Something For Conspiracy Theorists to Sweat About!

Saturday, June 13, AD 2015

celibacy-priesthood-post08-mccloskey

A fascinating piece in the New York Times which will have leftist moonbats reaching for their tin foil head gear:

When we think political influence, we think big money: the Koch brothers or Sheldon Adelson. Father McCloskey has taken a vow of poverty, but he has another kind of influence. He has helped shape the spirituality and the thinking of powerful people who have similar views about the market and social issues. Many of his converts know one another; it is a kind of club. As Pope Francis is breathing life into the Catholic left, Father McCloskey is defibrillating the Catholic right.

In Palo Alto, where Opus Dei sent him in 2013 after a period in Chicago, Father McCloskey and I shared a late-afternoon cocktail. He talked about his college years, his time on Wall Street and his calling to become a priest. I had expected to be overwhelmed by charisma and instead was drawn in by gentleness. He listened more than he spoke, asked about my family, touched my arm several times.

Then, when it was over, Father McCloskey surprised me by asking that I not quote him. Opus Dei would not let him speak on the record.

So, to learn more about him, I turned to some of the men and women whom Father McCloskey has counseled.

Several discussed the pleasure he takes in conservatives’ company, and his quiet facility with networking. He gets referrals. To take one example, before Mr. Regnery ever met Father McCloskey, he knew about him from Mr. Kudlow and Mr. Novak, converts of Father McCloskey’s who, as conservative opinion columnists, knew pretty much everyone.

And in a church whose priests are often on the left economically, Father McCloskey has a niche. He is a devout free-marketeer, a priest who defends the compatibility of pro-business policies and Catholic theology.

But more than anything, when I asked what made Father McCloskey so successful at persuading people to join the church, I heard the answer, counterintuitive in its simplicity, that he befriends people, whether they ask for it or not.

“Once Father John gets his claws into you, he never lets go,” said Mr. Kudlow, who was fighting addictions to alcohol and cocaine when he met Father McCloskey in the 1990s.

“He reaches out and gives you that kind of companionship, and stays in touch,” Mr. Kudlow, now clean for almost 20 years, added.

Shortly after he began counseling Mr. Kudlow, Father McCloskey suggested that he go to church. Mr. Kudlow found that he loved Mass, and in 1997, he was baptized Catholic.

Mr. Brownback and Mr. Lehrman did not respond to requests for comment. Nor did the presidential candidate Rick Santorum, whose son was baptized by Father McCloskey. But Mr. Regnery, whose family firm has published William F. Buckley Jr., Ann Coulter and Dinesh D’Souza, did respond, effusively.

In the 1990s, dissatisfied with the Episcopal Church, Mr. Regnery attended two weekend retreats run by Father McCloskey. They became friends, and in 2006 or 2007, he became a Catholic.

Continue reading...

5 Responses to Something For Conspiracy Theorists to Sweat About!

  • Any chance we can introduce this wonderful priest to Chicago’s Father Pfleger or is the local Bishop still protecting him any sort of spiritual guidance on grounds of free speech?

  • I met Fr Closkey at a Opus Dei event years ago while I was in college. He was seated on the floor next to me in a very crowded room. On a couple of occasions we had to stand for a prelate of one sort or another as they arrived to speak to the group. Due to the press of the crowd it was hard to get to standing but he always gave a hand to help me up. I was very impressed.

  • Humble priest if you ask me. I posted this [http://www.truthandcharityforum.org/pope-francis-on-the-family-and-human-life/#comment-1292816768] under his article and then expected to be banned but wasn’t …
    *
    Please God bless you priest Fr. McCloskey and all in your Prelature of Opus Dei, and all your work at their hands.

  • Pingback: FRIDAY EDITION – Big Pulpit
  • Well said! Yet more evidence that we should never presume to think that God is “on our side” in any political debate. My standard response to anyone attempting to co-opt Our Lord to either Conservatism or Liberalism is Luke 12:13-14.
    .
    One of the multitude said to [Jesus], “Teacher, bid my brother divide the inheritance with me.” But He said to him, “Man, who made me a judge or divider over you?”

Sneak Peak At There Be Dragons Movie Trailer

Thursday, July 29, AD 2010

UPDATE at the BOTTOM

The famous director of the movies The Mission and The Killing Fields, Roland Joffe, has just released a trailer teaser to his new film he is producing that encapsulates the early life of Saint Josemaria Escriva.

The film is about a news reporter investigating the life of his father where he discovers that his father was a lifelong friend of Saint Josemaria Escriva.

Continue reading...

9 Responses to Sneak Peak At There Be Dragons Movie Trailer

Speculating on Gomez

Tuesday, April 6, AD 2010

First of all, I need to introduce myself: my name is Michael Denton and I’m from what Tito calls the People’s Republic of Cajunland and what I call paradise: South Louisiana. As for my qualifications: well, like most other bloggers, I really have no idea what I’m talking about. If that’s a problem for you…well, then you probably don’t need to be reading blogs.

Anyway, today we heard the anticipated news that Los Angeles will soon see Cardinal Mahoney replaced with San Antonio’s Archbishop Jose Gomez. To read all about it, I suggest you head over to Rocco Palmo‘s site, as he is one of the few bloggers who actually does know what he’s talking about. In sum, Abp. Gomez is from the “conservative” order of Opus Dei and could be very different from his predecessor, who built a monstrous cathedral (not in a good way) and is known for hosting a Conference that annually provides Youtube clips for Catholics wishing to show others just how bad liturgical abuse can be. I don’t know if that’s very interesting though. While the liturgical element is certainly important, as the “Spirit of Vatican II” types are losing their foremost defender, I think we knew beforehand that Benedict was going install a replacement very different from Mahoney in liturgical views.

More important is how they’re similar.

Continue reading...

36 Responses to Speculating on Gomez

  • Just a note. Opus Dei is not a Religious order. Its a Personal Prelature with the priest being incardinated in it.

  • A second note. The Church does recognize the right of the state to regulate immigration. Gomez recognizes this and sees that there must be some penalty for violating immigration laws (though he does not recommend deportation.)

  • Yes, I think a critical distinction needs to be made between those who advocate “open boarders” and those who simply believe in treating immigrants with dignity and respect.

    I really hope that Gomez puts an end to liturgical abuse, to sacrilege, to ceremonies that are more pagan than Christian, as well.

  • Welcome soon to be second year law student! Your first year of legal hell is almost up!

  • I look forward, with very guarded hope, to Archbishop Gomez’s ascension to the throne of Mahoneyland, er, I mean, the Archdiocese of L.A. I had occasion to write him some time ago regarding a concern I had with actions and attitudes here in the Diocese of “All Borders are heinous injustices.”

    That said, I think we do the Catechism (where the full foundation of Church teaching is to be found) serious disservice when we reduce it word-searching. “See, see here! It says immigrant!”

    A nation or people may be called to account for how outsiders within their borders are treated. I think we sometimes take that notion and run straight to the place from which we so often hear Card. Mahoney and others villify the nation for our “inhumane” treatment of Latino (and that’s all anyone really cares about here) immigrants.

