I really do not understand this desire, except to invoke pride and covetousness.

Why can't Hepworth et al simply WALK ACROSS THE STREET AND CONVERT TO CATHOLICISM?

I mean, there is almost literally a Roman Catholic church on every street corner in the cities, and at least one in every county of the US of A and probably anywhere else one might find the TAC.

GOOD GRIEF!

I think they want to cross the Tiber in the episcopal rowboat--that is, they probably want to be bishops.

Dear Joe of the Mountain,

Although I'm a layman, and so can't really tell you what's in Archbishop Hepworth's head, I am a member of the TAC, and I'd be happy to share with you why I am very hopeful about this project.

I believe very much in the unity of the church. For me, Christian unity is a biblical must, if possible. Secondly, I see the Catholic Church as being broader than just the Roman Catholic Church. The Eastern Catholic Churches, for example, have their own theological traditions, some of which are very different from Roman Catholicism (the married priesthood, a different understanding of the Trinity, a more conciliar approach to church government, a different understanding of the intermediate state after death, a different Eucharistic spirituality, less emphasis on original sin... I could go on.). Yet, at the same time, they believe in unity with Rome, and since Vatican II, the Roman Catholic Church has urged them to preserve their own theological and liturgical traditions, and called for them to have a place in the reform of the Western Church.

I would like to be an Anglican in communion with the Holy See. I do not want to become a Roman Catholic. Rather, I understand Anglicanism as a Catholic faith, with a vocation to communion with the rest of the Catholic Church. (What else could it be, really? If it is only a protest against Catholicism, what enduring value is there in that, when times, and even Catholicism, change? As Chesterton said, revolt is not poetic; it is merely revolting.)

I don't want to become a Latin-rite Catholic because I think that the traditional Anglican liturgy, as found in the Book of Common Prayer, is more faithful in many ways to the Church's liturgical tradition. It also provides a way of reconciling the legitimate concerns of Protestants about Biblical worship with a concern for maintaining liturgical tradition.

Anglicanism also preserves for the Western Church a number of ancient practices, that can be seen as complimentary to current Latin rite practice, such as clerical marriage, and communion in both kinds.

It also reconciles the whole English tradition of liturgy and music, theological reflection and spiritual writing, to a larger whole.

When the early Anglican reformers split from Rome, I am sure they did not desire the estrangement to be forever. They wanted unity, but they wanted to be faithful to conscience. Furthermore, Anglicans didn't break communion with Rome; Rome excommunicated us. The political and theological situation today is completely different. If Rome is indeed open to the possibility of coming into full communion with a group of traditional Anglicans, who am I to object? Should I not welcome that?

Also, in response to another comment:

The TAC bishops are already bishops. For his part, Archbishop John Hepworth has stated that he intends to retire if this goes through, so as to have no concern about his personal motives.

Hopefully this will become a fait d'accomplis, allowing these people to finally get into a church they belong in, and out of Anglicanism.

All the TAC bishops have agreed in advance that they will resign their bishoprics if that will advance the cause of unity. Further, every TAC province has voted in favour of this move. Even the Anglican Church in America voted unanimously in favour of it in their 2005 provincial synod.

Our Lord prayed that we all be one. What arrogance does it take for us to insist on our own private preferences instead of our Lord's desire?

From the 39 Articles of Religion:

Article 19. The church
The visible church of Christ is a congregation of believers in which the pure Word of God is preached and in which the sacraments are rightly administered according to Christ's command in all those matters that are necessary for proper administration. As the churches of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch have erred, so also the church of Rome has erred, not only in their practice and forms of worship but also in matters of faith.

Unity can only be based on Truth.

Quoting 16th century error is hardly relevant or helpful. Let us instead pray for unity in Christ's Church. As Abp Hepworth has rightly said, we have 450 years of bad habits to unlearn!

I would much rather see efforts directed towards coming into full communion with the Eastern Orthodox Church as opposed to the Roman Church. I love Benedict! But there are still too many issues theologically for me to want to cast my lot in with Roman Catholicism. Nothing against the RCC...I just feel the EOC's views regarding the Faith are more in line with orthodox Christian teachings as I understand them.

As far as the comment someone made earlier about, "getting OUT of Anglicanism"... Can't say that I agree with that statement and in fact, I find it slightly insulting. I would love to see "Anglican Use" parishes of the EOC out there as there are with the RCC. We have made far more inroads with the EOC and Russian Orthodox Church than we have with Rome. The EOC have a similar outlook regarding hierarchical makeup. No doctrine of infallibility to contend with. Just seems to be a more appropriate endeavor to my sensibilities.

