You may remember that the Traditional Anglican Communion–a 400,000 strong global alliance of conservative Anglicans wrote to the Vatican last Spring asking how they might come into full communion with the Holy See. The Vatican sent a courteous ‘wait and see’ response in July.
Then in July the Anglican bishops gathered from around the world for the once-a-decade Lambeth Conference. The debates over women bishops and homosexuality dominated the headlines. Evangelical Anglicans met in Jerusalem the week before and formed their own global alliance called GAFFE CON (or some such). What has happened since is that the global Anglican Communion has continued to disintegrate. More breakaway churches have formed, new alliances between existing breakway church are being pioneered, parishes and whole dioceses have pulled out of the Episcopal Church.
Now Damien Thompson helps to break the news here about a rumor emerging from Rome that the Holy Father wishes to create a personal prelature for those traditional Anglicans who wish to be reconciled to the church. The only existing personal prelature so far is Opus Dei. A personal prelature is described as a semi autonomous body within the Catholic Church like a diocese with its own bishop, but without geographical boundaries–what traditionalist Anglicans have themselves talked about for years calling it a ‘non geographical province.’
The existence of such a body could be the entrance point not only for the existing members of the Traditional Anglican Communion, but for many more disenchanted Anglicans who can suddenly see their way into the Catholic Church while retaining the best parts of their Anglo-Catholic tradition. It might even (hope against hope!) be a way for the Anglicans themselves to do some judicial pruning–getting rid of the Anglo Catholics they don’t really want and ridding themselves of some of their overstock of church buildings etc.
Like the full reconciliation of the SSPX, there is still a lot of work to do, but it is amazing and exciting to see what creative and courageous steps the Pope is willing to take in order to facilitate real church unity.
I think this is exciting news. Pray like crazy!
It is indeed terrifically exciting to be a Catholic right now. As long as Christendom remains divided against itself, its enemies prosper. We may be witnessing the early stages of a recoalescence of Christians toward the unity that Jesus Himself prayed for.
As an ex-Anglican priest, now happily a Catholic, I have been following this whole situation with great interest. I can see blessings for the Catholic Church with the use of the beautiful Anglo Catholic worship. It would provide a chance for those not totally at ease with a full Latin mass to be able to experience beauitiful, grand and heavenly worship. It could provide a nice antidote to the worst of the aberations that crept in after the Novus Ordo was introduced. My one reservation is that the Anglicans must come over FULLY accepting the Church’s teaching – no more caferteria religion, no more picking and choosing what you will accept.
Thank you for your continued posting on this issue, Father. I rely on you to break all of the Anglican stuff down for me. You are a great help.
Fr. Longenecker, I’ve given you a Lovey Award…
For one thing I take it as an insult that you refer to GAFCON as GAFFE CON and then make a rude remark like “or some such”. I am a member of the Reformed Episcopal Church, which is involved in both GAFCON and the new Anglican Church of America. As far as I am concerned TAC to me are the same as the Uniates are to the Eastern Orthodox.I will not trade the Biblical Gospel of Grace and Justification by Faith for the Roman Semi-Pelagian Gospel as espoused by the Council of Trent. I whole heartedly accept the 39 Articles of Religion and reject the Roman Catechism.
I hope so. I find it frustrating that SSPX gets all this attention and help and the TAC and groups like them do not. Sometimes I fear that it is because the magisterium is so obsessed with celibacy, and SSPX has successfully recruited celibates. I hope and pray that isn’t true and for the prelature for the Anglican rite!
Sorry john. The Protestant understanding of justification by faith, as justification by faith alone, is NOT a Biblical doctrine at all. It was invented by Martin Luther. When he was asked why HE added the word “alone” to St Paul’s words that we are justified by faith he answered, in a reply of monumental arrogance, “Dr Martin Luther wants it that way…”. To ignore all Our Lord’s words about judgement and salvation itself being related to our works in obeying God, is to commit blasphemy.
Hi John, “Gaffe Con” was meant to be a joke. In another post I might just as casually refer to TAC as Tacky. We all need to laugh at ourselves a little don’t we? If it offended I’m sorry.I suggest you find out what Catholics really believe rather than what you think we believe. Your charges of semi-Pelagianism are hollow. It was the Catholic Church that first named and shamed that heresy.Anyway, thanks for your comment. You’re welcome to this blog, good to have you with us!