    If you want to see migrants (brought to the country legally, often by the government, to work in the “jobs our citizens won’t do” category, go to Saudi Arabia and see how they treat the Filipinos and other island (and some Asian) “third country nationals.” They are normally corraled in living areas near where they work and transported to/from their work areas with little or no ceremony. If they venture into Saudi cities on their free time, they do so with virtually no expectation of good treatment by any authorities. Any rights or dignity thewy might be afforded will be owing only to their demonstrated adherance to Islamic “faith.”

    Unless it truly is unacceptable to have and enforce borders (and if so, I missed that article in the Catechism), we need to accept that the licitness of borders and the control thereof has something to say about the illicitness of those who make of themselves a commodity, by placing themselves in the shadows of the society against whom they trespass. (The trespass of those who hire them does nothing to eliminate the alien’s trespass against the society as a whole.)

    We Catholics seem satisfied with absurd notions that we (the USA) are responsible for the family situations of those who make themselves prisoners or fugitives in our land. To say so is to say that laws against and prison sentences for murder are unjust because of the family separation they impose.

  • I cannot imagine any Archbishop who is given the archdiocese of L.A.who will not work from what is organic. I do believe we are going to experience new wine. I read an article which stated Gomez like past Bishops of American Catholic immigrants also has a main concern to teach authentic Catholicism to the Hispanics. This is not unusual if you look at the Irish and Italian immigrants and their needs in past centuries. I read where he gave a talk on taking the Word of God out to the world and a Hispanic women approach him and said she would start a bible study. What a novel idea a Bishop through preaching converted a person from old ways to the new way.
    I was on the L.A. Times blog and boy the secular world is upset that attention is being given to Hispanics, our culture does need to be re-evangelized.

  • The pro-amnesty position of Cdl Mahony is NOT the “Church’s teaching” on immigration.

  • While I think one can make an open borders argument based on Catholic teaching, I didn’t make the argument nor did Benedict (perhaps Mahoney did; it wouldn’t surprise me). Without getting too deep into Church teaching on immigration (which would merit more research on my part & another post), my understanding is that the bishops’ problems with current US immigration policy is twofold

    1) That the US is unfairly limiting immigration. The US can support more immigration and take them in legally but is refusing to do so. While this can be interpreted as “open borders” it doesn’t have to be; only that the borders should be more wide open.

    2) That the US is committing an injustice by treating illegal immigrants like sub-human beings-allowing below minimum wage, denying health care, making citizenship difficult, etc. I think the current condition that the immigrant finds himself is the greater concern of the bishops as it shows a lack of respect for the dignity of the human person, which does not stop once once sets foot over the arbitrary imaginary line we call the US/Mexican border.

    Now, I don’t know nearly enough to say what the solution is, especially with the rightful balancing of a country’s need to secure its border and enforce its laws, other than deportation is not the answer (for ethical & financial reasons). But I don’t think it’s unfair to at a minimum point out that illegal immigrants are facing injustice and more effort should be spent finding solutions rather than on nativist rhetoric.

  • illegal immigrants are facing injustice

    They broke the law to enter the country. Naturally that doesn’t remotely justify treating them inhumanely (though I would strongly suggest that the actual treatment of illegal immigrants in this country is far from inhumane), but let’s not lose sight of what the real issue is, nor should we engage in baseless rhetoric about “nativist rhetoric” when those opposed to amnesty have far loftier and reasonable justifications for their position.

  • ” … the “Spirit of Vatican II” types are losing their foremost defender …”

    Hardly. The archbishop is a JPII man, and rather autocratic to boot.

    Spelling, spelling, spelling … sheesh.

  • I think if one argues that illegal immigrants should have their status legalized with the simple penalty of community service, then one in effect has open borders. Its a get out of jail card with no real penalty.

    I also think that if one considers it sub-human treatment to deny citizenship for one illegally here then there is no point in discussion. Emotion wins.

  • In my parish, St. John the Evangelist in Goshen, NY, the first major pedophile scandal materialized in the early nineties. The priest in question, “Father Ed” had been molesting boys in their early teens. To say that the parishioners were traumatized by this would be an understatement. They were devastated. Then something wondrous happened….

    Father Ed was eventually replaced by Father Trevor Nichols. Father Trevor had been an Anglican in merrie old England when he converted to Catholicism. On becoming a Catholic was transferred to Saint John’s – WITH HIS WIFE AND TWO DAUGHTERS! A married priest! WITH TWO KIDS!

    You want to hear the punch line? Our little parish did not implode. The sun did not fall from the sky. Huge cracks did not appear in the earth’s surface. In fact, it was nice having them. They were – and are to this day – deeply beloved by the people of St. John’s.

    Allowing priests to marry would transform the Catholic Church. Having Father Trevor, his wife Marian and their two lovely daughters in our midst certainly transformed the people of St. John’s.

    http://www.tomdegan.blogspot.com

    Tom Degan

  • “Allowing priests to marry would transform the Catholic Church.”

    It certainly has done wonders for the Episcopal Church, assuming that the term wonder encompasses extinction.

  • Tom Degan,

    What does your proposal for disobeying Church discipline have to do with Archbishop Gomez moving to the Archdiocese of Los Angeles?

  • Todd,

    How many bishops are there at this point who weren’t selected by John Paul II? If that constitutes a disproof of being a “Spirit of Vatican II” type in your mind, then it’s already extinct. Whatever one wants to call Mahony, it must be admitted that he represents a type of diocesan leadership that conservative Catholics will be very glad to see go, in regards to liturgy, dealing with the scandals, politics, vocations, religious education, and a host of other issues. And whatever his other faults, progressive Catholics have often found themselves in his corner — as when he squared off against Mother Angelica. Of course, he’s not the darling that Archbishop Weakland was… But we know how that one worked out in the end.

    Tom,

    It’s certainly a good thing that your parish got a faithful new priest — and there are some very good priests who are converts from Anglicanism, some of whom are married. (Father Longnecker springs to mind.) However, one cannot really see that it was only because he was married that he proved to be a good priest for your parish. There are, of course, a great many celibate priests (some of them also converts from Anglicanism) who also do not molest teenage boys. The vast, vast majority, in fact. That yours happened to be married does not mean that the Church needs to change its general discipline in the Western Church.

  • Darwin, I don’t see things with an enemy-of-my-enemy mindset.

    Speaking as the liberal you know me to be, I find Cardinal Mahony’s leadership style distasteful, and this isn’t (or shouldn’t be) news to St Bloggers who have stalked me over the years. If you pressed me, I could probably name about a half-dozen things I dislike about the man’s legacy.

    My preference in bishops (a qualified hero) would be guys like Ken Untener and Michael Kenny, both of whom I’ve met and heard speak, not only for what they had to say, but more: how they lived their lives as bishops in witness to the gospel. But it’s probably little surprise I’m more of a sell-the-mansion, reach-out-to-the-poor kind of guy anyway.

    This liberal is happy that his kind of autocrat is leaving. I know Archbishop Gomez even less than I know the cardinal. He seems to be more energetic, and maybe he’s less of an autocrat. If so, good for LA. If not, I’ll probably be happy when he retires, too.

    Interesting that you should mention vocations, because two of the Right’s favorite punching bags over the years, Mahony and Trautmann, are both doing pretty well when it comes to clergy. Far from the bottom of the heap, as it were.

  • “So while conservatives rejoice at the sufferings the liberals must endure at the loss of their liturgical dancers, it would be wise to remember that Benedict wants some change from the right as well.”