Rev. Darren Simpson, OSB/CJ

No pope, no problem!

I find this all a bit curious. Though I admire Benedict on several levels, I am also at loggerheads on at least as many levels. Too, he has made his convictions clear, that those outside of Rome's tent are at best "Defective". Though I disagree stridently, I applaud Benedict for championing his church... A trait desperately missing in our milquetoast/PC society.

Entering into "communion" with Rome would imply embracing some contentious doctrines and a Magisterium that was the catalyst to the reformation.

Pax Christus

The 39 Articles are part of the solemn declaration of the Anglican Church of America.
I guess solemn declarations are not as important as they used to be.

Just because something is a "solemn declaration" does not elevate it into a confession, which Anglicanism does not have.

The Traditional Anglican Communion and all its members are bound to at least the first seven ecumenical councils.

So, I guess you might say that an OEcumenical Council trumps an English committee any day!

Plymouth, NH

Dear Friends,
Some people have trouble understanding why Anglicans such as Archbishop Ramsey, and now Archbishop Hepworth, are interested in church unity. The answer is simple. We Anglicans believe in the Scriptures as being authoritative. Sciptures tell us that Our Lord's desire is that his followers be united (see especially Chapter 17 of St. John's Gospel). Therefore those who are baptized and unied to Christ, seek to be united to other baptized Christians. Where are some other baptized Christians? Well there are a lot in Rome, a billion or so. One can seek unity with a number of small groups, and that is fine, but no combination of Anglicans with some small group is going to add up to a billion. If one is serious about unity, Rome is being very accomodating these days. They have changed greatly since the 16th Century, when Anglicans rightly protested some Roman practices, such as their insisting that everyone use Latin as the only liturgical language, etc. Certainly using local languages is useful for instruction, etc.
It looks as though Rome just may welcome in Anglicans who want to retain their own beautiful and reverent liturgy, customs, heiracrchy, etc. We could then retain our own identity, and yet be united as Jesus calls us to be. Let us follow His will. It should be very interesting to see Rome's eventual reply to the unity efforts of the Traditional Anglican Communion. Let us pray that this unity effort will succeed, under the best of circumstances.
Yours in Christ's love, Dean Steward +

Absolutely true, Dean+!

Of course, don't forget that going by the pace usually seen in Rome, TAC can expect a response sometime around 2047, if the Holy See expedites it, 2200 if not!

Stmike, the issue of democratic government of the Church's affairs....especially as we know it in this country....is guaranteed to be a major stumbling block unless Rome agrees to it. The Church of Rome is ruled from the top down, and if I were part of TEC, I wouldn't count on Rome letting them continue to run things their way if Benedict agrees to their petition. Archbishop Hepworth should know that....given the fact that he's a former Roman Catholic priest.

Cennydd

ANGLO-PAPALISTS and those that accept the claims of Rome should disembark the Anglican ship and board that of the Bishop of Rome and his cabal of Modernists ,especially those in the US.Most RC's in the US and Western Europe could hardly be called orthodox Catholics today. I am very happy that I left ACA-TAC and APA and found a real Anglo-Catholic home in The Anglican Catholic Church. Fr. Baring-Gould+

Quote:
The difference is this: I'm a 39 Articles Christian, you are a Roman Catholic, who speaks English. Maybe neither of us are Anglicans -- or all of us. Anglicanism is what we want it to be, strawberry fields forever.

It reminds me of Tevye in "Fiddler on the Roof." "You are right ... you are also right ... and you too, must be right!"

First off, I'm not a member of TAC. But I think I have a better sense of ++Hepworth's concerns than some do, so...

- ++Hepworth was previously a Roman Catholic priest at one time, IIRC. He still has some problems with the Roman church doctrine, otherwise he wouldn't be Anglican.

- TAC is still firm on the non-ordination of women, which separates them from much if not all of the Anglican Communion. Beyond which, no one could say the greater Anglican Communion has welcomed TAC with open arms.

- As others have put better, Christ's body is one, not many smaller bodies. If TAC is willing to pursue ecumenical goals to the point of communion with Rome, God bless them! I do not think TAC is willing to be totally subsumed by Rome at this time, but we will presumeably hear more once the Roman Catholic church responds

- TAC has been pursuing ecumenical reunion with other Anglican bodies of late, if you've been reading the news here. While full communion with Rome is a far larger step than they have taken previously, it follows from their previous actions. <http://www.themessenger.com.au/news.htm>

So I don't think this is swimming the Tiber, so much as shaking hands across it, at least not from this update.

