceral level that God has a sense of compassion and love. However, even if that were possible, which the evaluation of those who know my situation agree is very unlikely to impossible, I am not sure ultimately even that would reconcile me, considering that my wife would probably be non-Catholic and we'd probably be married with the premise that we'd be using birth control and thus at odds with the church (I sincerely doubt the prospect of 12 children would help anyone who's on the fence about marrying a guy who can't earn an income. Frankly, I don't really want 12 kids either. I'd much rather use birth control. But I'd marry a devout Catholic girl and not use it if she really wanted that and knew what she was getting into -- I'd make even greater sacrifices than that if it meant I could marry. Otherwise, I'm pretty committed to birth control as a concept out of necessity, as I am sure my wife would be if she did not have religious objections. Devout Catholic women have always immediately ruled me out, though in theory I'd love to marry a Catholic). But there's no point in my really talking about this extensively, me having the opportunity to marry is about as likely as aliens landing tomorrow and demanding chocolate ice cream.

[Albion]

I love many aspects of Anglican tradition and spirituality and their off-shoots -- Cramerian English, the hymnals, the Book of Common Prayer, the KJV line including the NRSV which is my primary bible, and so on and so forth. At this point intellectually, though, I honestly don't "get it" anymore in terms of it existing outside of the Roman Catholic Church

As Cola said, it all depends on doctrine, doesn't it? If the RCC were the true church, and we were convinced of it, we'd all join. But we are not identical churches, separated only by ethnicity, etc.

And if we find that unity is more important than agreement on doctrine (which we deny), why is it that we are supposed to join them? If they had not strayed a number of centuries ago, they'd still have that unity.

[gtsecc]

The Romans are as United as the Orthodox. Its a show, a facade.

I know my Orthodox and Roman Brothers will balk at that, but I have too much personal experience to say otherwise.

My father taught RCIA, and I have been involved with, including working charity with, several Orthodox Churches.

They Bicker and fight, as bad as, and often worse than, the average Anglican.
Not exactly true - they all agree on doctrine.
So, Anglicans while we also disagree, disagree on who Christ is, etc... but, then again, we probably get along better.

[Mick116]

What I have liked about Anglican Catholicism is the desire to remain grounded upon the Prophets and the Apostles - and upon the scriptures which they wrote - and wherever there is some ambiguity or uncertainty in doctrine or practice, to seek the understanding of the early undivided Church of the first millennium.

I am not convinced that the Roman Catholic Church is necessarily the best place to see this realised; I sometimes think that Reformation-period "evangelical catholicism" is nearer the spirit of the early Church than Rome. Certainly Christ-centred, grace-seasoned Christian faith and witness can be found with some abundance in the Roman Catholic Church, but there remains a tendancy towards legalism, exclusion and exposition of unbiblical doctrine and practice.

Personally, I'm not sure if the TAC's move toward unity with Rome is desirable or not. I'm one who has been quite happy to live and worship on that line between the TAC and the Anglican Communion.

[Albion]

Agreed. There still is a good deal of truth to the claim that we have no doctrine of our own, but that we hold as much as anyone to the mainstream of Christian history, avoiding the extremes. That causes us to look vacilating or uncommitted to many who belong to other churches and communions which are distinguished from every other one because of holding to this or that teaching which is unique to them, respectively. While we Anglicans beat ourselves up about various controversial issues, this aspect of our Anglican heritage remains a strength.

[No Swansong]

Here's the forgotten story in all of this...

Archbishop Hepworth has for about two years been saying that Rome would accept the TAC as an equal, recognize it, have intercommunion status with it. He assured all his people that they would remain Anglicans.

Many observers thought it unlikely that Rome would do this. Well, she didn't.

++Hepworth finally admitted that there is nothing being discussed between the two churches at present.

What then?

The Portsmouth decision was to give the venture up and simply join the RCC.

This is not what had been promised, but many in the TAC seem still (from what I have read elsewhere on line) to think that it is!

Secundulus, I take it, is more than willing, because of the principle of unity, to become part of the Church of Rome. I will be very much surprised, however, if all of TAC's members decide the same way once they find out that they are not, after all, going to be Anglicans in some Uniate status, etc. with the Vatican.