    True. But I do think it is problematic that define support for immigration reform as just on the left and opposition to it just on the right. That does not seem to mirtor the actual poltial reality

  • The world not being a polarity, people are certainly not required to like those who are more on their end than not — but it can’t really be denied that much of Mahony’s influence especially in the last 15 years of his episcopacy has been much more towards the progressive side of the Catholic spectrum than otherwise.

    Also, franky, I’m perplexed as to how you can say that Mahony has been doing well as regards vocations. My native diocese (Los Angeles) has more than ten times as many Catholics as my adopted one (Austin) but a similar number of ordinations and seminarians. Plus, the most of vocations LA does manage are “imports” — that is, come to the diocese as seminarians but didn’t live there prior to entering seminary.

    That said, having met Cardinal Mahony on several occasions and heard him speak, I can assure you that he is in person a very nice guy. You would probably like him if you actually met him.

  • Todd,

    “St Bloggers who have stalked me over the years”

    And I suppose you never went around provoking people with your comments. No, you just tell the truth, and people get so mad that they have to stalk you. That it?

  • jh:

    Well, I think the right has deeper problems than the left on the issue. I don’t think you’re going to get much traction on a “Make them speak English” platform in a Democratic room while you’ll get some in a GOP room.

    That said, as the healthcare debate showed both sides have the concerns of the immigrant as very low priority so you’re right to point out that both have significant problems on this issue.

  • “He seems to be more energetic, and maybe he’s less of an autocrat.”

    When it comes to Church leadership, I’m not a fan of democracy.

  • MD,

    Don’t conflate politics with Catholicism.

    I volunteer and help the homeless and serve food to the hungry, but I am not a Democrat.

    Just sayin’!

    😉

  • MD,

    Actually you ask most first generation immigrants and they want their children to learn English. Only so far you can get in a culture if you don’t speak the dominant language. Can’t carry bilingual education to the college level.

    Its compassionate liberals that will keep immigrants down by keeping them in a linguistic ghetto.

  • When it comes to Church leadership, I’m not a fan of democracy.

    You’re so right. Fascism makes for a better, tighter, more unified, ecclesiology.

  • “Speaking as the liberal you know me to be, I find Cardinal Mahony’s leadership style distasteful, and this isn’t (or shouldn’t be) news to St Bloggers who have stalked me over the years.”

    Stalked? Todd, you are the one who keeps showing up here in the comboxes.

  • Donald, there’s a significant and logical difference between my visiting your site and selectively posting on topics of interest, and your practice of responding to practically every one of my posts here. Though to be fair, you pretty much post anywhere you disagree with one of your visitors.

    You do have a colleague here who sees fit to mention my federal voting record, even on threads in which politics is not in the tag.

    That said, you’ve left alone my comments on Cardinal Mahony, so I’ll take that as evidence you mostly align with me in disliking the man, and perhaps even for not totally different reasons. On that point, I’ll conclude my remarks here and stalk…I mean visit another thread later.

  • You do have a colleague here who sees fit to mention my federal voting record, even on threads in which politics is not in the tag.

    When you claim to be a “Catholic” and yet vote for the most pro-abortion president in U.S. history, I have to bring that up so people understand that you’re just a Catholic-In-Name-Only.

    Hence innocent Catholic’s won’t be strayed from their faith because of your lies, innuendo’s, and false interpretations of Catholicism.

    We aim to evangelize Catholics here at TAC and will disallow you from misleading them.

  • Todd has become increasingly angry and bitter in the last couple years (and seems to take undue opportunity to needle conservative Catholics), and I think it shows very poor judgement (including moral judgement) to think that Obama was worthy of a vote in the last election, but I don’t think that it is correct or appropriate to label Todd a “Catholic-in-name-only” for that reason.

  • “Donald, there’s a significant and logical difference between my visiting your site and selectively posting on topics of interest, and your practice of responding to practically every one of my posts here.”

    When anyone posts in one of my threads Todd I will normally respond eventually, although time constraints and laziness on my part sometimes prevent me from doing so. Additionally if someone else in the thread has made the point I was going to make I normally don’t bother.

    “Though to be fair, you pretty much post anywhere you disagree with one of your visitors.”

    Not really, but a bit of hyperbole goes with commenting in comboxes. Usually I won’t post in other threads unless I have a strong interest in the topic or my name comes up.

    “On that point, I’ll conclude my remarks here and stalk…I mean visit another thread later.”

    Feel free to stalk…I mean visit here, as much as you wish. I agree with you on little, although we share a similar distaste of Cardinal Mahoney, but you conduct yourself within the bounds of blog decorum and I have no problem with your visits whatever our sparring, something we of course have been doing since the Welborn Open Book days. (How swiftly time passes!)

  • I agree with Darwin that I would not call Todd a Catholic In Name Only. Beyond a distaste for attempting to judge the sincerity of someone else’s religious committment, I do not think it accurate in his case. I might call him, because of his vote, a Pro-lifer In Name Only, but I do not know if Todd claims to be part of the pro-life movement.

  • How can a Catholic who know’s his faith vote for the most pro-abortion president in U.S. history?

  • Darwin and Don,

    Words matter and I believe that you two are correct. After sleeping on it I should not have labeled Todd as a “Catholic-In-Name-Only”.

    A much more precise label would have been more accurate, but not charitable to say the least.

    I won’t refer to him this way again.

    In Jesus, Mary, & Joseph,

    Tito

  • DRM,
    How exactly is it that one becomes a pro-lifer in name only without meriting at the same moment the appellation “Catholic in Name Only?”

    Pro-abortion baptised Christians come in only one flavor, regardless of the “denomination” they choose to attend services in; protestant.

  • Actually Kevin some of the most fervent pro-lifers I know are protestants. I have a personal distaste for passing on the religious committment of others, and I do not like going beyond what I think the evidence shows me.

  • Kevin:

    I think you mean that once you dissent from the Church’s teachings you cease to be Catholic and become a Protestant.

    That said, I think Donald was right to point out that the way you wrote it could be interpreted very negatively by our Protestant brethren who do a lot for the service of life.

A New Bishop for Los Angeles

Monday, April 5, AD 2010

Whispers in the Loggia and New Advent have exciting breaking news for the church in the US:

Pope Benedict will name Jose Gomez, 58, archbishop of San Antonio since February 2005, as coadjutor-archbishop of Los Angeles.

In the process, the native of Mexico — the lone American bishop professed as a numerary (full member) of Opus Dei — will make history, becoming the first Hispanic prelate placed in line for a Stateside red hat.

The appointment would bring to a close several months’ worth of intense consultation and speculation since word of Cardinal Roger Mahony’s request for an understudy began circulating late last year. A coadjutor will first spend some months learning the ropes alongside the 74 year-old cardinal before succeeding to the helm of the 5 million member local church — its Catholic population estimated to be three-quarters Latino — shortly after Mahony reaches the retirement age of 75 next February 27th.

Born in Monterrey and ordained for Opus Dei in 1978, Gomez served in Texas from 1987 in both Houston and San Antonio. A former executive director and president of the National Association of Hispanic Priests, in 2001 Pope John Paul II named him an auxiliary to Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver, then rocketed him into the lone senior US post customarily held by a Latin cleric on his appointment to San Antonio in late 2004. Six months after his installation there, TIME magazine named Gomez one of the nation’s 25 most influential Hispanics.