The Traditional Anglican Communion and all its members are bound to at least the first seven ecumenical councils.

With all due respect, I do not see how you can reconcile the 39 Articles with the Seven Councils - although there is of course a good deal of overlap, it seems to me that in the end one or the other has to give way: You can't be bound by both. In particular, Article XXII (misleadingly titled Of Purgatory in the 1979 BCP when it actually deals with several other doctrines and practices as well) appears to explicitly repudiate the Canons of the Seventh Council. There are a few other places where the 39 Articles do not fit in well with the theology of the 7 Councils, but that's one of the more blatant examples.

I am aware that John Henry Newman tried to put a (not necessarily Roman) Catholic spin on the 39 Articles, but this has never been a generally accepted understanding within Anglicanism and in several places it strains the plain meaning of the text. Eventually even he had to admit to himself that his theology had become incompatible with mainstream Anglicanism.

I cannot for the life of mine, figure out how a Church that claims Apostolic Succession, and Holy Tradition as part of it's legitimacy, can hold the Articles (written in the 16th century by a minority of Bishops at a time when European Christiandom was fracturing) above the ruilings and authority of the Ecumenical Councils of a millenia before and participated in by the majority of Christiandom...

I just noticed that Pope John Paul II has appeared in a bonfire in Poland to the delight of multitudes in the church of Rome. Maybe he spoke to the issue of unity and why we should all be Roman Catholic?...or was that just the crackling of a green twig? If a person likes superstition, and unscriptural beliefs, and salvation (maybe) only as mediated by the church, then by all means Rome is home.

If the universal Lordship of Jesus Christ and his full perfect and sufficient sacrifice on the cross, once offered, and the superemacy of Biblical truth are what determines your faith, then you would make a good Anglican.

Anglicanism started out as part of the Roman church. Its orders are valid, I think most would agree. So why not return? I am in favor, except that Rome has changed since the schism, so we cannot accept all of their doctrines. See Ratzinger, Milestones, p.59 for an example of a sort of belief in an institution that I simply cannot accept. This is about the Assumption, and quotes one of the doctrine's most erudite critics as saying that if it were nevertheless made official, he would accept it knowing the church knew better than he did. How he can turn his belief off and on I don't know. Maybe it is that Unitarian background. I have visited Mechlen/Maline and prayed at the Cardinal's tomb. Too bad we blew it when we had a chance in the 1930s.

Boston Unitarian

"For his part, Archbishop John Hepworth has stated that he intends to retire if this goes through, so as to have no concern about his personal motives."

"Personal motives" has nothing to do with it. The Holy See has made it plain more than once that RC priests who left their ministry to get married are not eligible for the Pastoral Provision already in place. Rome cannot reasonably be expected to accept such a man as Hepworth as a priest, much less as an Archbishop. And Rome should not.
We have read many times that Hepworth has offered to step aside to facilitate his scheme. But since he has not done so, he is obviously hedging his bet.
I cannot take him seriously at all, and it is truly sad to see some people who sincerely desire the unity of Christ's Una sancta misled by a Pied Piper into such an orgy of wishful thinking. It is nice to read a comment from Fr Steward which does not trot out for the umpteenth time the incredible claims of a huge membership for the TAC.

++Hepworth was previously a Roman Catholic priest at one time, IIRC. He still has some problems with the Roman church doctrine, otherwise he wouldn't be Anglican.

I'm not going to presume to know what's going on inside ++Hepworth's head, but I don't think that this necessarily follows. He may well feel that from a pastoral point of view, he is obligated to bring his flock back into communion with the See of Peter - that he is in some sense responsible for their spiritual wellbeing in this regard, and feels that Rome is the proper home for everyone within the TAC.

In other words it may have less to do with the finer points of theology and more to do with what he sees as his responsibility.

This is in response to several comments, some of which have been made (more or less) by more than one person.

1. Why not Eastern Orthodoxy instead?

I don't see this question in terms of either/or so much as both/and. There has been quite a lot of quiet movement recently between Catholics and Orthodox. Now, it isn't likely to lead to a full reunification anytime soon, but I think that many of the leaders on both sides see that as an ultimate goal. Certainly the Pope and Ecumenical Patriarch have both said this very clearly. There are even some signs that the Russian Church is interested in better relations with Rome. Time will tell.

In any case, if there is to be a united Catholic Church, including Roman Catholics, Eastern Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, this will involve some sort of recognition of papal primacy. In seeking to come into communion with the See of Rome, the TAC is appealing to the Christian leader who they believe holds the best practical chance to unify the whole of Orthodox-Catholic Christianity.

