Little Vademecum for Those Anglicans Thinking of Conversion

Whatever conversion problem you have, he solved it already! Cardinal Blessed John Henry Newman.

In occasion of the now widely publicised conversions celebrated today in Westminster Cathedral, I allow myself to give my little piece of advice to those thinking of conversion.

This little advice is given in charity (the real one. Fake charity is for whinos, and Anglicans…). Charity requires that one tells the truth out of love. Calls of “who are you to judge” don’t have any effect with true Catholics. Catholics deal with Truth, not false compassion. Anglicans need to be told the Truth without any fear that they might be “hurt”. They’re heretics, of course they will! It’s not a walk in the park, it’s two systems of values clashing, and they can’t be both right.

Charity requires the Truth, and the Truth said whole. Those who aren’t ready to undergo a painful process to reach the Truth can avoid wasting time reading this. If only one reads and understands, the time will not have been spent in vain.

Please, have a chamomile tea first 😉


1) There is only One Church, and it is not the Anglican one.

2) Christians are divided into: a) Catholics; b) Schismatics; c) Heretics.

3) Anglicans of whatever orientations belong to c) above: Heretics. Every one of them, however they may call themselves.

4) Anglican so-called orders are invalid. Anglican clergy are, for Catholics, laymen. This is Catholic teaching. No amount of self-delusion will ever change an iota in this.

5) There is nothing like a “something-Catholic”. You can’t be Anglo-Catholic more than you can be Methodist-Catholic. You are Catholic, or Schismatic, or Heretic. Are you Anglican? You’re Heretic.

6) This has been repeated (not stated, or invented, or decided; repeated) by Leo XIII in 1897, with Apostolicae Curae. He who can read, let him read.

7) The decision to convert is the decision to leave the Lie and embrace the Truth. Ego investments, personal preferences, how nice the Vicar is & Co. have no role to play in this. This side, or that side.

8 ) Every “converted” former Anglican who still claims to believe Anglican heresy (from the validity of the ordination of Anglican clergy; to Anglo-Catholics being “Catholics”; to whatever else) is a fake convert, sacrilegious and heretical. Better to remain a heretic from outside until one is ready for a real conversion, than to try to be a heretic from within the Church. Heretics are, by definition, outside of the Church anyway. Cheating one’s way to a club card leads to nothing and, possibly, to perdition.

9) Truth cannot be embraced in half. You either embrace Truth, or you cling to the lie. Tertium non datur.

10) Anglican doublethink doesn’t work the other side of the Tiber. “Two and two is four, but also five and we respect those who think it is six and will dialogue in chariteeee with those who think it is seven and a half” works only before the (notoriously lethargic) Vatican steamroller starts to move, but it leads to tears and excommunications when it invariably does. Those who think that they can export their doublethink and “tolerance” past the Tiber are in for a very late, but very rude awakening.

11) Catholicism works differently. To say “I’m hurt” will not make you right. To say “you’re uncharitable” will not make you less wrong. To say “you must adjust your doctrine to accommodate my feelings” doesn’t exist at all. You’ll have to eat the same fare as Padre Pio and St. Philip Neri, St. Francis and St. Dominic. No Anglican preservatives, and no choice of toppings. What a blessing.

12) The decision to embrace the Truth is difficult. It requires the acknowledgment that one (and one’s old soi-disant “church”) was wrong all the time. That one’s ancestors were wrong all the time. That one’s former organisation had no Catholic being or legitimation whatsoever. Nothing less is required. If you can’t say this to yourself with a sense of elation and Truth finally found, you are still a Heretic.

13) Truth will make you free. The decision to discard the lie and embrace the Truth in its totality is the healthiest and most productive single decision in one’s man existence. So healthy and so beautiful, because so difficult. If it wasn’t difficult, there would be no beauty and no merit in it.