The Vatican may admit them as a few more of the "Anglican Use" parishes she has. That might mean, in my estimation, a couple dozen in the USA formerly affiliated with TAC. These Anglican Use parishes are Roman Catholic, not Anglican, except that they are permitted temporarily to use a Roman Catholic Mass book with language taken from the BCP's Holy Communion service.
Even the Uniates must assent to Papal Infallibility. I would ask our friend Secundulus if he is willing to do so? I would ask Contra but I think I already know his answer.

[Secundulus]

Even the Uniates must assent to Papal Infallibility. I would ask our friend Secundulus if he is willing to do so?

I can accept that. Whether I can accept whatever else is offered, if anything, remains to be seen.

I believe that Anglicanism is every bit as valid an expression of the Catholic faith as is the Roman Church. I do not want to surrender that.

However, given the state of the world today, I believe that Christian unity is right now more important than it has ever been. I believe that any move towards unity, even if that contains some comprimise, is desirable.

[No Swansong]

Well I appreciate your honest response. I think it is clear that I do not believe that unity at the cost of orthodoxy is called for in Scripture. Actually there are definitely Scripture that directs otherwise.

Do you really believe that the Pope is infallible in matters of faith and morals?

[Secundulus]

Well I appreciate your honest response. I think it is clear that I do not believe that unity at the cost of orthodoxy is called for in Scripture. Actually there are definitely Scripture that directs otherwise.

Do you really believe that the Pope is infallible in matters of faith and morals?

Given how it is defined and how it has been used, I can accept it.

I also agree that unity at the cost of orthodoxy is not called for. Given what the Anglican Church requires one to believe, and not to believe, I don't think that any orthodoxy is being compromised here.

I am about half way through Pope Benedict's book Jesus of Nazareth. I honestly cannot see that he believes in Christ any differently than than any Anglican who claims him as a personal savior.

[No Swansong]

Given how it is defined and how it has been used, I can accept it.

I also agree that unity at the cost of orthodoxy is not called for. Given what the Anglican Church requires one to believe, and not to believe, I don't think that any orthodoxy is being compromised here.

I am about half way through Pope Benedict's book Jesus of Nazareth. I honestly cannot see that he believes in Christ any differently than than any Anglican who claims him as a personal savior.
Well again opinions vary. I pray that you are happy. The orthodoxy I was referring to is the doctrine of Papal Infallibility itself. But we don't need to go down that road.

My best to you. I do not envision submiting myself to the Pope (whom I respect for his honesty) again. Just out of curiosity, (possible I missed it) Why do you not just join the Roman Catholic Church that you must have down the street somewhere? (the last person I asked this told me it was because they wanted to be ordained but did not want to subject themselves to celebacy, he viewed it as a back door.)

jtbdad

[Secundulus]

Just out of curiosity, (possible I missed it) Why do you not just join the Roman Catholic Church that you must have down the street somewhere? (the last person I asked this told me it was because they wanted to be ordained but did not want to subject themselves to celebacy, he viewed it as a back door.)

jtbdad

I want to be ordained but would give that up if necessary. I do not want to go to Rome as an individual and feel no need to do so since as I said, I believe the Anglican Church is every bit as validly Catholic as is the Roman Church.

What I want to see is a reunification of the Church. My hope is that this small part of it can happen while retaining English Catholicity.

At one time, about 15 years ago, I almost did join Rome but having just recently recovered from Mormonism and fundamentalism still had suspicions of the Pope as the Antichrist. LOL

[No Swansong]

I want to be ordained but would give that up if necessary. I do not want to go to Rome as an individual and feel no need to do so since as I said, I believe the Anglican Church is every bit as validly Catholic as is the Roman Church.

What I want to see is a reunification of the Church. My hope is that this small part of it can happen while retaining English Catholicity.

At one time, about 15 years ago, I almost did join Rome but having just recently recovered from Mormonism and fundamentalism still had suspicions of the Pope as the Antichrist. LOL
Well remember you are in my prayers and on my prayer list.

Do we really know if Rome is seriously considering this or not? Has there been any indication that you are aware of?

[Secundulus]

Do we really know if Rome is seriously considering this or not? Has there been any indication that you are aware of?

Nobody that has inside information is permitted to speak. I really don't know anything more than what is available on the internet.

[Colabomb]

Nobody that has inside information is permitted to speak. I really don't know anything more than what is available on the internet.

And that is not utterly terrifying to you?

[Secundulus]

And that is not utterly terrifying to you?

Not really. It's not as if they can commit me personally to anything. If something abominable were to occur I am free to walk away.