I spent last year studying in an Eastern Catholic theological institute, and it was that time, I think, that made me desire unity with Rome more than any other, just because these Eastern Catholics were so very different from Rome in many ways (in some ways, more so than traditional Anglicans are), and yet they were very much committed to being in union with Roman Catholics. In addition, they didn't seem to be "absorbed"; on the contrary, they seemed very conscious of an Eastern theological and liturgical identity.

(Note: someone asked about Anglican Use Eastern Orthodox parishes. Many of the Western Rite parishes in the Antiochian Orthodox Church use a form of the Prayer Book liturgy.)

2. What about the Articles of Religion?

There are a number of answers to this question. The best of them picks up on what I said above about Eastern-rite Catholicism. There are doctrinal differences between the Roman Catholic and the Byzantine Catholic churches. I think that there is room - not a lot of room necessarily, but some room - to articulate an Anglican Catholic theology that is on one hand faithful to Anglican tradition, but also faithful (first of all) to the universal church.

For a theology to be valid, it must be faithful to that universal tradition. To the extent that it varies from that, it is wrong. (The same problem exists for Calvinists - what if the confessions that affirm the supremacy of Scripture disagree with Scripture at any point?) The Articles claim that the churches of east and west have erred. Well, so have Anglicans, most certainly. How do we know that the Articles are completely valid?
Besides which, the Articles never claimed to be a confession of faith, never were required for belief by the laity, and are not required for ordination of clergy in most churches of the Anglican Communion.

That said, I do believe that the Articles of Religion, substantially (though not infallibly) define something of the Anglican position on matters of churchmanship, and I believe that they can substantially (though perhaps not completely) be interpreted from a Catholic position.

Finally, I cannot understand how strong the response is from some Anglicans about the articles. What is the greater problem, the loss of the articles, or the loss of the faith? TEC has violated scripture after scripture, whereas in our own day (though perhaps not the time of the reformation) the Catholic Church (or at least the Vatican) has shone a bright light in defense of basic Christian morality. I can understand someone screaming bloody murder over the violation of scripture, or a gross departure from Christian tradition, but the Articles? They were only written 500 years ago. That's not that long a time, really. (Keep everything in perspective, please.)

In short, I love the Articles (just as I love the Affirmation of St. Louis, for that matter). But they aren't Scripture, they aren't an Ecumenical Council, they aren't a liturgical or confessional text (notice that the Reformed churches use their confessions in the liturgy; Anglicans don't, primarily because the liturgy is seen as more normative for Christian belief than are the Articles).

The best reaction to a move like this is for everyone, on any side of the question, to pray long and hard, and for all others involved, that God will guide these types of discussions, and lead us both to truth and unity (which are both found in the One Lord, Jesus Christ).

If Rome really had the least interested in church unity it would admit and repent of it's manifold historical errors and rollback it's dogma and polity to that of the late Patristic era. It is a matter of simple logic to see that what was sufficient unto salvation in 800 A.D. ought to be sufficient now and forever.

The RCC has long been simply the world's biggest cult, with ever changing and expanding dogma unilaterally imposed by an inscrutable and supposedly infallible leadership, making it no different in practical terms than the Watchtower Society, the Children of God, Heaven's Gate, People's Temple, or any other cult.

As regards the age of the Articles... Since when does something have to be old and hoary with age to be registered as a valid and a "good" guiding principle in it's regards to the faith?

As far as Orthodoxy... I was received into the Anglican charism from the Eastern Orthodox Church and I have found that the things that divide us are (EOC from AC) are much more slight than the RC & AC. I don't think that the EOC will accept the primacy of the Pope in anyone's lifetime. The EOC is content in and of itself just as is Rome.

Rev. Darren Simpson, OSB/CJ

Quote:

To me that really doesn't help his case. He left because he has problems with their doctrine. Now he wants to go back. Perhaps he had a change of mind. But if so, why not repent, renounce his orders take his place on the pew next to the rest of the Romanc Catholic laity?

Sagamore,

I suggest you read the documents of Vatican II, as well as the many letters and sermons during the recent Year of Jubilee.

The Roman Catholic Church is not still stuck in the Middle Ages - though it seems many Protestants believe it is.

Ed

RevDarrenS and Heybdude, Thank you for your posts.
Your words make sense...

But "unitarian" your statement is INCORRECT.
(""Anglicanism started out as part of the Roman church."" WRONG!)

Try this link;
Church in the British Isles 45 AD CLICK HERE to understand.


humbly, gregory

Hmmm.. Interesting persepctive and I thank you for it.