14) Truth is like a diamond: extremely beautiful, but extremely hard. Are you ready for the beauty (and the hardness) of the diamond? Or do you want to continue to believe that the synthetic version is a diamond too? Choose the true diamond. Accept no substitutes. You’ll discover that its beauty is beyond your hope.

15) True Catholics will stand in awe in front of real, serious converts. You are in our prayers and we know that many of you will become extremely orthodox, wonderful Catholics. But true Catholics will attack without mercy those who attempt to import the heresy within the Barque of Peter. This is an unprecedented experiment, but will not be a door open to “Catholicism a’ la carte”. Again: forget the old Anglican ways, this is not going to work that way.

16) Pray Blessed Cardinal Newman that he may guide you. He knows all your troubles, went through the same pains as yours, sees all the obstacles in front of you. It took him years of reflection and prayer before deciding himself to the step. But once he took it, what a wonderful march he started! So take your time and be assured of our prayers and of the assistance of the Holy Ghost, your Guardian Angel and the Blessed Virgin. Take your time and prepare yourself carefully for the impact and the beauty of the Truth. It is better to carefully invest some years of sound investment leading to a copious yield, than to waste everything in a fake conversion leading nearer to Hell.

17) Best wishes and good luck to you.


Posted on January 1, 2011, in Catholicism and tagged , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 27 Comments.

  1. maggieclitheroe

    Hear hear. Perhaps, as you have put so succinctly into words the thoughts I have also had on this subject, you may be able to explain one thing to me that I have not been able to get an answer to. If a married Anglican clergymen is a layman prior to becoming Catholic, he obviously is so still, once received into the Church. What then, is the difference between him and a married Catholic layman who has studied his Faith, and is capable of being “pastoral” with people? How come the one gets automatic right of entry into the Catholic Priesthood, and the other don’t? Not one person has been able to explain the difference to me … I wonder why…

    • Maggie,
      I’ll try with my words, but if you ask a Catholic priest he’ll be able to give you a much more detailed answer.

      Celibacy is a matter of discipline, not doctrine. Therefore, dispensation (that is: the possibility of becoming priest whilst married) can be obtained if the circumstances of the case make it sensible.

      Now, it is obvious that an Anglican former vicar is married because in his former life as an Anglican he was allowed to be married. He has not disobeyed to any rule and at the same time he would not break a Catholic taboo by being ordained whilst married (because it is a matter of discipline, not doctrine). The case of the cradle catholic is different. He is inserted into a system of rules from the outset. He knows that it is either marriage or priesthood. Therefore it is highly unlikely that for him a dispensation will be given.

      On the other hand, these rules only apply to the Roman Rite, which is one of 25 or 26 Rites of the Church. All or almost all the others (say: The Maronites, The Copts, etc.) allow married priest if they are married already when they received Holy Orders. That a man who has received holy orders cannot marry (even if a deacon) is, AFAIK, a matter of doctrine and therefore no exeption is allowed.

      I hope this is clear.


  2. What does one, in your opinion, have to believe with regard to Apostolicae Curae? If one believes that Leo XIII correctly taught that, in 1891, Anglican orders were absolutely null and utterly void, but that since that time certain Anglicans have received valid ordination because of the participation of Old Catholic prelates would this be sufficient? If not, can your position be supported by reference to either Apostolicae Curae itself, or some other exercise of the magisterium which has been promulgated since?

    • pgoings, what’s difficult to understand in apostolicae curae?

      The subtitle is “on the nullity of Anglican Orders”.

      What is that is difficult to understand in the words “nullity of Anglicans Orders”?

      It is “nullity”, “Anglican” or “orders”?

      I don’t want to seem harsh, but really, the ability of Anglicans to lie to themselves about very simple things is nothing less than astonishing and certainly the result of a long exercise in this regard.

      As to those who might have been validly ordained by people who had left the Church after a valid ordination, this is a side show that doesn’t impinge the reality of the nullity of Anglican orders in the least. Unless you can produce a Vatican document (which you can’t) explicitly saying that this changes the nullity of Anglican orders as repeated in Apostolicae Curae.

