http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/1514 A Rare Bird, A Strange Duck, One Funky Blog Thu, 04 Dec 2008 07:22:40 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=abc http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/1514#comment-29264 Anglican-Rite Catholics @ Ales Rarus Fri, 17 Nov 2006 16:23:11 +0000 http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/wordpress/archives/1515#comment-29264 [...] November 12th, 2004 by Jerry Dappled Things has a great blurb and some links regarding the promotion of an option for the use of an Anglican (slightly modified, I think) Rite for Roman Catholic Churches. This had come up in a previous post of Ales Rarus, and I'm all for increasing the breadth and depth of the liturgical life of the Church, so enjoy! And pass it on! I'd like to help Fr. Jim and his quest to keep reminding the bishops about this option, and getting the word out. Popularity: 3% [?]Jerry [...] http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/1514#comment-1019 Tom Smith Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/wordpress/archives/1515#comment-1019 Actually, Jerry, the Patriarchate I'd like to see in England is not exactly like that of the Ukrainian Church. The Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church has a Major Archbishop, who has many of the powers of a Patriarch, but not all of them (not sure exactly which). (As an aside, I'm also for the establishment of a Greek Catholic Patriarch of Lviv for the Ukrainians. See http://www.ugcc.org.ua/eng/ for more information. . .) A Patriarch has a bit more autonomy than a Major Archbishop; also, Patriarchs are typically looked to above Major Archbishops and Metropolitans, because they are heads of churches of particular traditions. http://www.ugcc.org.ua/eng/ for more information. . .) A Patriarch has a bit more autonomy than a Major Archbishop; also, Patriarchs are typically looked to above Major Archbishops and Metropolitans, because they are heads of churches of particular traditions.]]> http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/1514#comment-1020 Tom Smith Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/wordpress/archives/1515#comment-1020 Fr. Hart's post is not nearly so convincing as Fr. Freeman's. You're right, Eric, that it seems as though Fr. Hart converted because the Catholic Church was just a bit less crappy. While I understand that he's trying to point out that certain devotional practices are not necessary to the Catholic faith, it comes off as though he's dissing the Rosary, which can't possibly be a good thing. He spends a good deal of the article pointing out that the unpleasantries of Catholic belief are not necessarily *de fide*. <br /><br />It just seems that, although this wasn't the point, he could've nailed some things down that the Orthodox are weak on. . . say, a living, current Magisterium, which the Orthodox flatly do not have; a total loss of Roman primacy; the heresies regarding the Orthodox teachings on artificial birth control, which clearly contradict St. John Chrysostom, the great Eastern Father. . .<br /><br />It seems to me that one of the things present within Catholicism that should appeal to Anglicans is the actual Magisterium, something the Anglican Church gave up long ago. This is one reason why I support the erection of a Catholic Patriarchate in Canterbury. First, a little on how Catholic Patriarchates work: much like their Orthodox counterparts, Patriarchs of the Catholic Church have control over liturgical and disciplinary customs within their Patriarchates. A Patriarch is able to speak as the head of a local, particular Church. If we give the English Church a Patriarchate, it would be far easier to keep many of the liturgical customs in force now, which is probably better then making converts go to the bad Novus Ordo down the block at St. Mary's. Also, (this is exciting for an ecclesiastical history nerd such as myself), the resurrection of the Sarum rite of Mass, which disappeared at the Reformation, is a distinct possibility. And besides the benefits regarding liturgical custom, a Patriarchate would be a sign to England that the Supreme Pontiff still has a spine, and is serious about bringing people into the True Church.
It just seems that, although this wasn't the point, he could've nailed some things down that the Orthodox are weak on. . . say, a living, current Magisterium, which the Orthodox flatly do not have; a total loss of Roman primacy; the heresies regarding the Orthodox teachings on artificial birth control, which clearly contradict St. John Chrysostom, the great Eastern Father. . .