But if I might clarify by making recourse to the vocabulary of diplomacy and foreign relations for a moment, what you describe Musicpaper, sounds like "diplomatic relations" or perhaps "diplomatic recognition" as opposed to "unity" which meaning "oneness" has connotations of "annexation" or "conquer" or perhaps "surrender".

Thank though --
Joe of the Mountain

Nowhere does Christ speak of "organizational alignment" or "mergers and acquisition". Indeed, his students (the apostles) were quite happy to have numerous independent churches scattered about.

It would seem Christ's call to "oneness" is for SPIRITUAL oneness, not for ORGANIZATIONAL oneness. The latter is of course an artifact of the Imperial Roman roots of the present CoR and incorrectly applied to the Church herself.

Thus spaketh Josephus Montagnus, deep thinker on lotsa stuff

POST NUMBER 3,000 WOOHOO!!!!!

"I suggest you read the documents of Vatican II, as well as the many letters and sermons during the recent Year of Jubilee.

"The Roman Catholic Church is not still stuck in the Middle Ages - though it seems many Protestants believe it is."

The RCC hasn't even renounced indulgences. I reiterate -whatever body of dogma and polity was sufficient to save souls in the ninth century should be sufficient now and forever, and all it would take is the RCC scaling things back to this to open the doors to real ecumenicism, but they don't do it. And the pope is *still* supposedly infallible.

The modern RCC says whatever it needs to say to please and appease whoever it is talking to at any given time -much like TEC.

Just like the members of other cults, hardline RCs have a very well developed ability to ignore blatant contradictions and engage in mental gymnastics of Olympian order. Let me ask you this, if the pope is infallible when teaching on matters of faith and morals for the whole church, then how can Unam Sanctum and the Syllabus of Errors no longer be binding dogma? Either the pope is fallible, or no non-RCs can be saved and espousing religious freedom is a heresy. It can't be both. What Vatican II said does not change this, it was only the vehicle that introduced the glaring contradiction.

It is a matter of simple logic to see that what was sufficient unto salvation in 800 A.D. ought to be sufficient now and forever.

This sounds very much like an endorsement of the Church of the Seven Councils - a very Orthodox viewpoint.

The RCC has long [... had ...] ever changing and expanding dogma unilaterally imposed by an inscrutable and supposedly infallible leadership

Also a very Orthodox sentiment - though I think it goes a bit farther than most Orthodox writers would (other than perhaps some of the more conservative Russians), since their doctrinal disputes with the Catholic Church come down to a handful of Catholic doctrines declared over the course of a millennium (The Filioque clause, which may be more of a linguistic misunderstanding than a real theological problem; the issue of Papal authority and infallibility; the doctrine of Original Sin and inherited guilt, which is understood very differently in the two Churches; consequently the nature of Christ's saving work; consequently also the Immaculate Conception, as well as the Assumption which is not quite the same as the Orthodox doctrine of the Dormition; and finally the nature of Christ's presence in the Eucharist, where most Orthodox reject the Roman Catholic understanding of Transubstantiation in favor of a more mystical approach).

These are not unimportant doctrinal differences, but it is perhaps a bit unfair to characterize them as "ever changing dogma" which to me suggests a "doctrine du jour" approach to theology, and more like liberal Protestants than either Catholics or Orthodox.

if the pope is infallible when teaching on matters of faith and morals for the whole church, then how can Unam Sanctum and the Syllabus of Errors no longer be binding dogma?

Perhaps because they never were considered infallible pronouncements?

The Catholic Church does not claim that everything that every Pope says or does is infallible, and such pronouncements are rare; in fact if I recall correctly the last "infallible pronouncement" that was definitely claimed was that of the Assumption in 1950.

I'm not defending the doctrine of Papal Infallibility (my present belief is that the Orthodox Church is the most faithful to the Patristic witness) but the counterexample you give is, at best, problematic.

"This sounds very much like an endorsement of the Church of the Seven Councils - a very Orthodox viewpoint."

It is indeed an endorsement.

"These are not unimportant doctrinal differences, but it is perhaps a bit unfair to characterize them as "ever changing dogma" which to me suggests a "doctrine du jour" approach to theology, and more like liberal Protestants than either Catholics or Orthodox."

You can't just use a comparison to Orthdoxy though, you also have to look at all the instances where the RCC has contradicted itself. These are many, many.