Continue reading...

7 Responses to A New Bishop for Los Angeles

Works of Penance, Frequent Confession, Mortification, Almsgiving

Wednesday, February 17, AD 2010

Works of Penance, Frequent Confession, Mortification, Almsgiving is by Father Francis Fernandez Carvajal from his series on meditations In Conversation with GodDaily Meditations Volume Two: Lent and Eastertide, 1.2:

True conversion is shown by the way we behave.  We show that we really want to improve by the way we do our work or our study.  We show it by the way we behave towards our family; by offering up to God, in the course of the day, little mortifications which make life for those around us more pleasant, and which make our work more effective.  We can also show it by making a careful preparation for and going frequently to Confession.

Today God asks us also for a rather special mortification, which we offer up cheerfully: it is fasting and abstinence, which strengthens our spirit as it mortifies our flesh and our sensuality.  It raises our soul to God.  It gets rid of concupiscence by giving us the strength to overcome and to mortify our passions, and it disposes our heart that it may seek for nothing except to please God in everything.9

Continue reading...

4 Responses to Works of Penance, Frequent Confession, Mortification, Almsgiving

  • A friend who belongs to Opus Dei turned me onto these books during Advent at an Opus Dei Men’s reflection. I can’t say that I have read them everyday, perhaps 85% of the time since.

    Amazing. That’s all I can say. I take them to Mass with me and read them after the after Mass prayers. What a fantastic help. The insights and lessons are inspired. What a great place to get perspective from the Communion of Saints, the Popes and the Magestirium.

    I recommend In Conversation with God to anyone and everyone who wants to increase their faith and understanding (in that order).

    We are dust but if you own these books they won’t get any dust on them.

  • AK,

    I agree.

    The In Conversation With God series has brought me ever closer to God. It is worth someones while to pick up the book and start reading.

    A great way to do something for Lent!

  • Tito,

    I never thought about the statement from your last sentence until this Lent. We all give something up and when we think of it or desire it we turn to God; however, I don’t know too many people who DO SOMETHING for Lent as opposed to NOT doing something. Sure, we may give the money we save from our habit, whether it be beer, chocolate or whatever, but that is not necessarily the same as DOING something.

    I think it is helpful, and these books are great for it, to add something to our spiritual life during Lent and God willing it will become part of us in Easter and beyond.

  • AK,

    I remember the “spirit of Vatican II” rage of “doing” something for Lent instead of “giving” something up.

    In the end I decided to do both (just to be safe!)

    😉

Movie About Saint Josemaria Escriva

Sunday, November 1, AD 2009

There Be Dragons

A new movie about Saint Josemaria Escriva’s early years placed during the Spanish Civil War has been produced and will be released in 2010 A.D. titled, There Be Dragons.

Saint Josemaria Escriva was born in 1902 A.D. in Barbastro, Spain.  Later at the age of 26 in Madrid Saint Josemaria started the apostolate that would eventually be called the Work of God, or simply Opus Dei, in pre-Civil War Spain in October of 1928 A.D.  Opus Dei would experience delays in progress with the outbreak of the Spanish Civil War in 1936 A.D.  This is the period that the setting of the movie is placed in.

Continue reading...

4 Responses to Movie About Saint Josemaria Escriva

  • Josemaria Escriva

    self proclaimed saint, by an opus dei pope.

    he is the guy responsible for the murder of pope Jean Paul I.

    i cant even believe this is on a religious website..
    tho im not surprised, catholic religion was infiltrated by opus dei or he same pagan opus dai.. do research ppl dont watch this.

  • Alik,

    You’re not familiar with the Church God established on earth.

    Once it is bound on earth, it is bound in Heaven.

  • are you a priest? im wondering if your associated with church in a way that i am not. i believe in Allah.

    i researched : Once it is bound on earth, it is bound in Heaven.

    i do not understand how that is relevant. are you referring to the church?

    The concept of “binding and loosing” is taught in Matthew 16:19 and 18:18, “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” In this verse, Jesus is speaking directly to the Apostle Peter, and indirectly to the other apostles. Jesus’ words meant that Peter would have the right to enter the kingdom himself, would have general authority therein symbolized by the possession of the keys, and preaching the gospel would be the means of opening the kingdom of heaven to all believers and shutting it against unbelievers. The book of Acts shows us this process at work. By his sermon on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:14-40), Peter opened the door of the kingdom for the first time. The expressions “bind” and “loose” were common to Jewish legal phraseology meaning to declare forbidden or to declare allowed.

    i was wondering if you could explain more about church that God established.

  • Pingback: Sneak Peak At There Be Dragons Movie Trailer « The American Catholic

Anglicans And Catholics To Reunite, Reaction And News Roundup

Tuesday, October 20, AD 2009

St. Thomas More

I will be updating this post as often as I can throughout the day [Last update at 10:01pm CDT].  I’ll be reporting on reactions and news concerning this groundbreaking development that came from the Vatican this morning.  The Vatican issued a note explaining a new provision in an upcoming Apostolic Constitution that will allow for a structure to be in place to receive Anglicans and Episcopalians into the Catholic Church.  Basically a corporate reunion!

To read the full text of this announcement from the Vatican click here.

To read the full text of the joint press release of the Archbishop of Westminster, Vincent Gerard Nichols, and the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, click here.

Reaction and news from around the world [all emphasis mine]:

Last Update of the day at 10:01pm CDT (Earlier updates further down this post)

Ruth Gledhill of the Times of London.  Offers a brief history of what transpired the last couple of years between Anglo-Catholics, and those inside the Vatican, both faithful and dissident Catholics.

Rome has parked its tanks on the Archbishop of Canterbury’s lawn [Interesting choice of words, but nonetheless accurate in my opinion] after manoeuvres undertaken by up to fifty bishops and begun two years ago by an Australian archbishop, John Hepworth [The leader of the Traditional Anglican Communion].”

Continue reading...

18 Responses to Anglicans And Catholics To Reunite, Reaction And News Roundup

  • Does this action reverse Apostolicae Curae?

  • A brilliant stroke on the part of Pope Benedict. He has the mental agility and energy of a prelate half his age. Disaffected Anglicans now have a home and the powers that be in the Anglican Church have a major problem. To all of our Anglican brothers and sisters who will be joining us I say that we are overjoyed to have you!

  • Might I just add that this is what Ecumenism is supposed to be about: Conversion into the Catholic Church, and not the other way around (i.e., Catholics mutating into Protestants)?

  • e.,

    In addition to what you said, Ecumenism is about conversion, not dialogue that continues without resolution.

  • Tito: I was having problems earlier at the website. Would you kindly remove the first instance of my comments above since it’s merely a duplicate?

    Also, would you happen to know if in that ordinariate in the Anglican ultimately means that a person can actually be married and yet become a priest in that rite (for lack of a better word)?

    Thanks!

  • e.,

    Yes, I read the Note that was released early this morning the same way.

    Married men can now become priests in the Catholic Church, but only within the Anglican Personal Ordinariate. Very similar to Easter Catholic Rites.

    But they may not become priests in the Latin Rite, which encompasses the vast majority of Catholics worldwide.