That said, I trust my Bishop.

[No Swansong]

And that is not utterly terrifying to you?
Caution before one responds is not necessarily a bad thing son. Speaking as a unified group is a good idea when possible. If they still can't speak in a week then maybe there is a problem. Right now it seems to be a cautious response.

[Colabomb]

Okay, perhaps I did exaggerate a bit....

[Secundulus]

Okay, perhaps I did exaggerate a bit....

The worst that would happen to me if my current parish ceased to exist in a tolerable state is that I would go join the Orthodox Church across town that was founded by others fleeing TEC.

[Aymn27]

Not exactly true - they all agree on doctrine.
So, Anglicans while we also disagree, disagree on who Christ is, etc... but, then again, we probably get along better.
That is demonstrably false - even bishops in the RCC speak about their oppostion to no artificial birth control - they argue about liturgy, etc. And from first hand experience - their priests are in "same-sex committed" relationships they just don't go public. When you work at the Diocesan level, though - it is talked about, known, and swept under the rug...

[ContraMundum]

The TAC has always prided itself as being "the best" haven for Continuning Anglicans, so the theory goes.

The question no one is asking is whether or not the TAC would still be a Continuing Anglican body if union with Rome occured. If not, then questions need to be asked about how the TAC has presented itself for years in addition to a whole host of questions about the pastoral care of Continuing Anglicans, and where their haven should now be....etc etc etc.

[Albion]

The TAC has always prided itself as being "the best" haven for Continuning Anglicans, so the theory goes.

Well, they all say that of themselves, don't they?

The question no one is asking is whether or not the TAC would still be a Continuing Anglican body if union with Rome occured.

Hmmm. I thought that was understood. No, it wanted to cease to be a Continuing Anglican body while remaining technically Anglican in some sense. She certainly was more than willing to abandon the defining position statement of the movement, the Affirmation of St. Louis, for example. On the other hand, Abp Hepworth never did, to my recollection, explain exactly to what extent TAC could still be considered Anglican if, as was said, this would end the schism that began with Henry VIII.

If not, then questions need to be asked about how the TAC has presented itself for years in addition to a whole host of questions about the pastoral care of Continuing Anglicans, and where their haven should now be....etc etc etc.

Interesting. What she's done for the past several years is describe herself as "Catholic." Her literature routinely features articles on how members should believe Roman Catholic teachings, prayers for the Pope, and so on. Apparently this is supposed to mean that TAC members are 100% in step with Rome, but just waiting for a historical technicality to be overcome.

If this seems to raise the question of how easily the membership could have been divested of their beliefs and given replacement ones, I agree with you. It is also why I do not for a moment believe that if TAC is successful in joining the RCC, that most of its parishes and people will automatically go along. Some have already withdrawn. When it hits them what exactly is planned, and that there is nothing but absorbtion into the RCC in view--as opposed to what they'd been prepped for over the past two years or so--the understandable appeal of "unity" talk will not look the same.

BTW, if you are online now, what time is it there? It's Sunday 11 AM here.

[No Swansong]

The TAC has always prided itself as being "the best" haven for Continuning Anglicans, so the theory goes.

The question no one is asking is whether or not the TAC would still be a Continuing Anglican body if union with Rome occured. If not, then questions need to be asked about how the TAC has presented itself for years in addition to a whole host of questions about the pastoral care of Continuing Anglicans, and where their haven should now be....etc etc etc.
I guess that would depend upon whether they actually submit themselves to Rome or only have an intercommunion agreement. I don't see Rome allowing as simple intercommunion. With Rome it seems to be all or nothing. Even the Uniates aren't truly autonomous, they are still subject to Rome.

Besides I have yet to see how one can truly be Anglican and Roman. To me that is pretty much an oxymoron.

[Fish and Bread]

1. The Vatican asking the TAC leadership to stay silent until it renders a decision is probably a good idea. Them speaking at this time can't possibly help anything. Let's say they keep talking about a better deal than they wind up getting right up until the second it's announced -- people are really disappointed and leave, feeling misled. Let's say they keep talking about a lesser deal than they wind up getting -- people leave in advance of the announcement when they might have stayed if they had known what it is. Rather than have the bishops running around speculating and making all sorts of contradictory statements, which might even be picked up by the press and give people the wrong idea, isn't it better for them to wait for the outcome and then address their people? Then, hopefully people will hang in there and see what happens.