The Roman Catholic Church holds that the Pope is infallible only when he rules "ex cathedra" on matters of faith and morals. This is a very rare occurrence.
I don't advocate jumping ship and swimming the Tiber, and I agree that there's plenty in Rome that one might see as a problem, but I do think some of the posters on here have exhibited a kind of anti-Catholicism for its own sake.

"Perhaps because they never were considered infallible pronouncements?"

Why not? They weren't examples of the pope proclaiming his teaching on faith and morals to the whole church? Perhaps, then, you can give me an answer to a question that I have never gotten a clear and univocal answer on from RCs. When, exactly, is a papal proclamation considered infallible? It seems to me that they are-retroactively-considered to be or not solely depending on whether the RCC today cares for them or doesn't. But what, precisely, in the text and context of a historical papal bull or encyclical-in and of itself-marks it as fallible or infallible? What makes Unam Sanctum fallible, and another proclamation not, beyond one not being popular today? Or is that the pope has only become, or become aware of being, infallible since the dogma of papal infallibility was formally declared in 1870? Needless to say, claiming this would be absurd on a whole host of levels.

"The Catholic Church does not claim that everything that every Pope says or does is infallible, and such pronouncements are rare; in fact if I recall correctly the last "infallible pronouncement" that was definitely claimed was that of the Assumption in 1950."

No, not *everything* the pope says. Not private letters, phone conversations, etc. It does, however, claim he is infallible when acting as teacher of the church in regard to faith and morals. Again, how does Unam Sanctum, etc, not fit this bill? If one is to say that only things explicitly declared to be infallible since the dogma of papal infallibility was itself declared at Vatican I are infallible, then the Assumption is the *only* example of it. "Rare", indeed -and very problematic. It took them 1,800+ years to figure this out? To figure out what many RCs consider the most important ecclesial dogma of Christendom? And more importantly, *how* did they figure it out? It couldn't have been by examining the past because you can't very well examine the historical veracity of something while also claiming it was never before present. How do you say you know the pope cannot be wrong so long as he is explicitly claiming to speak infallibly, when he had yet to have ever done so? What was there to look at to determine the truth of this?

"I'm not defending the doctrine of Papal Infallibility (my present belief is that the Orthodox Church is the most faithful to the Patristic witness) but the counterexample you give is, at best, problematic."

Yes, that's true, but it is problemetic only because it is addressing something that is highly problematic itself, and not at all clearly defined in any consistent way.

It is my fervent prayer that Christ's peace will rule in our hearts and lives, and that the unity and concord we pray for daily will become a veritable reality and not merely a flimsy abstraction.

"...More especially, we pray for the good estate of the Catholic Church; that it may be so guided and governed by Thy good Spirit, that all who profess and call themselves Christians may be led into the way of truth, and hold the Faith in unity of spirit, in the bond of peace, and in righteousness of life..."

To pray that prayer in sincerity demands a willingness to let God answer in His own way. We are to pray with singleness of heart, nothing doubting. "A double-minded man is unstable in all his ways". We either mean what we pray to God, or we lie to Him.

But what think ye? A certain man had two sons; and he came to the first, and said, Son, go work today in my vineyard. He answered and said, I will not: but afterward he repented, and went. And he came to the second, and said likewise. And he answered and said, I go, sir: and he went not. Whether of them twain did the will of his father? They say unto him, The first.

As a member of the ACCC (Anglican Catholic Church of Canada - part of the TAC), all I can say is that I trust our bishops. They are men of God committed to serving as our shepherds. I may be naive, but that is where I am.

Let us wait for the response of the Holy See and not let our prejudices blind us or make up our scenarios until we know the whole story. The fact that there are no interviews to be given means there is more to say; I for one shall wait with anticipation to hear it.

Read "Jesus of Nazareth", by Pope Benedict XVI and you will see a man and a bishop who believes in Jesus as his Lord and Savior.

Now, in one word, ask Schori or your E-bishop if he/she does.

At least the Roman Church is clear on the fundamentals of the Christian Faith. Christianily...sounds like a good reason to go to Rome.

Regarding Unam Sanctum:

It should be noted first of all that the bull addresses two issues:

(1) The unity of the Church, and by extension that salvation comes through her ministry (Extra ecclesiam nulla salus); and

(2) That the temporal realm is subject to the spiritual.