Veritas: I am not a Lutheran, I am an Anglican. But FYI what Luther said isn’t as bad as what Pio Nono and his rigged Vatican 1 “Kangeroo Kouncil” said where Pio Nono basically said “I’m Infallible because I say so”.Instead of following after the Isralites who went awhoring after the Strange Gods of the Canaanites you should have studied the Anglican Divines. You should have read and absorbed the BCP (1662, 1928) and the classic “Homilies”. Its sad that you traded the Biblical Gospel for the mess of pottage that Rome offers with its Gospel of Galtianism and Semi-Pelagian self-salvation of Works-Righteousness.
Fr. Longegenecker: I am not a “knee-jerk” protestant Fundy. I know what Rome teaches. Basically Rome says that by His Passion and Death Christ merited for us Grace and reconciled God and Man. In Baptism we are “Born-Again” all Original and Actual Sin are washed away and we are cleansed. We now are filled with Sanctifying Grace and because of that “inherent Grace” we can now “merit” salvation by our “good works”. God also gives us “Actual Grace(s) to perform those “meritorious acts(works)”. If we commit a “mortal sin” we lose that “Sanctifying Grace” and are now damned unless we receive the Sacrament of Penance. Of course if the poor person is hit by a Bus on the way to confession they are toast(damned).Once they are “Reconciled” by Confession the guilt is forgiven but they still have to “atone” for those sins(which mocks Our Lord’s Passion and Death by saying what He did is insufficient). I call this “Yo-Yo Salvation”. Hmm ah yes After “Confession” we are now once again in a “State of Grace”. And so on…So Father you want me to trade God’s Gospel of pure Love and Grace, a God who Loves and WANTS to save me for the Roman Catholic God who is just looking for the first excuse to send me to Hell if I slip up a few times? Paul well said that those who accept any “Works/Merit salvation” have indded “fallen from Grace”
Veritas said:”My one reservation is that the Anglicans must come over FULLY accepting the Church’s teaching – no more caferteria religion, no more picking and choosing what you will accept.”That is my own fear also. The proposal itself (to enter en masse) concerned me. Why en masse? If your conversion is real, why not the standard RCIA route like everyone else? The possibility of a restoration of beauty to our liturgy via the Anglican influence is a happy one, but at what expense? The reception is to be accomplished by a personal prelature like Opus Dei. While I understand the need for Opus Dei, I don’t quite understand the need for the TAC (to have a personal prelature); why does the global distribution of the TAC warrant a personal prelature? I fear also that this arrangement is an attempt to mollify the fears of the more extreme Novus Ordo crowd that the TAC will not alter their hootenanny masses. The TAC are welcome indeed–but not as a separate entity (I won’t use the word “communion”).
So, John, you don’t believe that Confession is a Sacrament. What else don’t you believe and what difference is there between you and a Methodist?BTW Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism were both condemned as heresies and without the Church, you wouldn’t have the Canon of Scripture. AnneG in NCFormer Anglican, Contented Catholic
John, I was wrong. It seems you have made an attempt to understand Catholic theology, but you have done so with the underlying unshakeable belief that it was wrong. You have read Catholic theology in order to prove it erroneous because you already knew it was.This is like a man who is given an accurate map, but because of his underlying assumptions believes all maps to be diabolical. He reads the map incorrectly, gets lost and then blames the map. Not only that he then makes up his own map, gets lost, doesn’t even realize he’s lost and then becomes proud of his own home made map. The only way you will truly understand Catholicism is to open your mind even just a tiny little bit and say, “I wonder if the Catholic faith might be true after all.”Of course, such a stance would be a challenge of cosmic proportions for a man of your convictions, so I doubt if it would happen, but should it happen you would be amazed how different everything would look.Anyway, all the best to you and good luck with your new denomination.
AnnG: I hold to the Anglican way of “Confession” At Holy Communion we make our “Confession” publicly and inner Confession in our Heart and Mind to God, the Priest then gives Absolution to the assembled community of faith. Only God can discern our Hearts and Minds and our innermost repentance and intentions, we accept His absolution spoken thru the Priest in Persona Christi. As far as “Auricular Confession” it is available to those who have need for it, “Some should, none must, all may” .
Fr. Longenecker: I studied Catholic Theology, the Catechism and Church History with an open mind and with an open Bible, like the Noble Breans did to search the Scriptures to see if these things were so. Based on my honest search and study I simply cannot accept the Roman Church or her Dogmas.Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever isnot read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, thatit should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessaryto salvation. In the name of the Holy Scripture we do understand those canonicalBooks of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt inthe Church.
John: As a lifelong lover of beautiful prose, the passage of “some should, none must, all may” is enough to convert a body. I am grateful for fides et ratio more than ever at such times. I have faith in the apostolic bearers of the Scripture, and I perceive via reason that “should, must, and may” could apply not only to any part of the faith, but even to the faith itself. I submit, therefore, of belief in the Holy Roman Catholic Church and in her Christ-ordained magisterium, that “some should, none must, all may.” You have chosen not to; that is all.