2. Anglo-Catholics have always defined Anglicanism as English Catholicism, and included the years they were united to Rome as part of their history. I don't see how they could not count a genuine Anglican prelature or rite united to Rome as Anglican. Evangelical Anglicans, who often define Anglicanism more in light of the Reformation and Protestantism, though, might have some issues with calling this group Anglican, but I doubt TAC cares. At least, they shouldn't. They should do what they think is right in the eyes of God, right?

[Albion]

I guess that would depend upon whether they actually submit themselves to Rome or only have an intercommunion agreement.

The current TAC appeal to Rome recognizes that the Vatican has rejected intercommunion.

Besides I have yet to see how one can truly be Anglican and Roman. To me that is pretty much an oxymoron.

I never did "get" what Abp Hepworth was promising with that claim. But he also never come forth with any of the details because, supposedly, the RCC was going to approve the plan "imminently" at which time it would all be clear. Now that "imminently" didn't happen, there's no need for him, I'm thinking, to explain what the TAC had envisioned.

[Albion]

2. Anglo-Catholics have always defined Anglicanism as English Catholicism, and included the years they were united to Rome as part of their history. I don't see how they could not count a genuine Anglican prelature or rite united to Rome as Anglican. Evangelical Anglicans, who often define Anglicanism more in light of the Reformation and Protestantism, though, might have some issues with calling this group Anglican, but I doubt TAC cares. At least, they shouldn't. They should do what they think is right in the eyes of God, right?
Not entirely true. Anglo-Catholics (not including the fringe we sometimes call Anglo-Papists) did NOT accept all the claims of the Papacy, and did not accept all Roman Catholic teachings.

They merely argued that the Articles of Religion could be understood in a quasi-Catholic way, not purely as the Evangelicals did, that the Church did have a continuity with the pre-Reformation Church in England, and that it retained the essentials of Catholicism. All of that certainly did not mean believing all that the Roman Church believed and taught. The early Anglo-Catholics were even LowChurchmen (which of course is another way in which any Anglican going for the Anglican Use provision must conform to RCC useage).

[Fish and Bread]

Not entirely true. Anglo-Catholics (not including the fringe we sometimes call Anglo-Papists) did NOT accept all the claims of the Papacy, and did not accept all Roman Catholic teachings.

They merely argued that the Articles of Religion could be understood in a quasi-Catholic way, not purely as the Evangelicals did, that the Church did have a continuity with the pre-Reformation Church in England, and that it retained the essentials of Catholicism. All of that certainly did not mean believing all that the Roman Church believed and taught. The early Anglo-Catholics were even LowChurchmen (which of course is another way in which any Anglican going for the Anglican Use provision must conform to RCC useage).
I realize Anglo-Catholics have never as a group been entirely identical to Roman Catholics. If they had been, they would simply have been Roman Catholics. My point, rather is as follows:

Anglo-Catholics often derive their claims of Catholicity from the notion that the Church of England has existed since the earliest days of Christianity. To explain that claim, they claim that Anglicanism started when the Roman colony of Briton was first evangelized, continued through the Celtic church, then further continued through the Roman Catholic Church in England, and then finally continued onto the present in the form of the Church of England and related bodies. To them, all of these churches are "Anglican". To claim that the Anglican religious tradition (Rather than Apostolic Succession alone) dates to the Apostolic times or thereabout, one has to include each of these incarnations as Anglican by definition. This would include Roman Catholics in England from at least the 10th through 16th centuries.

So, there is already tacit acceptance by many Anglo-Catholics that at one time there were Roman Catholics in union with the Pope who were Anglican. If they were to contest this, then their claim to be a continuous tradition dating back to the Apostles would be invalided and they'd have to trace their roots only as far back as the Reformation. So, there's precedent for certain people in union with Rome to be considered Anglican, at least in an implicit and ex post facto way, by at least some elements of the Anglo-Catholic wing of Anglicanism.

[Albion]

My point, rather is as follows:

Anglo-Catholics often derive their claims of Catholicity from the notion that the Church of England has existed since the earliest days of Christianity. To explain that claim, they claim that Anglicanism started when the Roman colony of Briton was first evangelized, continued through the Celtic church, then further continued through the Roman Catholic Church in England, and then finally continued onto the present in the form of the Church of England and related bodies.