    I’m sure once the mainstream media gets to reading the details they’ll begin to make hay about this pretty soon.

    Take note though, only unmarried priests can become bishop within the Anglican Personal Ordinariate, just as in the Easter Catholic Rites and the Easter Orthodox Churches.

  • Tito:

    Thanks for the info!

    I’m just wondering if a person who is seeking to become a priest and yet at the same time be married, alls he need do is pursue such vocation but within that same Anglican Personal Ordinariate which you mention; in other words, will this be at long last that loophole for those married but yet feel a calling to serve the Lord in the priesthood.

    Here is The Wall Street Journal scoop:

    Vatican Opens Door for Anglican Converts

    ROME — Pope Benedict XVI introduced a fast track for Anglicans seeking to join Roman Catholicism, paving the way for conservative Anglicans frustrated by their church’s blessing of same-sex unions and homosexuality in the priesthood to enter the Catholic fold.

    The Vatican on Tuesday announced plans to create a special set of canon laws, known as an “Apostolic Constitution,” to allow Anglican faithful, priests and bishops to enter into full communion with the Vatican without having to give up a large part of their liturgical and spiritual traditions.

    With the measures, Pope Benedict is attempting to reclaim ground lost by the Roman Catholic Church in the 16th century when King Henry VIII defied papal authority to found the Church of England. The move clears the way for entire congregations of Anglicans to join the Catholic Church and makes it easier for married Anglican priests to convert without embracing Catholicism’s traditional code of priestly celibacy…

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125604916994796545.html?mod=rss_Today's_Most_Popular

  • e.,

    As much as the mainstream media hypes that the solution to a declining pool of priests is to allow married people to pursue this vocation, it won’t be anything more than a trickle.

    We all know that families that practice and teach the faith to their children, ie, foster vocations, in addition to participating in orthodox Catholic parishes will create large pools of seminarians.

    As evident in the Lincoln and Omaha dioceses of Nebraska.

    Allowing married men and wymyn priests is a band-ade at best.

  • Tito:

    Obviously, woman priests is clearly forbidden and should never be allowed — ever.

    However, allowing married priests is more of a disciplinary rather than a doctrinal matter; I don’t see how such a thing can actually even be considered subversive.

    In fact, even Fr. Corapi admitted as much in his Catechism of the Catholic Church series on EWTN.

  • e.,

    I know that it is a discipline and not doctrinal.

    I agree with you completely on this point. You may have misread my comment on this, but to be clear, I believe you and I are on the same page.

    I’m fine with allowing married priests. Especially how it will be set up in the upcoming provision in the Apostolic Constitution.

    …and I looove Father Corapi!

  • I got to see Fr. Corapi in Buffalo this past August on Our Lady’s feast. He is wonderful. A true son of the Church.

    I prefer that the Latin Rite keep the celibacy discipline. We are at a point right now where experience is teaching us that when we are orthodox we grow and when we are hetrodox we wane.

    Even though the Pope could lift this I think it diminishes the priest’s efficacy if he has to worry about the formation and protection, etc. of children of his own flesh – it is actually a freedom to be able to care for all the children in his parish.

    Nevertheless, whatever the Pope decides is fine by me. I think everyone except the Holy Spirit underestimated our German Shepherd. He rocks.

  • AK,

    I agree 100%.

    Celibacy needs to be kept for many apparent reasons, one of the most basic is he has dedicated his life to Christ. Adding a good wife would only shorten his time on earth.

  • Fr. Grandon is a distant relative of mine by marriage, whom I met for the first time when he had just become Catholic and had gone from being an Episcopal priest to a Catholic layperson. Great guy with a really interesting conversion story.

    On another blog I read that Rt. Rev. Keith Ackerman, retired Episcopal bishop of Quincy, Illinois (its cathedral, however, is in Peoria), was more or less stripped of his episcopal status by the “High Priestess” referred to above… he also is a great guy, good friends with Bishops Myers and Jenky, and I wouldn’t be surprised to see him jump the Tiber now. Since he’s married and has kids he wouldn’t be able to be a bishop anymore, but given how he’s been treated by his own denomination of late, he’d probably have little to lose if he did convert.

  • Also, maybe I’m getting WAY ahead of everyone here… but could this approach to ecumenism be carried even beyond the boundaries of the Anglican or Orthodox churches? Could we someday (probably centuries from now, if ever) have a Lutheran Rite or Baptist Rite or Pentecostal/Charismatic Rite that combine their distinctive styles of worship with the sacraments, doctrines and teaching authority of the Church?

  • Elaine,

    I briefly touched on that in the next posting.

    In my opinion, I could possibly see something for the Lutherans in a Personal Ordiniate.

    But after them, there are no vestiges of any signs of an apostolic church. Maybe the Methodists, but that is stretching it a bit.

    But again, it’s strictly my opinion.

  • Tito:

    No disrespect; however, if you actually felt that way about married priests, then why did you put it up there with woman priests which, in fact, can never be allowed as it directly goes against Christian doctrine itself?

    Also, I don’t think there could ever be rites that would cater to such Protestant sects as the Baptists who clearly do not hold the same Christian beliefs that we do, like the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

    Ironically, it is folks like the Lutherans who we have more in common (relatively-speaking, of course) in comparison with those sects who are far more heretical in degree.

    Yet, I do greatly appreciate the fact that you are keeping us apprised of such news. Keep it up.

    Adding a good wife would only shorten his time on earth.

    This reminds of precisely what Saint/Sir Thomas More once said as regarding marriage; that is, once a man is married, he can never be free of worry!

  • e.,

    Now your reading into things way to much.

  • Pingback: Anglican Church in America Asks Entry Into Catholic Church « The American Catholic

Saint Josemaria Escriva Film In The Works

Friday, September 4, AD 2009

St. Josemaria Escriva audience

A film based on Saint Josemaria Escriva de Balaguer, the founder of Opus Dei, is being filmed in Argentina titled, There Be Dragons.  The movie is set in the years running up and including the Spanish Civil War.

There Be Dragons is being directed by Roland Joffe, the same director who filmed The Mission which starred Robert Di Niro and Jeremy Irons about Jesuit missionaries in 18th century South America.  The movie will Scottish star Dougray Scott of Mission Impossible II fame as a reporter and English star Charlie Cox as the saint himself.

Father John Wauck of Opus Dei seems to be the adviser to Mr. Joffe.  Mr. Joffe rejected an earlier script provided by Opus Dei for one that he wrote and has said he experienced no interference whatsoever from the personal prelature which is funding the film.

The expected release date is Summer or Autumn of next year (2010).

_._

To read more about the film, There Be Dragons, by The Catholic Herald of Britain click here.

To learn more about Saint Josemaria Escriva de Blaguer click here.

To learn more about Opus Dei click here.

To read more about the film The Mission click here.

For more information on There Be Dragons click here.

Continue reading...

One Response to Saint Josemaria Escriva Film In The Works

CDF to Offer Personal Prelature Status to the Traditional Anglican Communion

Thursday, January 29, AD 2009

October 20, AD 2009, New Developments: Vatican Announces Personal Ordinariates for Anglicans!  To read more on this click here.

