Traditionalists preparing for Catholic conversion

Church of England Newspaper ^ | 4 December 2003 | staff writer

[NeoCaveman]

Here's a related thread that was just posted on a Unitae (I may have misspelled it) Bishops elect new leader of Chaldean Catholics

[trad_anglican]

forgot to mention - to the best of my knowledge neither TAC nor FIF accept the 'ordination' of women.

You are correct. Also, FIF North America and Anglican Church in America (TAC in USA) are in full communion with each other.

[nickcarraway]

You might want to talk with a Byzantine Catholic about that. They are in communion with the pope, but they are not Roman Catholic.

[Eala]

Thank you both for the explanations!

[tiki]

As a Catholic and a convert myself, I'd just like to say to those considering such a thing, WELCOME. We aren't without our problems but the doctrine and the theology and especially the hope in Christ are correct.

[ahadams2]

Thanks for the pointers - I have no doubt these will be important to some of our Anglo-Catholic freepers.

[bobjam]

Mariology as it is today was never a part of the doctrine of the Anglican Church. The dogmas of Immaculate Conception and the Assumption were made official by papal decree in the 19th Century. Aquinas, Anslem and Bernard of Clairveax, among others, did not teach what is now Immaculate Conception. Other notions of popular piety, some of which have their origins in the Middle Ages, have also made significant advances in the last 200 years. One such idea is "co-redemptrex" or the belief that we are redeemed through both Mary and Christ. Though not directly defined yet, the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church, produced at Vatican II, hints very strongly at it in it's chapter on Mary (chapter 8, I believe). It's only a matter of time before the belief that we can be redeemed through either Mary of Christ makes it into the mainstream.

[Pyro7480]

It's only a matter of time before the belief that we can be redeemed through either Mary of Christ makes it into the mainstream.

That's utter rubbish. Either this is a false interpretation of what has happened, or there are some greatly misguided Catholics out there. One is ONLY redeemed through Jesus Christ. The idea of Mary being a "co-redemptrix" is that Mary participated in the redemptive suffering and death of Jesus (see Luke's Gospel for the account of the Presentation of Jesus in the Temple "And a sword will pierce through your own soul.") Mary was one of the few that stayed with Jesus until He died on the Cross.

[Flying Circus]

Hermann, you are usually pretty knowledgeable about things, but on this one you need to check yourself. Unless you are reaching for an older definition of Roman that encompasses the Orthodox, Copts, ect. Byzantines are not Roman. There are in union with Rome, but that puts them out of union with their natural patriarch in the See of Constantinople until there is a reunification of the Church and the schism between Constantinople and Rome is ended.

[Notwithstanding]

I believe the common nomenclature and termniology among papal Catholics of all stripes is as follows:

"Roman" genrally refers to either:

a) the See of Peter in Rome (and all those who consider him to be the authoritative shepherd for all); or

b) the Latin rites for Mass (the moset common rite is the Roman rite)

"Catholic Church" is the title of those united under the Holy See in the Vatican.

"Latin" is generally used to describe the liturgical rite that most Catholics follow (even when it is in the vernacular). This is often also called "Roman" (as I noted above).

I know that Maronites (Lebanese Catholics) do not use the Latin or Roman rite - instead they use the Maronite rite (a very different Mass - not simply a different language).

I think it is the same for Byzantine Catholics - they follow Byzantine rite (again, a very different Mass).

All of these rites are valid Catholic rites and all of these groups submit to the authroity fo the Pope.

[RobbyS]

The problem in the ECUSA seems to be that the pervert priests now run the show, and quite openly.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

There are various medieval (roughly circa AD 400 to AD 1400) decrees referring to the whole Church as the One Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church. I beleive if you talk to knowledgeable easterners, especially Greeks (who are really Romaoi - Christian Romans, not Helleni - Pagan Greeks), they will claim the title Roman for the Church too. Hence the title of the Roman Emperor after Heraclius' defeat of Persia as "Pistos in Christos Basileus kai Autokrator Romaoin" - "Great King Faithful in Christ and Emperor of Romania" and the consideration of this same Roman Emperor to be "Emperor of all the Romans, that is, all Christians" (Letter of the Roman Basileus to the Prince of the Russians, AD 1393). This was the understanding of the medieval Church, and it was (until some time after the Gregorian reform and the Ottonian settlement) for the Emperor in Constantinople New Rome for whom the prayers of the Roman Canon and the bidding prayers of Good Friday and the Collects for the Emperor were addressed - even in far off lands like Ireland.

The Turks recently, in reference to their continued refusal to reopen the Orthodox Patriarchal Seminary in Constantinople referred to it as the "Roman Catholic" seminary in English translation. They know precisely who they are referring to and what their proper title is, even if western Catholics have gotten it muddled out of defensiveness towards the Anglo-Catholics and obfuscations from Montesquie.

There is no reason to refrain from calling the whole Church Roman. The whole Catholic Church is not Latin, but it is Roman.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

Ping to #52

[Hermann the Cherusker]

Rome's Mariology, Purgatory, papal infallibility, clerical celibacy, etc are at least inconsistent with traditional Anglicanism.

Apparently, you aren't very familiar with FIF.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

It's only a matter of time before the belief that we can be redeemed through either Mary of Christ makes it into the mainstream.

Some heretics may already believe such nonesense, but rest assured the Catholic Church will never teach that sort of idiocy.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

I think it is the same for Byzantine Catholics - they follow Byzantine rite (again, a very different Mass).

There really is no such thing as a Byzantine. Its a figure of speech in English and French to avoid granting the Greeks and Co. the glorious title of "Roman", with which they called themselves, and which many Greeks and all Romanians (among others) still call themselves.

WHAT, IF ANYTHING, IS A BYZANTINE?

You will find the related terms Vlach, Wallachian, Welsh, etc. also mean Roman. The Vlach Connection

Please note the terminology of the Antiohcean Patriarchate - Melkites, meaning "the King's Men". Which King? "The Great King Faithful in Christ and Emperor of Romania" - the Roman Emperor. The Arabs and Turks correctly call them Romans too.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

Even the Chinese called the Assyrian Catholics (Chaldeans/Assyrian Catholic Church of the East) who brought Christianity to them in the Tang Dynasty "Romans". Their Church was legally known as "The Jing Religion of Da Qin", which means "The Bright Religion of Rome". This despite the fact that the Persians/Assyrians had never been Romans.

[MudPuppy]

ping for you over here -- talking about Melkites (post#35) and stuff

[bobjam]

I am not terribly familiar with the particulars of FiF. I come from the evangelical side of the conservative movement. I do not see, however, how one can claim to have such a strong reverence for the 39 Articles of Religion and a few of the dogmas currently taught by the Vatican. Example: one cannot hold the 39 Articles and believe in Purgatory. One cannot be required to believe in the Assumption because that event is not in the Bible (though it could very well have happened)- the 39 Articles say that no one may be required to belived that which can't be proven by the plain words of Scripture.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

Forward in Faith - http://www.forwardinfaith.com/

Example: one cannot hold the 39 Articles and believe in Purgatory. One cannot be required to believe in the Assumption because that event is not in the Bible (though it could very well have happened)- the 39 Articles say that no one may be required to belived that which can't be proven by the plain words of Scripture.

Remarks on Certain Passages of the Thirty-nine Articles by John Newman, 1841, Tracts for Our Times, No. 90 - http://www.newmanreader.org/works/viamedia/volume2/tract90/