True, but Evangelical Anglicans are just as willing to say these things. The issue is not the age of the Church but what happened during the Reformation.

I was merely saying that Anglo-Catholicism, certainly until recently, did not say that it believed just what Rome did, only that its claim to being part of the so-called undivided Church of the past made her equal to the RCC in that regard. It also helps to promote the fiction that the Reformation was only a passing thing perpetrated by Calvinists who temporarily afflicted the Church in England, such that nothing in the Articles of Religion are to be considered really Anglican.

The claim is accentuated by saying that they refer only to the 16th century and have no validity today. Of course, that's like saying that the Nicene Creed doesn't mean anything for modern Christians since it was written in the 4th Century and, as we all know, came in response to contentious issues raised at that time by Arians and others.

[Jabronie]

I do not have any inside information on the specifics of the TAC's proposal.

1. I doubt that would happen for Bishops simply because it would create problems in a long term desire to unite with the Eastern Orthodox. In the short term, all the TAC Bishops have offered to step down if necessary. I read a rumor somewhere that the proposal contains some sort of transition period for Bishops after which only celebate unmarried Priests could be Bishops.

As for Latin Rite Roman Catholicism, I don't think this is going to happen any time soon. What this means for TAC priests I do not know. However, it is possible to retain married priests depending on what the specifics of the proposal are and on how the Vatican responds. My guess is that this is what is being sought.

2. I don't understand this question.

3. The TAC's orders are not in question right now due to earlier ordinations by Old Catholic and other Bishops in communion with Rome. This issue has already been settled with the Vatican in earlier discussions. If this were to come about, maybe there would be conditional ordinations required to which I think most, if not all, of the TAC Clergy would not object.

I think the possibility of Rome's recognizing Anglican orders in the Anglican Communion at large is exactly zero at this point in history because of Women's ordination.
Just for the record, when married Anglican priests convert to Latin-Rite Catholicism, they are given the option of becoming ordained priests in Catholicism. The Eastern-Rites also allow married priests.

[gtsecc]

That is demonstrably false - even bishops in the RCC speak about their oppostion to no artificial birth control - they argue about liturgy, etc. And from first hand experience - their priests are in "same-sex committed" relationships they just don't go public. When you work at the Diocesan level, though - it is talked about, known, and swept under the rug...
But those things don't become the theology of the Church as they do for Anglicans.

[No Swansong]

Just for the record, when married Anglican priests convert to Latin-Rite Catholicism, they are given the option of becoming ordained priests in Catholicism. The Eastern-Rites also allow married priests.
This isn't entirely true about Anglican priests. At least in the U.S. this can happen if the congregation also converts. If it is only the individual priest he cannot become a Latin-rite priest if he is married. I checked with a credentialed, Canon lawyer before posting this. He assures me it is correct. He has also told me that in almost every case Ordination (some would call it sub-conditional) is required.

As for the Uniates it is true that priests may marry however for many of them the marriage must have taken place before ordination. Should one become a widow or divorced then they would not be permitted to re-marry.

[IowaLutheran]

This isn't entirely true about Anglican priests. At least in the U.S. this can happen if the congregation also converts. If it is only the individual priest he cannot become a Latin-rite priest if he is married. I checked with a credentialed, Canon lawyer before posting this. He assures me it is correct. He has also told me that in almost every case Ordination (some would call it sub-conditional) is required.

As for the Uniates it is true that priests may marry however for many of them the marriage must have taken place before ordination. Should one become a widow or divorced then they would not be permitted to re-marry.

Glen would know better than I, but I thought that Al Kimel (aka the Pontificator) was ordained a Latin rite priest, and from following his blog, I don't recall that he took a parish went with him - in fact, I think many in his parish gave him grief over his conversion.

Leonard Klein, a Lutheran, was married and ordained a Latin rite priest without taking a parish with him.

http://www.newszap.com/articles/2006/01/04/dm/sussex_county/dsn04.txt

[Fish and Bread]

I know people who had a married former Lutheran pastor serve as a seminarian at their Roman Catholic parish, and he was said to be on the track to the Roman Catholic priesthood. I am presuming he wasn't bringing a congregation with him, because he was assigned to a Roman Catholic parish -- and a Lutheran congregation converting en mass would have definitely been something I would have heard about. :)

[No Swansong]

Glen would know better than I, but I thought that Al Kimel (aka the Pontificator) was ordained a Latin rite priest, and from following his blog, I don't recall that he took a parish went with him - in fact, I think many in his parish gave him grief over his conversion.