Updates at the bottom of the post ? (‘nothing’s been decided’ & ‘unlikely’)

papal-emblemThe Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is reportedly recommending that the Traditional Anglican Communion (T.A.C.) be offered the status of personal prelature.  The Traditional Anglican Communion is a group of approximately 400,000 Anglican’s that have broken away from the Anglican Communion seeking to preserve their Anglo-Catholic traditions.  They formerly requested entry into the Catholic Church in 2007.  These reports are emanating from an Australian Catholic weekly called The Record.

Due to the unprecedented volume of traffic it can be difficult to access The Record website.   I can only ladyonthrone1surmise this is because of the excitement that this bit of news must be generating among Traditional Anglicans as well as faithful Catholics and various observers from Canterbury.

Again, this has just been reported within the last two hours (1:50am Central Standard Time).  Here is the following posted information from The Record:

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has decided to recommend the Traditional Anglican Communion be accorded a personal prelature akin to Opus Dei, if talks between the TAC and the Vatican aimed at unity succeed, it is understood.

Continue reading...

62 Responses to CDF to Offer Personal Prelature Status to the Traditional Anglican Communion

  • I wonder if this is the same group of Anglicans that Mark Shea spoke to a couple of years ago in South Australia?

    Anyway, its great news.

    Ut Unum Sint, indeed.

  • Don the Kiwi,

    Not sure about that one.

    But if this is true and the negotiations go well, all I can say is WOW!

    Ut Unum Sint indeed.

  • This is good news. I hope it’s true ut unum sint.

  • Pingback: Traditional Anglicans to Get Personal Prelature Status? « Per Christum Catholic Blog
  • This is great news! I understood that there were many other issues that needed to be dealt with. While the priests and bishops of the TAC will probably need to be ordained (doubting as to the validity of their orders), it is my understanding that the TAC has a married episcopate, which I cannot see Rome accepting. Rome may offer the prelature with some other preconditions, but it is no guarantee that the TAC will accept.

  • Need not worry, Alan. The Holy Spirit- the anti-devil- is in the details. Wonderful development. Ut unum sint indeed.

  • This is indeed fantastic news! If the TAC is able to integrate successfully without having their unique heritage suppressed it could be the first of many groups to enter the Church without fear of “Latinization” and yet able to gain full communion.

    Alan Phipps,

    TAC has a married episcopate

    it is indeed very unlikely that the Holy Father would elevate a married man to the episcopate, however there is a history of permitting married clergy of converting Lutheran and Anglican congregations to be ordained priests while maintaining their state. I suspect that the TAC bishops understand this and will accept that condition, they would still retain leadership positions in the new prelature, and would only be limited in their faculties for the sacraments.

  • Pingback: Traditional Anglicans Soon to Enter Catholic Church? — Catholicism.org - Saint Benedict Center, The Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary
  • Matt,

    Yes, I expect that the pastoral provision may be fully leveraged here in the case of married priest converts, but I also understood that for the TAC bishops, maintaining their married episcopate was a must. While I expressed concern, I in no way feel that this is necessarily a huge stumbling block… primarily just a curious question on my part. Hopefully they will accept Rome’s magnanimity.

  • Pingback: Traditional Anglican Communion to Enter Catholic Church? « Mary’s Anawim
  • Pingback: Ut Unum Sint! « Vox Clamantis in Deserto
  • Alan,

    for the TAC bishops, maintaining their married episcopate was a must.

    I haven’t come across this before, all I could see is that they stipulated to the entire Catechism, so I don’t see how they could insist on this. We can certainly trust the Holy Father to work it out.

  • Matt,

    See if you can add a pic to your ID.

  • Tito,

    See if you can add a pic to your ID.

    Alright already.

  • Matt,

    “I haven’t come across this before,”

    I recall it from an interview I watched about a year and a half ago with the presiding prelate, Archbishop John Hepworth, who is married. I’ll have to see if I can track it down again, but I’ve heard conflicting reports that he may retire should Rome welcome them in.

  • “Niiiice.”

    For myself, I prefer that cool looking design as my ID.

  • Alan,

    It’s your turn. Put up a saint, like the one you have on Facebook.

    C’mon! Do it!

    Nothing like peer pressure eh?

  • Pingback: Anglican Mainstream Mobile » Traditional Anglicans ‘to be offered personal prelature by Pope’
  • Tito,

    After the election of the most pro-choice pres. in US history things seemed dark. Then in January, the month he is sworn in and the month of the 50th aniv. of the Vatican Council three things happen (always in threes)…

    1-Total healing between the Vatican and SSPX
    2-A personal prelature for Anglicans is in the works (this could be huge even beyond the 400,000 in the TAC, indeed I think this could catch on like wild-fire perhapes even in Africa.)
    3-New Russian Orthodox Patriach is the most favorable to Catholics possible in the present Russian context and is in the mold of the Patriarch of Constantinople in terms of viewing the Church East and West as “two-lungs,” and I think it is at last a possibility that the Pope can visit Russia.

    Tito if I was still a blogger I’d post on this, these three things, taken by themselves are meaningless footnotes to the msm but I think in the context Church history these are all epic milestones.

    God bless and protect his Holiness. The Pope who so many liberals said would be so divisive is turning out to be the great unifier and the unity has come not due to pandering and pleastries but rather a robust embrace of Truth.

  • I forgot to add caveats of “potential for” in points 1 and 2.

  • I hope and pray this is true. I am a member of the Anglican Church in America a TAC church. This is an answer to our prayers. There will be whole sale movement over by American Episcopalians and Cof E members. The American Episcopal church has been ruined and the remaining Christians there pray for an alternative. Please pray that this effort towards uniting our church works if it is Gods will.

  • Claiborne,

    welcome home to Rome (a bit premature perhaps)! There a large number of Catholics praying for this union as well. We trust that the Holy Father will ensure that the process is just and merciful for all.

    What is your opinion on the prospective status of currently married bishops in TAC? The prevalent belief is that the Church will accept them as priests, but not in their current position. Do you believe that will be a stumbling block?

    Do you know if there are any TAC parishes in Houston?

    God Bless!

  • Matt –

    It is my understanding that all the TAC Bishops have offered to step aside from the Episcopacy to make this work.

  • watching,

    that would show great wisdom and humility indeed… something we need so much more of in the Church. Their sacrifice will be rewarded. Are you a member of TAC?

  • I hope and pray that we can officially say welcome home very soon!

  • A little research shows that the requirement for married TAC Bishops to retained is misinformation published on a “Catholic” website (probably an attempt to sabotage).

    Anglican Church in America

    Another self-proclaimed Catholic website states that the retention of “their married episcopate” was a requirement of the TAC. Once again, no reference to any such requirement was in the letter.

    Obviously, the only thing actually requested was “the guidance of the Holy See” – no list of conditions, no requests for a “Catholic bishop to preside over” us, for special treatment or consideration for current bishops, for Uniate status, or for any other specific structure, etc., etc. – just a simple statement that we want to be in communion with the Holy See without losing our Anglican heritage and identity, ending with the implied question, “How should we proceed?” The entire matter was undertaken with no agenda other than responding to our Lord’s prayer for unity among his followers (John 17), with the belief and understanding that such unity can only be achieved by restoring relationships severed by past schisms. It is hoped the above may bring some truth and clarity to the discussion.

    This is wonderful!