      You can’t invent or construct the Magisterium. Nor can I. It is what it is and to be a Catholic means to accept what Catholicism is. It is as simple as that.


    • What one has to believe as to Apostolicae Curae, is that it is right and can’t be but right, because it is an expression of the Magisterium.

      As a result, no Anglican religious claiming to be desirous to convert to Catholicism can demand that he be called “father”, or “priest” because of his Anglican role. The day he is ordained a Catholic priest (I mean, a real one) and receives a valid ordination, than he is a priest. Not before.

      I don’t know what has happened with Mr Hunwicke and like most of whathe writes.

      But I can’t avoid thinking that his continuing to call himself “Father” Hunwicke, and talk about his being “ordained priest”, and his “43 years of priesthood” is what has caused his problem.


  3. Now you might ask: what about a former Catholic priest who has received an undoubtedly valid ordination and has, subsequently, left the Church to become an Anglican religious.

    My answer to that (you’ll have to ask an orthodox theologian, NOT AN ANGLICAN ONE) is that his Catholic orders are valid; his Anglican orders are non-existent; and that the reason that he has a valid ordination is why he cannot (as Anglicanorum Coetibus says that he cannot) be accepted as a Catholic priest again.

    Basically, what is happening is that an anglican vicar can be ordained a Catholic priest because he isn’t; but if he were, than he wouldn’t be allowed to work as a Catholic priest again.

    if I were the person who can decide, I wouldn’t allow anyone to be ordained priest who has the slightest doubt that his Anglican orders are null and void, and that they always were. Again, this might – might – just be the problem of Mr Hunwicke.


  4. So these assertions merely represent your personal opinions, and are not related to what the Church actually teaches? That makes much more sense then.

    • Actually the contrary is the case, pgoings, and you are showing a true Anglican face.

      If you can read, give a read to Apostolicae Curae. This is Catholic teaching, not assertions.

      The one who has made assertions is, in fact, you, and you have not given a shred of evidence of the validity of your Anglican fantasies.

      Therefore my suggestion to you is to find them (which you won’t, as already stated) or shut up.


  5. I have read Apostolicae Curae in both the original Latin and the English translation. It’s meaning is very clear, and it is not at all what you assert that it is. I asked you a specific question and you dismissed it as a “side show,” refusing to answer the question. You later suggest that I should “shut up.” Is this the level of erudition and scholarship that we should expect from Roman Catholics? In fact, if you cannot produce evidence that the meaning of Apostolicae Curae is what you assert that it is–and you cannot–then you should humbly retract your assertion. However, I am confident that you have no intention at all of doing this, or, in fact, of offering any cogent argumentation at all. How very sad.

  6. I don’t have an argument, as such; I never suggested that I did. What I have is a question about what the Church teaches about Anglican orders, broadly construed, at the present time. In outline:

    1. Apostolicae Curae, promulgated by Pope Leo XIII in 1896, declared Anglican orders to be absolutely null and utterly void.

    2. Since 1896, and in part because of Apostolicae Curae, Anglicans have included bishops with Catholic orders in their rites of ordination. Too, the rites of ordination specifically referred to by Pope Leo have been modified.

    3. For this reason, certain Anglicans believe that their orders are now valid according to the criteria set forth by the Church. However, they do not necessarily reject the teaching set forth in Apostolicae Curae.

    4. The Holy See has indicated by the ordination sub conditione of at least two former Anglican clergyman that this position is not theologically without merit.

    Thus, my question is, can such a position be held, according to what the Church officially teaches? If not, why?

    • For heaven’s sake: you don’t have an argument, and have the cheek to tell me that I haven’t one…..


      As to your objections:

      1. We agree.

      2. Doesn’t held.
      A bishop with Catholic orders cannot give validity to an ordination which is not made:
      a) according to the Catholic rite (as opposed to the Edwardie ordinal)
      b) having the “form and intention” of the Church. (Par. 12 of “Apostolicae Curae”)

      A bishop who has left the Church and has become an heretic can never effect a valid ordination, because being a heretic he cannot have the “intention” of the Church, even if he follows her form.