Leonard Klein, a Lutheran, was married and ordained a Latin rite priest without taking a parish with him.

http://www.newszap.com/articles/2006/01/04/dm/sussex_county/dsn04.txt
Again I wasn't really sure so I checked with an individual who definitely would know. The man I am referring to has his Ph.D. in Canon law earned in Rome under the oversight of then Cardinal Ratzinger. Perhaps exceptions have been made I am not an expert and I didn't ask if there have ever been exceptions.


I would also say that if it is true that Lutherans etc. can convert and then become ordained while married it is a travesty to those who enter the Roman Catholic priesthood in the traditional manner. I know far too many good men who had to choose between what they considered to be two callings from God. One to be a husband and a father and the other to be a priest.

[Albion]

and I know of a Canadian priest, an Anglican, who converted with his wife and did not take a congregation with him. He was in the process of being assigned to an existing RC parish there. Doesn't seem as though the rule would differ between the USA and Canada.

[Aymn27]

Again I wasn't really sure so I checked with an individual who definitely would know. The man I am referring to has his Ph.D. in Canon law earned in Rome under the oversight of then Cardinal Ratzinger. Perhaps exceptions have been made I am not an expert and I didn't ask if there have ever been exceptions.


I would also say that if it is true that Lutherans etc. can convert and then become ordained while married it is a travesty to those who enter the Roman Catholic priesthood in the traditional manner. I know far too many good men who had to choose between what they considered to be two callings from God. One to be a husband and a father and the other to be a priest.
this is true..we have two RC in our diocese that were protestant pastors (one methodist one episcopal) who converted to latin rite and were ordained as priests - wife and children in tow....that is one of my major beefs with RC, the stupidity with which they insist a latin catholic male be celbite, but allow non-romans to become priests and accept the ministries of eastern priests as normal and valid....

[HyacinthBouquet]

So, does anyone have any idea how long this will take or whether it is likely to actually happen?

(I'd like my children to go to Catholic secondary schools. So, hopefully, it will happen before then. ;) )

[Albion]

So, does anyone have any idea how long this will take or whether it is likely to actually happen?

(I'd like my children to go to Catholic secondary schools. So, hopefully, it will happen before then. ;) )

I doubt that anyone knows how long it might be if ever. However, I don't see any reason to wait on Catholic education until it does. Every Catholic school has some students who are members of other churches, and since you wouldn't object to yours being involved in the religious education given by the school, you might just as well inquire now about enrolling them.

[karen freeinchristman]

My daughter goes to a Catholic secondary school. It wasn't a problem.

[HyacinthBouquet]

I doubt that anyone knows how long it might be if ever. However, I don't see any reason to wait on Catholic education until it does. Every Catholic school has some students who are members of other churches, and since you wouldn't object to yours being involved in the religious education given by the school, you might just as well inquire now about enrolling them.

My daughter goes to a Catholic secondary school. It wasn't a problem.

Thanks for your help.

Where we live, there are many, many Catholic immigrants (from all over the world but mainly Poland and Africa). So all the Catholic schools are oversubscribed. There is absolutely no way in 2007 that an Anglican would get into a Catholic school where we live. No way Jose! But I know how it used to be. It used to be quite common to have Anglicans alongside Catholics in Catholic secondary schools.

However, there are always options. (Move to a different area, join the Catholic church, etc.)

[Albion]

Thanks for your help.

Where we live, there are many, many Catholic immigrants (from all over the world but mainly Poland and Africa). So all the Catholic schools are oversubscribed. There is absolutely no way in 2007 that an Anglican would get into a Catholic school where we live. No way Jose! But I know how it used to be. It used to be quite common to have Anglicans alongside Catholics in Catholic secondary schools.

However, there are always options. (Move to a different area, join the Catholic church, etc.)

Interesting. I'd say that it might be worth inquiring anyway, if you are a member of a TAC parish.

After all, you can say that you are expecting the church to be accepted any day now by the Vatican. Its request is public knowledge. That's a situation different from being an Anglican whose jurisdiction has no intentions of joining the RCC.

[Fish and Bread]

Interesting. I'd say that it might be worth inquiring anyway, if you are a member of a TAC parish.