  • “A little research shows that the requirement for married TAC Bishops to retained is misinformation published on a “Catholic” website”

    Again, what I saw was from an interview, not from a website. I have no idea what the petition actually said… Apparently nothing pertinent to the question of married bishops.

  • I want to clarify that I do not mean in any way to suggest Alan as intentionally providing misinformation, attempting to sabotage.

  • Alan,

    Niiice pic!

    Tito

    Fidei Defensor,

    Good to see you!

  • Matt,

    The fear of “Latinization”???….they (TAC) were in the Western (latin) Church to begin with!!

    I’m fine with Rome’s offer, but really, if anyone is searching for truth, there should be no negotiating on their part. If they believe the fullness of the faith to exist in union with Rome, they should have just JOINED already. Any preconditions whatsoever illustrate a ‘stiff neck’ and we already have enough of those within the Church as it is.

    I hope that the TAC bishops can convince their laity to come over…I don’t know that all will do so…I’ve heard a lot of TAC laity declaring that they will not…they are, after all, protesters at heart and schism is what they do best.

  • Diane,

    by that I mean being put under the thumb of the local bishop and forced to discard their customs. This happened during the consolidation of rites after the Council of Trent. Of course they are technically Latin Rite, so it’s a bit of a misuse of the expression.

    According to the TAC website they set know pre-conditions, only requesting that they can maintain their cultural customs.

    I don’t agree with your stiff-neck criticism, they have, as a group, asked the Holy Father what they should do next, if he said come over individually, then that would have been the right thing to do. Also, bear in mind that, many of the laity, while they subscribe to the doctrine of the Church are not necessarily anxious to be back home in Rome. It is their bishops, leading them.

    Most will come, but those who do not? To whom shall they go? If they were “episcopal” they would have apostatized long ago… Perhaps to the SSPX if they haven’t already been reconciled.

  • This Roman Catholic Convert is thrilled! I will be praying that His will be done.

  • I am so excited. I came home to Rome 5 years ago this Easter. This will be a tremendous victory for the Unity of Christendom. A former cradle Episcopalian, and now an elated member of the Holy Catholic Church of Rome.
    Pray for the visible unity of Christendom.
    That we all may be one.

  • Pingback: Rule of Three: S.S.P.X., T.A.C., Now The Orthodox Church « The American Catholic
  • Matt,

    Wanting to maintain their cultural customs is a precondition.

    Having all of these out-of-the ordinary juridical structures supports my sense that they are not willing to come in in total obedience. Not that I don’t support what B16 is doing…I’m just saying that I don’t believe that huge swathes of their laity will be joining their bishops in union with Rome.

    For examples of priests and laity that are defiant towards Rome, check out The Continuum. These ‘real’ Anglicans discarded the Canturbury Anglicans sometime ago and they pattern themselves after the Orthodox….having always existed as part of the ancient Church that included an important Bishop of Rome, but who never exercised universal jurisdiction.

  • “The Continuum” is hardly representative of the TAC. They spend a great deal of time trying to prove they are catholic, but yet reject many essential truths.

    Diane, you are in error in stating preconditions. There were no preconditions given to the Holy See.

  • Watching:

    Just for fun, I wonder what would happen if Rome responded “Sure! Glad to have ya’ll. Just get yourselves to the closest Catholic Church, sign up for and complete RCIA, and voila, you’re in!”.

  • Diane –

    That option has always been there.

    The TAC approached the Holy See and asked guidance on how to bring the entire TAC in. There were no preconditions and there was full acceptance of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, evidenced by a signed copy together with the Statement:

    “We accept that the most complete and authentic expression and application of the Catholic faith in this moment of time is found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church and its Compendium, which we have signed, together with this letter as attesting to the faith we aspire to teach and hold.”

  • Why not let them maintain their culture customs hasn’t the Church done that often throughout history?

    It seems to me what the TAC really wanted was their own Anglican Rite ala the Melekite Rite or something but I think they’ll be plenty happy with a personal prelature. I think it was fair though, there is a historical basis, the old Sarum Rite Mass, etc. I think telling all these 400,000 to go through RCIA is really going to whittle down the numbers of converts, frankly there are some parishes I know of where I wouldn’t recomend RCIA as sometimes the would-be converts come in with more love and loyalty to say the Holy Father than the local RCIA bureocracy.

  • Diane,

    it seems you are suggesting the prodigal son should not be treated to a banquet. That is not the Catholic way. When the sinner returns the Church and begs to be let in the fold, the Church doesn’t place obstacles in the penitents path like yous suggest. Furthermore, these individuals are being led into the Church by their pastors and bishops, valid or not, to take away this good leadership from them would not serve the interest of bringing souls to Christ… and that’s what is important, isn’t it?

    Frankly, the power of bringing in such a large block of Anglican’s intact, versus even this number on an individual basis is incredible, both for the possibility of more lost sheep returning and for the strength of the Church herself. How WE treat these new brothers and sisters will deeply affect the potential for Christian unity.

    Finally, once fully ensconced, this group will likely represent a strong, orthodox, and traditional group within the Church, something that we are in desperate need to have more of.

  • Matt,
    I’m clear about what the ‘Catholic way’ is, thank you. I’ve suggested no obstacles. I’ve simply said, the Church is here…there are ways to come home NOW.

    And, it won’t be a ‘large block’. It will be a fraction of a large block. The TAC is hopelessly fractured and it will not move as a unit. I want orthodox Catholics in the Church just as much as any other person. I’m with B16 in even accepting a smaller, purer Church….but we all need to be realistic about this.

    I am firm in my belief that any TAC parish, priest or person that is seeking truth and comes to the conclusion that it subsists in the Catholic Church, then they will come to Rome, no matter what, with or without their pastors, customs, etc. Yes, those things may make it more comfortable for them, but it shouldn’t be the basis upon which a decision to come home to Rome is made.

    They will simply just convert. If this doesn’t happen, then that tells us that truth was not their priority.

  • Diane,

    I would also suggest that you are talking about groups who didn’t want to be part of ‘liberal’ Anglican parishes back when “liberal” meant the ’79-prayerbook. They certainly aren’t going to want to go do RCIA at ‘liberal’ Catholic parishes.

    On the flip side, recent events suggest that BXVI seems to have settled on a policy of bringing groups like this into communion intact. Presumeably this will add to the richness and complexity of the Catholic body, which does not strike me as a bad thing. It also creates a stable community with a sense of identity and mission.

    And on a personal note, I would NEVER consider going to an SSPX parish (the other group with whom Rome is conducting prominent negotiations), but as someone who became Catholic by way of the Anglican communion and the BCP, I will be at a TAC parish the first Sunday they are Catholic. I painfully miss English hymnody and adore the BCP. So, would they lose some members that are in their pews now? Probably. Will they gain Catholics (esp. converts from/thru Anglicanism) and Anglo-Catholics who are nourished by the English tradition? Absolutely.

    LoA.

  • Diane –

    You seem to know more about how many in the TAC will respond to this than do I, a well connected member of the TAC.

    It will be a large block. We will lose a small group most likely, but I am astounded at your pontification on your uninformed opinion about the TAC.

    If we were not on the same page in terms of the faith, we would not be dealing with the part of the Holy See we are in discussion with.