Regarding the first point, this teaching was nothing new (it can be found in the writings of St. Cyprian and others), and in fact in its essentials is shared with Orthodoxy. However it does not mean what many Protestants think it does; what it actually means is that Christ established one holy, catholic, apostolic, and visible Church, and that all baptized Christians are members of her although perhaps in imperfect communion; and that in fact all of those who will be saved from Christian and other faith traditions will in the life to come participate in her life as the Bride of Christ. If the Church didn't exist, it would imply either that Christ didn't exist or was impotent; which would in turn imply no Passion and no salvation. It doesn't at all mean that anybody who is not visibly in full communion with her in this life cannot be saved; rather that because she is the Bride, that all who will be saved will be joined with her in the life to come. Likewise it does not mean that God's grace and spirit do not operate and even perform great works in separated Christian communities, but rather that the fullness of the faith is present in that same visible Church.

I repeat, the Catholic and Orthodox teachings on this point are for all practical purposes identical - the only disagreement being over the exact position of the Pope within the visible Church.

Regarding the second point, this must be understood in the political context of the time. Pope Boniface VIII and Philip IV of France were engaged in a power struggle over levying taxes; Philip IV was trying to tax the Church to support his military projects, and also forbade that any monies be allowed to be sent out from France (for example, to support the Church or her missions outside France). This was clearly unacceptable to the Church, and was the precipitating cause of the bull being issued. Unlike the first point however, it's not at all clear that this regards "faith and morals" or even that it is intended as anything other than declaring that the Church's spiritual primacy cannot be usurped by the State.

When examining historical bulls like this it's very easy to get bogged down in minutiae (as, in fact, you implicitly acknowledge in other parts of your article). What's of greater importance in determining the historical and Patristic attitudes towards Papal Infallibility are the writings of the Fathers and the theologians and councils of the early Church.

It occurs to me that perhaps I should add a few more words on the subject of Extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

The Anglican position has always been that they are, in fact, part of that one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church - simply that their communion with Rome and the Orthodox is impaired to some degree, but that they are all part of the same mystical Body.

Likewise in Protestant ecclesiology it is common to hear people talk about multiple Churches - that is, the Methodist Church, the Presbyterian Church, etc. However when push comes to shove, nobody really believes that there are multiple Brides of Christ - perish the thought! Rather in Protestant ecclesiology these are considered to be multiple visible manifestations of the One Mystical Body, and therefore in this terminology the term "Church" is often used with considerable looseness.

It is in that context that you need to understand why the Catholic and Orthodox are so reluctant to call such Protestant bodies "churches" - they each see themselves as the legitimate and direct successors of the Apostles and the early Church - as, in effect, the visible instrument of unity among all Christians. To them, having multiple churches would imply multiple Bodies - clearly a heresy.

This is why such terms as "denomination" or "ecclesiastical community" or the like would be less loaded from the point of view of the Catholics and Orthodox. It's not a denial of their Christianity, nor that God can work through them; rather it's a statement about the underlying unity of Christ's mystical Body.

But, doesnt Rome despise the Thirty-Nine Articles? The ARTICLES speak against PURGATORY and TRANSUBSTANTIATION. Are we returning to the abomination we shed our blood to depart from centuries ago?

But, doesn't Rome despise the Thirty-Nine Articles? ... Are we returning to the abomination we shed our blood to depart from centuries ago?

As far as I can tell on this and other boards, 'we' aren't doing any one thing - rather everyone should be studying and doing prayerful consideration of what God is calling them to do. Apparently the TAC thinks that means communion with Rome - but that doesn't necessarily mean that everyone else has to follow them.

But yes, the Thirty-Nine Articles are clearly incompatible with Roman theology (they are somewhat less incompatible with Orthodoxy). That hasn't changed, and it's unlikely to do so. Presumably the TAC is willing to leave them behind.

I am relatively new to anglicanism, and dearly love to study the history of the church. I know that the Church of England excisted LONG before Henry VIII. But...isnt "orthodox" anglicanism closer to true catholic faith than what the Roman Catholic Church teaches?

JColet,
The only way you can decide the matter and settle it for yourself is to apply your heart and mind to what each teaches in their authoritative documents, in the case of Rome it is summarised in the Catechism available for a dollar in paperback at any reputable bookstore in the world. Anglicanism has its Articles, the catechism in the BCP, and assorted other tidbits. The Articles are basically the Anglican Confession of Faith as understood by those Protestant Reformers who first thought them up.
Most contemporary evangelical Anglicans would reject my claim that one can be a true Anglican while practising a faith that predates the BCP and the schism from Rome.
In order to understand where Rome is now, they must walk again the path that She took after the reformation. It entails going back to before 1549 in England and doing a survey, then following Rome as she struggled on for the next 5 centuries. Development of dogma is always a process - witness the decades of ecclesiastical warfare that raged just prior to Nicaea and the pronouncements made then. If one follows the process through, with the aid of sympathetic and able apologists, the things Protestants stumble over when thinking of Rome are greatly lessened.