John: As a lifelong lover of beautiful prose, the passage of “some should, none must, all may” is enough to convert a body. I am grateful for fides et ratio more than ever at such times. I have faith in the apostolic bearers of the Scripture, and I perceive via reason that “should, must, and may” could apply not only to any part of the faith, but even to the faith itself. I submit, therefore, of belief in the Holy Roman Catholic Church and in her Christ-ordained magisterium, that “some should, none must, all may.” You have chosen not to; that is all.
Ok, John, Which Bible? Who formed the Canon of Scripture? Where in Scripture does it say that it alone is the sole authority and then, who interprets it? Did Jesus say we should only look to scripture for His truth? Where and what scripture? AnneG in NC
Re Confession: I believe, that, like I said, you’ve thrown out Confession as a Sacrament. What else have you thrown out and what makes you any different than a Methodist, except for vestments and more candles? AnneG in NC
AnneG said: Ok, John, Which Bible? Who formed the Canon of Scripture? Where in Scripture does it say that it alone is the sole authority and then, who interprets it? Did Jesus say we should only look to scripture for His truth? Where and what scripture?Just like the Serpent the Garden: “Yea Hath God Said?” People who ask a question like this shows a reprobate Mind, rather than submit to God’s infallible Word in Holy Scripture they question it. This is the same kind of question unregenerate reprobates ask Christians.Jesus never appealed to “Tradition”. To both Satan when He was tempted and to the Sadducees and Pharisees He had one response “It is WRITTEN”. I suggest you and others reading this to read a book called “The Shape of Sola Scriptura” by Keith A. Mathison.In the early Church the constant appeal of the Fathers was to God’s written Word.
Re Confession: I believe, that, like I said, you’ve thrown out Confession as a Sacrament. What else have you thrown out and what makes you any different than a Methodist, except for vestments and more candles? AnneG in NCWe haven’t “thrown Confession out” we just implement it differently than Rome. As a matter of fact the current “form” of Confession in the Roman Church didn’t exist until the 8th or 9th Century and even then it wasn’t “mandatory” until the 12th or 13th Century.
John, Bless you. Please pray for my reprobate mind while I pray for you. Re Scripture: Surely you can give me an answer for the hope that is in you. When Jesus referred to Scripture He spoke of the Law and the Prophets, so no New Testament.You should be able to answer where the Canon of Scripture came from without Ad Hominem (or, Ad Muliere??) attacks.Actually, if you look at the fathers of the Church, you would see that Confession in the early Church included a public confession of specific sins. I’ll keep praying for you. I used to use the same arguments. AnneG in NCPS You still have not answered one question. Why not?
Dear John, your really shouldn’t duck out of a good question and hide behind bombastic judgemental bluster.Anne poses a good question. Why should your interpretation of Scripture be the right one and the interpretation of other Anglicans,(not to mention the tens of thousands of other Protestant sects)be the wrong ones?This is not actually doubting Scripture at all, instead it is simply asking why your interpretation of Scripture should necessarily be the correct one. Why should we trust your interpretation of Scripture rather than someone else’s?Can you answer this question for us?
John, in your proper rejection of merely human tradition, you also need to account for what we call apostolic tradition. This is the traditions passed on to the church from the apostles themselves both by their writings and their oral tradition.Have you an interpretation of I Thessalonians 2:15 for us?
John, in your proper rejection of merely human tradition, you also need to account for what we call apostolic tradition. This is the traditions passed on to the church from the apostles themselves both by their writings and their oral tradition.Have you an interpretation of I Thessalonians 2:15 for us?Yes I do. The “Tradition” St. Paul mentions here and elsewhere is basically what he preached and wrote in his letters, IE the “Tradition” St. Paul mentions is the same as what he wrote in his Epistles. There MAY have been certain rules of what we call “rubrics”, liturgical rules and order or Church order, but certainly not things like Papal Supremacy and Infallibility, the Immaculate Conception, etc.
What the Apostles preached they later inscripturated, so I agree there was no NT until they wrote it. Once it was written the Holy Spirit guided and led the Church as the People of God to discern which books were Canonical and which ones were spurious and false. Later on at the Councils of Carthage and Hippo the Church merely acknowledged and affirmed an already existing Canon, they didn’t sit down and decide which books were Canonical and which ones weren’t, they merely affirmed and confirmed an already existing accepted Canon that had been used since the last Apostle died.