    Those who are not Catholic, such as the Anglican Communion, work with the ecumenical section. You will notice that no other group works with the CDF.

  • Waiting:

    I hope I’m totally wrong on this one. I’d be thrilled with a large block of TAC members coming in.

    We can pray that it happens and, with that, we are all on the same page.

  • Matt,
    My understanding is that all our present bishops signed the proposal and said they would give up their office as Bishop. I assume they would continue as Priests. The Arch Bishop is married but I understand he is set to retire which will clear the way for a single celebate Bishop.

  • I have several friends who are Episcopalians who came into the Catholic Church, and all of them ended up taking refuge in Byzantine Catholic parishes in order to find something like the love of liturgy that they had held before becoming Catholic (and in some ways had lead them towards the Church as traditional liturgy was abandoned in their Episcopal parishes) and also the difficulties of liberal RCIA programs.

    So only looking at their example, I’m sure that it would be a great benefit for those coming into the Church (and for many of similar praxis who are already Catholic) to have an influx of Anglican Use parishes.

  • AWESOME THIS POPE BENEDICT 16TH HAS INDEED WITH THE HAND OF THE CREATOR TO GUIDE HIM IN THREE FELL SWOOPS HAS BROUGHT OVER 500+ TRADITIONAL (ORTHODOX) PRIESTS AND FOUR BISHOPS & BETWEEN 1 & 7 MILLION PEOPLE BACK INTO A REGULARIZED STATUS IN THE CHURCH. WITH A POSSIBLE PERSONAL PRELATURE OR GOD WILLING AN ANGLICAN RITE IN THE MIX OVER A 1000 TRADITIONAL ANGLICANS AND 400.000 ANGLICAN LAYPEOPLE MAY SOON ENTER FULL COMMUNION WITH ROME. WHICH I SUSPECT IS ONLY THE BEGINNING WITH MILLIONS OF ANGLICANS REUNITING UNDER THE SEE OF ROME, BE SWEET TO SEE THE SARUM RITE REVIVED AND RESTORED. THIRD BUT CERTAINLY NOT LEAST AFTER A THOUSAND YEAR SPLIT AND WITH THE ELECTION OF THE PATRIARCH KIRILL IN MOSCOW THE CHANCES OF RECIPRICAL RESTORATION OF UNITY BETWEEN MOSCOW AND ROME MAY NO LONGER BE A DREAM BUT A FACT, REMEMBER THAT THIS (THE ORTHODOX CHURCH) IS A COMMUNION OF OVER 500 MILLION PEOPLE. IF THE SPIRIT OF GOD IS NOT AT WORK HERE I WOULD BE MORE THAN SURPRISED. THIS IS NOT THE WORK OF MAN. AS FOR THE SOCIALIST-LIBERAL-60’S CUMBYA CHURCH OF MODERNITY, THOSE CLERICS AND LAITY THAT CRIED IN ANGER AT THE ELECTION OF JOSEPH RATZINGER AS POPE OF ROME, THOSE PSYDO-CHRISTIANS PREACHING “LIBERATION THEOLOGY” THAT HATE ORTHODOXY YOU STILL HAVE UR GODS, KARL MARX, FREDRICK ENGELS, STALIN AND POL POT.

  • I can understand the excitement at the possible return of Anglicans to the fold of the RCC but I do not understand the enthusiasm about Kirill. I used to read Interfax when he was the Metropolitan of the Russian Orthodox Church in the Ukraine. He was the most vociferous critic when the JPII elevated Patriarch Husar to the level of Cardinal of Lviv(Ukrainian Catholic Church) as well as creating the Diocese of the Mother of God(unofficially the Archdiocese of Moscow). He is not anymore pro-RCC than Alexei was when he was the Patriarch of Moscow.

  • Don’t get me wrong, If Kirill, as head of the Russian Orthodox church, acts more pragmatically great. I do not expect the Russians to agree to unification with Rome but I would hope he becomes more understanding of the Ukrainians and small Russian populations of Catholics who are loyal to Rome. It is a very sensitive topic over there in Russia.

  • Pingback: Adfero et Iudicium for 2-6-2009 AD « The American Catholic
  • Glenn,

    I agree with you about Patriarch Kirill (do they get a new name like our Pope?).

    But I believe the enthusiasm is based on the possibility that Patriarch Kirill will meet with Pope Benedict, either in Russia or elsewhere. Which would be a significant step forward for two reasons:

    1) The Russian Orthodox Church represents the largest Orthodox congregation in Orthodoxy.

    2) The previous Patriarch (Alexy), refused to meet with either Pope John Paul II or Pope Benedict XVI. Thus the potential of finally having a summit between the worlds two largest religious groups gains a bit more momentum.

  • Well Tito, God does work in strange ways after all, we all know from the prophecy at Fatima, Russia WILL eventually come into the fold; its just a matter of when, not if. I was merely basing my scepticism on statements from Alexy that it not possible for either JPII or BenedictXVI to visit in Russia or for Alexy to travel to Rome for face to face meetings. I don’t know if it pride on the part of the individuals concerned or intra church politics with in each branch of the faith which precludes such an event. Should such a meeting take place, I am sure it would be a momentous occasion for people of both faiths. I do pray it happens as I do wish for the Anglicans to return and will be waiting for Easter and hoping for the Vatican to make the anticipated announcement of the Anglican prelature.

  • Glenn,

    I agree with your sentiments.

    Padre Pio even said that Russia will convert to Catholicism before America does. It’ll be a very interesting time when this does occur.

  • Fr. Peters,

    according to statements by members of TAC above, and the US website, there are no preconditions on the offer to join full communion with the Church. They accepted the Catechism in it’s entirety, and have, apparently agreed to abide by any instructions from the Holy See with regard to their entry into the Church.

    As you are surely aware, the Church has welcomed her separated brethren from the Anglican communion before. A process was established whereby their priests where accepted to seminaries and ordained, even if currently married. There’s no doubt that a similar process would occur in this case, although it seems virtually impossible that any would be ordained to the episcopate.

    As to the personal moral situation of the TAC priests and bishops, that is no reason to turn the lost sheep away? I trust the Holy Father will deal with them as a true shepherd.

  • Fr Peters,

    my comment in no way conflicts with the reality that conversion is individual. For those already in the Church, conversion is still required.

    We have not been informed that this is going to happen; maybe the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is more informed but we have not received any update,” he said. “All we know is what we have read on newspapers and on some blogs.”

    That is a denial of nothing, as it’s likely the Holy Father would be holding his cards close, and quite possibly using his former congregation to execute.

    Fr. Peter’s comments notwithstanding, there is significant precedence of the Church welcoming large organized groups back into the fold after working out conditions with their leaders. Likely the first was the Arians after the Council of Nicea.

    Please Fr., what is the reason for your pessimism in this matter? Are you for some reason opposed to this re-union?

  • Fr. Bosco keeps worrying about conversion. Why do you suppose this matter has consistently bypassed the Pontifical Council for Christian Unity?

    Why has it been allowed to deal exclusively with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith?

    It is because there is not a difference of belief. We would not be allowed to follow the path we have, if our beliefs were different.

  • Its interesting Msgr. Langham is reported as conceding that “the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith could be involved in talks with the Traditional Anglican Communion.”

    There is no secret here, it has been open from the first whom we are working with.