It all boils down to ecclesiology and the seat of authority in the Church. Once you can settle that, then the heart and mind are opened up to more and more.

But...isn't "orthodox" Anglicanism closer to true catholic faith than what the Roman Catholic Church teaches?

Unfortunately sometimes there seem to be nearly as many definitions of "orthodox Anglicanism" as there are Anglicans. Is it only the Evangelical wing? The Anglo-Catholics? Does it include only those who reject women's ordination (or conversely, only those who accept it)? To hear some people, it sounds like the only issue is whether you accept or reject gay marriage and the ordination of practicing homosexuals. You can find individuals on all sides of these issues who claim the term "orthodox Anglican" mantle as their personal property.

Historically Anglicanism has tolerated a great deal of diversity - which has been both a strength and a weakness, it seems to me. It would be difficult (if not impossible) to come up with a precise definition of "orthodox Anglicanism" on which there would be universal agreement. For that reason I'm not sure that your question can be answered simply; in fact small libraries can and have been written on the subject.

Since you are interested in church history, Anglicanism, and (small-c) catholic faith, you might want to read the following books (all by Anglican authors, by the way) that I have found edifying:

Lightfoot, Harmer, & Holmes - The Apostolic Fathers
J. N. D. Kelly - Early Christian Doctrines
Henry Bettenson - Documents of the Christian Church
Henry Bettenson - The Early Christian Fathers
Henry Bettenson - The Later Christian Fathers
Henry Chadwick - The Early Church

Anything by C. S. Lewis.

If you don't mind reading authors with a more (big-C) Catholic slant, anything by John Henry Newman is good, either from his Anglican period or after his conversion to the Catholic Church. Whether you agree with him or not, his book on the Development of Christian Doctrine is practically a must-read if you're interested in Catholic and Anglican subjects. His sermons and lectures are particularly good and generally not as explicitly Catholic as the Development (especially since many of them predate his conversion), though I would avoid his "Apologia Pro Vita Sua" at least until you have absorbed a fair amount about the milieu of 19th Century Anglicanism; otherwise the book will not be easy to follow. It does however very much deserve its reputation as a classic account of a great man's spiritual journey.

Hope that helps.

JColet,
Anglicans pray that we may read, learn, mark, and inwardly digest the Holy Scripture. Read the Bible. Learn the Bible. Meditate on God's Word...there you will learn orthodox Anglicanism, but most importantly find life!

You might also want to read works by John Stott, J.I. Packer, and J.C. Ryle--- Anglicans all.

Not all that is new is bad and a break with tradition...and not all that is old and hoary with age is good and authentic. Old errors simply become more ingrained. That is what Christ came to fix that was going on in the Jewish faith. It is a good thing that "they" in that time accepted the "new thing" (Christ) as a revelation of truth. Those that didn't...well... enough said.

As a former Angican, I can tell you quite difinitvely that TAC is willing to leave EVERYTHING behind to come home. Bishops are willing and ready to resign once their proposal is accepted. The TAC is willing to leave the 39 Articles behind...and anything else they must to accelerate communion! Can't you folks see what sacifices are ready to be made by men, women and entire congregations!!

Why all the insults!! Why all the castigation, wrongful inferences and aspersions cast on people who are willing to give up ALL to come home. These people risk much to make this trip. There will be seperations of friend, and family over this!!

I have read most of the articles on this site and am angered, saddened and quite frankly shocked my some of the comments, slanders, hurtful remarks and downright lies told about the motive and intentions of an entire group of people who are making a landmark, if not grownshakingly historic move!!

So many prayers for 400 years have culminated in this October letter to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith!! How many rosaries have been said for this moment? How many speeches, papers, sermons written in hopes of this moment coming to pass?

Can't some of you on this site be joyous for this group of up to 400,000 people who are willing to sacrifice all to make it home? When will real charity, understanding and some happiness be exhibited by those who profess themselves to name the name of Jesus?

As a former Anglican and now a Roman Catholic, I am both happy and sad. Happy that there are 400,000 people and their respactive shepards who are willing to come home. I am sad that so many Catholics will, as some of you have, insult, belittle, and ignore their sacrifices, which, if some of you will remember, build up the Church in the spirit and add to her spirtual treasury!

Stop the hurtful comments and illinformed speculations and, instead...PRAY that this endevour succeeds. Have we no care for the souls that will be saved?

What would our Lord think of us right now? It is his body we shred with our bad words and lack of charity.

bjr