After all, you can say that you are expecting the church to be accepted any day now by the Vatican. Its request is public knowledge. That's a situation different from being an Anglican whose jurisdiction has no intentions of joining the RCC.
Does the average school principle know anything about this, though? Things make huge news online that are lucky to crack page 20D of the average local newspaper.

[gtsecc]

re: the Pontificator.
I am sitting next to a photo of him because I am in the parish hall, and past rectors are on the wall.
He was considered laity for a year or so by there RC, and they even made him attend RCIA, AFIK, which is rediculous, because they are not that many living people who could teach him much about RC that he does know. Now he is ordained.

[Albion]

Does the average school principle know anything about this, though? Things make huge news online that are lucky to crack page 20D of the average local newspaper.

What I was thinking was that she could bring news releases and show them as part of her appeal. This would show that she is not just trying to redefine herself for the purposes of getting her children into the schools (which probably has been tried by many others before).

[ContraMundum]

and I know of a Canadian priest, an Anglican, who converted with his wife and did not take a congregation with him. He was in the process of being assigned to an existing RC parish there. Doesn't seem as though the rule would differ between the USA and Canada.


I know a couple of guys like that. I don't think they're any happier though.

[Secundulus]

So, does anyone have any idea how long this will take or whether it is likely to actually happen?

(I'd like my children to go to Catholic secondary schools. So, hopefully, it will happen before then. ;) )

According to my Priest, this will happen in normal Roman Ecclesistical time. That is probably sometime in the next 100 years.

Hopefully though we will get some kind of answer back from the Vatican somewhat sooner than that.

[Fish and Bread]

re: the Pontificator.
I am sitting next to a photo of him because I am in the parish hall, and past rectors are on the wall.

So, you're a Marylander? :) Or did he also serve in another diocese?

He was considered laity for a year or so by there RC, and they even made him attend RCIA, AFIK, which is rediculous, because they are not that many living people who could teach him much about RC that he does know.

I agree. I don't know why in the world they'd want to make the poor guy sit through RCIA. He probably knows more than the Bishop. Certainly, at minimum, he knows more than whomever is teaching the class.

If I were to ever go back to the RCC I received some of the early sacraments in for confirmation, I'd do everything possible to worm my way out of RCIA, which sounds annoying. I'd probably have a good case, since I am technically a cradle Catholic. I doubt they can force a revert through a program like that the same way they can with a convert.

I know a couple of guys like that. I don't think they're any happier though.

Yeah, but is following Christ about being happy? It makes no sense to devote your life to serving God as a priest if you've come to believe the church you're doing it in is no the one true church and God wants you someplace else.

[higgs2]

Hey, F&B, are you still an Anglican?

[Fish and Bread]

Hey, F&B, are you still an Anglican?
I've been at kind of an interesting place in my life religiously the last couple years. Nothing is really settled in terms of me being a practicing anything right now, I'm very torn on a lot of issues. For CF purposes, I'm going with Anglican. That's the last thing I regularly practiced on a weekly churchgoing basis, so it makes sense for me to pick it for CF, since I have to pick something.

In a more practical sense, though, I'm all over the place. If it settles, honestly, it'll probably either be Roman Catholic (Which I believe is the most credible) or completely rejecting God. I like Anglicanism better than Roman Catholicism in many respects (In Anglicanism, the rules fit better with how I see the world, and the liturgical practices and traditions are in some cases more personally edifying for me), but, in all honesty, and I don't want to offend anyone, I don't think Anglicanism holds up under really deep theological and historical scrutiny as part of a church Christ founded on Pentecost (So, neat rules and liturgical practices or not, it doesn't seem to be what it claims to be, and thus it was hard for me to continue practicing it regularly when I came to that conclusion, though it makes me sad to this day).

At the same time, I've developed a lot of meaningful issues with God, both personally and theologically, both in light of what I feel Christianity points to, and in light of ongoing evaluation of my own being and circumstances. I'm not really in accord with God. It's probably nothing a wife couldn't fix, though. ;) (I'm only half joking with that, as people who follow my posts closely probably know, it's always been by primary dream and desire to marry and it's probably virtually impossible that I'll find that kind of life-long union at this point, for various reasons. So, obviously, that's one among many issues I have with the divine.).

[Albion]

I know a couple of guys like that. I don't think they're any happier though.

Oh, right. I was just saying that they exist. But the reason that I know they do, is because they're bitterly disappointed. This in turn was picked up by the religious news services.