It seems to me that one of the things present within Catholicism that should appeal to Anglicans is the actual Magisterium, something the Anglican Church gave up long ago. This is one reason why I support the erection of a Catholic Patriarchate in Canterbury. First, a little on how Catholic Patriarchates work: much like their Orthodox counterparts, Patriarchs of the Catholic Church have control over liturgical and disciplinary customs within their Patriarchates. A Patriarch is able to speak as the head of a local, particular Church. If we give the English Church a Patriarchate, it would be far easier to keep many of the liturgical customs in force now, which is probably better then making converts go to the bad Novus Ordo down the block at St. Mary's. Also, (this is exciting for an ecclesiastical history nerd such as myself), the resurrection of the Sarum rite of Mass, which disappeared at the Reformation, is a distinct possibility. And besides the benefits regarding liturgical custom, a Patriarchate would be a sign to England that the Supreme Pontiff still has a spine, and is serious about bringing people into the True Church.]]> http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/1514#comment-1021 Jerry Nora Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/wordpress/archives/1515#comment-1021 Here's the link to the Torodes' book, "Open Embrace: A Protestant Couple Rethinks Contraception": http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0802839738/qid=1100396186/sr=2-1/ref=pd_ka_b_2_1/002-3624949-1856021<br /><br />They do cite a number of Eastern fathers, and also a very effusive letter from the Ecumenical Patriarch to Paul VI upon the promulgation of Humanae Vitae (which emphasized the Church's opposition to the artificial birth control, for those gentle readers who many not be familiar with it). http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0802839738/qid=1100396186/sr=2-1/ref=pd_ka_b_2_1/002-3624949-1856021

They do cite a number of Eastern fathers, and also a very effusive letter from the Ecumenical Patriarch to Paul VI upon the promulgation of Humanae Vitae (which emphasized the Church's opposition to the artificial birth control, for those gentle readers who many not be familiar with it).]]> http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/1514#comment-1022 Jerry Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/wordpress/archives/1515#comment-1022 Hey Tom,<br /><br />I'd have to disagree on a Patriachate in Canterbury. Basically, it'd come down to the Poles, Irish and French Catholics (both of them, in the latter case) saying "Oh great! We're faithful and stay subservient to Rome, and you reward the English for breaking away by making them a full patriarchate!"<br /><br />I'd more likely imagine the Anglicans having their own Rite and seminaries, and having their own bishops and metropolitans, but being under Rome. Not unlike the Ambrosian-Milanese or a number of Eastern Rite Catholics. We'd have to take extra care that the Anglicans don't get Romanized like the Byzantine Catholics, but I could see the Anglicans having an easier time of it.<br /><br />Regarding the heresy of birth-control, I wonder if that is partially a reaction against just how strongly Rome has fought against birth control. The schism has distorted both Churches as they try to show that the other is cooler (e.g., Orthodoxy has a sort of Magisterium, they just aren't as fond of explicitly defining things as we are; by and large they've stuck closer to their heritage than the West, with birth control being a big exception). So while the birth control issue is unfortunate and should be addressed, I'd hesitate to call it a heresy, if for no other reason because the Orthodox and Catolics have so much bloody practice in calling each other heretics, I don't think it'd do anything to advance our mutual charity or understanding of God's law on earth.
I'd have to disagree on a Patriachate in Canterbury. Basically, it'd come down to the Poles, Irish and French Catholics (both of them, in the latter case) saying "Oh great! We're faithful and stay subservient to Rome, and you reward the English for breaking away by making them a full patriarchate!"

I'd more likely imagine the Anglicans having their own Rite and seminaries, and having their own bishops and metropolitans, but being under Rome. Not unlike the Ambrosian-Milanese or a number of Eastern Rite Catholics. We'd have to take extra care that the Anglicans don't get Romanized like the Byzantine Catholics, but I could see the Anglicans having an easier time of it.