      If it was as easy as the so-called Anglo-Catholics believe, then it would suffice to get an heretical bishop and allow him to proceed to the “ordination” of as many heretics as he likes with a copycat of the Catholic rite to have all those heretics with…. a valid ordination.

      This is:
      a) explicitly not allowed, with the relevant “ordination” void, and
      b) a stupid thing to think in the first place. It tells you to what extent of self-delusion Anglicanism can arrive.

      3. Doesn’t held.
      This is a typical anglican doublethink. AC clearly states (Par. 4) that “through the extreme care taken in the new examination, all doubt, or even shadow of doubt, should be removed for the future”. The ordination made by a protestant body is an ontological matter, not a matter of form used in 1897. Once Leo XII has confirmed that their ordination is invalid, their ordination is invalid. Their argument dies by point 2. anyway. This is why Leo XIII could say that the matter was now settled once and for all in the first place!

      4. The Church works according to the principle of non-contradiction. Truth cannot contradict itself. Therefore, whenever the Holy See “indicates” (what a vague expression: can you be more specific of what has been said, by whom, on what occasion, in which context?) something that appears to be in contradiction with what She Herself teaches:
      a) an interpretation must be found that is not in contradiction; or b) the “indication” is wrong or misleading or unluckily formulated and must be held as such.

      This has happened very often in the history of the Church and vague, misleading or outright stupid phrases or “indications” of bishops or even Pope are rather frequent.

      But the Church works with Truths, not “indications”. She doesn’t allow Her own rules to be modified, or to be seen as modified, by any “indication” she gives. On the contrary, any indication must be read and valued in light of the Truth.

      I am not surprised that Anglicans have a problem in getting this as they are accustomed to an ever-changing theology, but that’s how it is.

      Therefore: the position cannot be held, at least and surely because:

      1) It is in full contradiction with the way Catholic sacrament works and are validly effected (Par. 12);

      2) It is in full contradiction with what the Church has already stated in 1554 (par. 9) and in 1684 and 1704 (Par. 17);

      3) It cannot be examined anymore having been decided once and for all (Par. 4).


  7. “A bishop who has left the Church and has become an heretic can never effect a valid ordination, because he cannot have the “intention” of the Church, even if he follows the form.”

    Mundabor, I don’t agree. The Orthodox (both Eastern and Oriental) and Old Catholic Churches maintain apostolic succession and confer valid ordinations. To assert that they don’t is donatist.

  8. Mundabor, the Old Catholics and the Orthodox certainly are heretics. They deny, for instance, papal infalliblity, a defined dogma of the Church. Sacraments celebrated by heretics (where proper matter, form and intention are present) are valid but illicit.

    • Shane, not approving Papal infallibility makes of them schismatic, not heretics. This is why the schsm of 1054 is called the great schism and not the great heresy. This of course if we use the usual terminology, with heresy as a perversion of truth of faith (say: transubstantiation) and schism properly called as the “rupture of subordination”.


  9. Mundabor, the great schism wasn’t about papal infallibility. To have denied that doctrine in the 11th century would not have been *formal* heresy anyway because it wasn’t solemnly defined by the Church (just like St. Thomas Aquinas isn’t a formal heretic for denying the Immaculate Conception) until the First Vatican Council.

    This refers to the consecration of the Eucharist but it also holds true for Ordination:

    • Shane,
      but the link you refer to seems to deny that heretics are allowed to confer other sacraments than the baptism.

      Reply to Objection 2. Baptism alone is allowed to be conferred by heretics, and schismatics, because they can lawfully baptize in case of necessity; but in no case can they lawfully consecrate the Eucharist, or confer the other sacraments.

      It would seem to me to indicate that in no case a person who has become an heretic is allowed to confer any other sacrament that baptism.