For concerning the divine and sacredMysteries of the Faith, we ought not to deliver even the most casual remark withoutthe Holy Scriptures: nor be drawn aside by mere probabilities and the artifices ofargument. Do not then believe me because I tell thee these things, unless thoureceive from the Holy Scriptures the proof of what is set forth: for this salvation,which is of our faith, is not by ingenious reasonings, but by proof from the HolyScriptures
John, You’ve just proven our trust in Tradition and the Magesterium or teaching authority of the Church: Later on at the Councils of Carthage and Hippo the Church merely acknowledged and affirmed an already existing Canon, they didn’t sit down and decide which books were Canonical and which ones weren’t, they merely affirmed and confirmed an already existing accepted Canon that had been used since the last Apostle died.You say the Church through the Councils had the authority to say which books were actually canonical and to exclude others, by the way. There were many letters and books that were used locally but not accepted by the Councils. Now, again, I ask, respectfully, which Bible? In Hebrew, Greek, English? Which translation? by whom? You are obviously quoting from some authority, which one (I think I vaguely recognize the language.) You still are not giving us answers while you accuse us of heresies and apostasy. Blessings, AnneG in NC
AnneG: That quote is from Cyril of Jerusalem.No I did not say they the Bishops determined the Canon by sitting down and sorting out which books belonged and which ones did not. I said that the Canon already existed because over the course of time the Holy Spirit led the Church, not the Bishops, the WHOLE Church, the People of God:IE the Priesthood of all believers to discern which books were Canonical. The Councils merely affirmed a defacto state of which books had already been accepted.I don’t understand the question about which Bible. Since most of us cannot read Hebrew or Greek then I guess we here on this blog must depend on English translations. If you are asking which trans. is the best one I can only give you my opinion. I know as a Roman Catholic you should use a trans. with the Deutero-Canon so the best as far as that goes is the RSV-CE(Revised Standard Version-Catholic Edition) I use it but other good ones in this order.1. English Standard Version(Oxford Univ. Press has just published an edition with the Apocrypha so I would say a Catholic could use it) it probably a better trans. than the RSV. 2. New King James Version 3. New American Standard Version. NOT New American BibleBTW I still get bouts of Roman Fever IE this desire to swim the Tiber. I really want to but…..also a P.S. I was Baptised and Confirmed Roman Catholic
John, you’re stating Catholic truth. This is what we believe too. The Holy Spirit led the Church to determine the canon of Scripture. While the whole church was led to this decision, the whole church also needed the authority of the bishops in council to define and defend where the Holy Spirit had led the church.Both are necessary. Catholics affirm both the whole Church and the specific work of the bishops in council. Protestants think you can have the work of the Holy Spirit in the whole church, but can do away with the bishops in council.No can do. You need both.Furthermore, for unity to exist you continue to need both. Only with a unified voice of authority can the leading of the Holy Spirit in the whole church be discerned, defined and defended.This is why Anglicanism and the whole of Protestantism is so fissiparous–because each denomination has depended on what they thought the Spirit was saying to their church, but they had no agreed central authority.It is fair, therefore for Catholics to ask you, “Why should the Reformed Episcopal Church be right on their theology, their stance on women’s ordination, their stance on a whole range of issues, but the Episcopal Church be wrong?Can you answer this question?
TEC is wrong simply brcause they have abandoned not only Scripture but the constant tradition of the Church.For example. Scripture states that only men can be Bishops/Presbyters CF 1st Timothy. Jesus appointed only men to preach the Gospel and administer the Sacraments. The constat tradition of the Church confirms this, no Women were ordained UNTIL TEC and other Anglicans started doing it recently after they abandoned truth and became apostate. Sad to say but if the new province, the Anglican Church in North America allows Womens Ordination I will leave, that is the main reason I left TEC in the early 90s.Since I was Baptised and Confirmed Roman Catholic returning to the Catholic Church won’t be difficult (no RCIA) I have already contacted a Catholic Priest at a nearby Catholic Parish about it.Even if I did do that I would still have issues with some Roman Dogmas, but Rome is probably better than an Anglican Church that rejects the Bible and the tradition of the Church on moral issues and WO.