Regarding the heresy of birth-control, I wonder if that is partially a reaction against just how strongly Rome has fought against birth control. The schism has distorted both Churches as they try to show that the other is cooler (e.g., Orthodoxy has a sort of Magisterium, they just aren't as fond of explicitly defining things as we are; by and large they've stuck closer to their heritage than the West, with birth control being a big exception). So while the birth control issue is unfortunate and should be addressed, I'd hesitate to call it a heresy, if for no other reason because the Orthodox and Catolics have so much bloody practice in calling each other heretics, I don't think it'd do anything to advance our mutual charity or understanding of God's law on earth.]]> http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/1514#comment-1023 Jerry Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/wordpress/archives/1515#comment-1023 I added my own two cents to the commentary on the Roman Catholic priest's testimony. As someone who considers himself more or less biritual (Roman and Byzantine Rite), I wanted to caution people from turning the Pontificator's idea into yet another "Orthodox v. Roman" debate session, which would harm the Pontificator's vision, especially since he draws heavily from both Roman and Eastern saints. http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/1514#comment-1024 Jerry Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/wordpress/archives/1515#comment-1024 I should add, though, that I have no personal gripe against an Anglican Patriarchate--I actually thought of that above objection because I had considered that contingency myself as a possible solution for unity. There is however, the problem that Rome has always been the sole autocephalous, or autonomous Patriarchate of the West, and I'm not sure how we could go about creating new ones in an orderly way. If God wills it, though, I'm sure it could be done. http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/1514#comment-1025 Jerry Nora Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/wordpress/archives/1515#comment-1025 Okay, so you'd envision a non-autocephalous Patriarchate--e.g., the Patriarchs of Venice and Portugal cannot consecrate their own bishops or canonize saints. A similar situation exists for the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Patriarch. I'm cool with that.<br /><br />As for the Orthodox, I'm curious to see what sort of effect, if any, that the Torodes and Frederica Mathewes-Green--who are envangelical converts to Antiochian Orthodoxy, and are against artificial birth control-- have on them. I was told that if you look at Kallistos Ware's "The Orthodox Way", which is the gold standard in the English language for explaining Eastern Christianity, the editions go from a flat "birth control is verboten" to a much longer statement about how it's something the couple must address with their spiritual advisor (i.e., a green light for whatever).<br /><br />I dunno, I see this being a case where East and West can help each other. The East could use some clarification on birth control, but the West could sure use a shot in the arm with catechesis and liturgy!
As for the Orthodox, I'm curious to see what sort of effect, if any, that the Torodes and Frederica Mathewes-Green–who are envangelical converts to Antiochian Orthodoxy, and are against artificial birth control– have on them. I was told that if you look at Kallistos Ware's "The Orthodox Way", which is the gold standard in the English language for explaining Eastern Christianity, the editions go from a flat "birth control is verboten" to a much longer statement about how it's something the couple must address with their spiritual advisor (i.e., a green light for whatever).

I dunno, I see this being a case where East and West can help each other. The East could use some clarification on birth control, but the West could sure use a shot in the arm with catechesis and liturgy!]]> http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/1514#comment-1026 Tom Smith Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/wordpress/archives/1515#comment-1026 You're right, Jerry, that it would be weird for the Anglicans, should a number come back, to have a patriarch, if other groups were not to be given equal representation. But the Anglican liturgical traditions, usages, and spirituality have sufficiently differentiated themselves from those of the Roman-rite that they should get there own patriarch to protect and nurture their own traditions (this is, of course, just my opinion). Traditionally, their have been other Western Patriarchs than the Pope. For instance, the Archbishops of Venice and Milan are still Patriarchs, because they each had their own rites of Mass. I'd say the Anglican Church, should a significant portion return to union, has at least as many non-Roman features as do the Venetian and Milanese churches.<br /><br />With regard to the Orthodox teaching on contraception. . . a word other than "heresy" probably should've been used. It is a rather loaded term. Although multiple figures, including the Patriarchs of Athens and Constantinople, affirmed Humanae Vitae a short while after it ended, the Orthodox position on it has been so blurried since then to say that there is no proper teaching on it. (Again, just my opinion)
With regard to the Orthodox teaching on contraception. . . a word other than "heresy" probably should've been used. It is a rather loaded term. Although multiple figures, including the Patriarchs of Athens and Constantinople, affirmed Humanae Vitae a short while after it ended, the Orthodox position on it has been so blurried since then to say that there is no proper teaching on it. (Again, just my opinion)]]>