John, You stated:I said that the Canon already existed because over the course of time the Holy Spirit led the Church, not the Bishops, the WHOLE Church, the People of God:IE the Priesthood of all believers to discern which books were Canonical. The Councils merely affirmed a defacto state of which books had already been accepted.This is interesting – but unfortunately not true.Certainly the whole Church was being led to see which were the Canonical books, BUT it was the Bishops of the Church in Council (at Hippo, at Rome, at Carthage) who declared which were the Canonical books. They, and they alone, had the authority to declare this in God’s name. These Councils eliminated doubt as to whether certain writings were, or were not, to be regarded as inspired Scripture. It was certainly NOT the whole people of God who unanimously and simultaneously declared which were to be the books of the Canon of Scripture. Many heretical and non-inspired books were circulating around for the first couple of centuries of the Christian era and it was only when God led His bishops in Council to make their declarations that doubts were eliminated as to which Books were truly Scripture.It might interest you to know that Martin Luther despised several of the inspired books of Holy Scripture, such as the Epistle of James, and the writings of St John. They apparently contained things that went against Luther’s personal ideas. Luther was never one to let mere facts, like God’s inspired Word, stand in his way.
“TEC is wrong simply brcause they have abandoned not only Scripture but the constant tradition of the Church”Dear John,You argued for sola scriptura, and now you argue against it.You are considering coming home to the Church, but you “still have problems with certain “Roman dogmas”. It would be lovely for you to come home, but you must first be willing to submit to the Magesterium, and if you “still have problems”, you aren’t quite ready. What we do is acknowledge the superiority of the Church’s judgment to our own, and that does not mean *agree*; it means *accept*. That distinction is so important. Without it, no sacrament is possible. Even if you receive it, it’s invalid. Because, further, without it, you have not accepted the fullness of truth, the fullness of Christ’s redemption (no acceptance is possible without humility). As long as you place your own judgment above that of the Church, you do not have humility in sufficiency for valid sacrament. Remember that each of us is limited–in our intellect, in our life experience, in our capacity for love. We must acknowledge our human limitation in order to perceive God’s superiority and not say that He must be what *I* think he should be, say what I think he should say, mean what I think he should mean. It is therefore unimportant whether we *agree*; it is crucial that we *accept*.
I will respond to two Blog posts.To Veritas: The Councils of Carthage, Hippo, and Rome were Local Councils, not Ecumenical Councils. The East had no say in them, they were Western Councils and not binding on the whole Church like Chalcedon and Nicea, while important, Carthage and Hippo are a good guide to see what was pretty much true as far as the Canon, IE what was accepted and what was not.To Estiel: You seem to distinguish “accept” and “agree” in that one must accept something though they may disagree, and if I am reading you correctly all a Catholic has to do is “accept” something the Church teaches even though they “disagree” with it.If that is the case then I can “accept” Papal Infallibility and the Council of Trent in that I can say “yes that is what the Church teaches and I accept that the Church teaches it but I don’t agree with it and can show that it is not correct” then sure I’ll become Catholic, or in my case “revert”, as a matter of fact I will do that this afternoon. All I have to do is go to Confession today and I’ll be a Catholic again after being away for about 20 years.
john,regarding infallibility: It’s a logical necessity of a biblical Christian faith. It’s been our doctrine from the beginning, but we didn’t see the need to make it official and undebatable until recently.And you’ve got the cart before the horse, when it comes to merit, works, and grace. The grace that gives us salvation is how we are even able to do meritorious works, making the works an effect of salvation, rather than its source or cause.Penance is required because our sins do not ONLY offend God. Christ’s death takes care of that (and thus assures the repentant that they will reach Heaven), but correcting our offenses against others is still up to us. Now, it is still possible for us by our choices to turn from God and reject His saving grace, and to later repent of that again. We have free will, and He has infinite mercy for the repentant.
What is needed to be a part of this fold is the acknowledgement that one is part of the fold, and not the shepherd. How many times has it happened to you, to any of us, that we argue against something our parents have told us and then, when we’re older, we understand it and agree with it? What would happen to a child if his assent were needed for every command of his parents? If he had to agree with it in theory, in practice, in wisdom, intellectually, emotionally, and ever which way–in short, if the child himself were the real authority and the parents merely consulted him in hopes of his assent and agreement? What would happen to that child? Would you want such an arrangement for your own child? No, not if you loved that child. Neither does God. It is an invitation. But not to be taken so lightly as one sees in some churches–no–He cautions us about that. (Remember the parable about the king who would go to battle without first calculating the number of his foe’s army, etc?) It’s an invitation–not an argument in which one agrees or disagrees with some thesis. It’s not that one’s opinion, one’s judgment is unimportant–but would you miss the banquet because you didn’t like the decorating scheme of the caterer? Should the master of the banquet change everything in order to meet the criteria of each guest’s judgment? No. He’s the master. That recognition is required, yes. But it’s just an invitation. All that is needed is acceptance–or not.
Not likelyhttp://www.liturgy.co.nz/blog/anglican-personal-prelature/467