      But in apostolicae curae it is clearly said that the ordination must be made lawfully. Therefore it can’t be made by an heretic.


  10. Mundabor, *unlawful* but not invalid (which is why protestant converts do not have to be rebaptised).

    • you are still talking of baptism, and I am still talking of holy orders.

      Baptism is a separated case, but AC (and, I think, myquote from S. Thomas of the previous post) make clear that if an heretic performs an unlawful ordination, this does not create apostolic succession.


  11. Can you reject the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception and not be an heretic? If so, what doctrines are required to be held? If not, then the Eastern Orthodox are, in fact, heretics.

    This answers your 2.a. Your 2.b. (the second “b”) is an instance of the reductio ad ridiculum, and is thus based on a fallacy of logic. This is also true in part of your 3., plus an incorrect understanding of the grammar of the English translation of Apostolicae Curae. Pope Leo is saying that there should be no future doubts about the situation as considered in 1896. Perhaps we should stick to the Latin text? Your 4. misunderstands the purpose of my example. John Jay Hughes and Graham Leonard were ordained sub conditione. If your understanding of Apostolicae Curae is correct then this should not have been done. In that case are the ordaining prelates themselves heretics?

    Hopefully we can refrain from polemical language (“stupid thing to think,” “self-delusion,” “typical anglican doublethink,” etc.) which I don’t think is helpful when trying to conduct a logical discussion, if, in fact, that’s what is being attempted?

    • Pgoings,

      let me first answer your particualr point, and then give a more general answer as we can quibble about detail until kingdom come, but this won’t change what the Church states.


      the discussion whether and in which sense eastern orthodox are heretics is a different one and the teminology of schismatic and heretic is partially confusing (heretics are also, in a sense, “scismatic” because they also separate what should be united).

      This doesn’t answer my 2a. as AC clearly states that an apostolic succession is not given.

      My second b) is perfectly relevant and I am stil lwaiting for a reason why it shouldn’t be.

      As to point 3, show and comment the latin text and we’ll see whether you are right about the future, but the fact remains that AC has clearly stated that the ordinations as invalid as such (because “form and intention” are not there) and therefore you are where you always where: the nullity of Anglican orders.

      As to john jay hughes, the contrary is the case. A person can be ordained sub conditione only of there are doubts about his ordaining in the concrete circumstances of the fact, but this doesn’t say anything about the matter whether heretics can cause a valid apostolic succession.

      The ordaining prelates are obviously not heretic: they acted in presence of a factual uncetainty, as is also clearly stated in AC. Once the situation is decided, it is decided.

      On the contrary, if the heretic ordination had been valid there would, in fact, not have been any need for an ordination at all.


      As for the discussion: There is no need for a discussion about Catholic rules as the nullity of Anglican orders is a given that a Catholic must accept, if he wants to call himself a Catholic. If you invited me to a discussion about the divinity of Christ I might talk to you for a while, but this wouldn’t mean that I need to justify with you the divinity of Christ. You are a Christian? You accept the divinity of Christ.

      The (some) Anglicans don’t want to accept simple truths of Catholicism and this shows all their self-delusion, typical anglican doublethink, and the like.

      I have more than the suspicion that the catholic blogger got into the problem he got into because of a reasoning like yours.

      Catholicism is about acceptance and obedience, not quibbling and subversion.

      To every Catholic it is clear that AC declares the nullity of Anglican orders, and that nothing has changed in the matter.

      This is made clear enough by Anglicanorum Coetibus and his ancillary norms, which prescribe the ordination of Anglican converts becoming priests.

      This would, as you know, simply not be the case if the Church thought that the Anglican orders were valid.

      Moreover, this shows that the Church doesn’t even entertain any doubt about the possible validity of Anglican so-called “orders”. If it did, it would mandate a conditional ordination. It doesn’t.

      What does this tell you?

      That the entire planet gets simple things, but Anglicans cannot is exactly the problem here.


  12. Pgoings,

    From AC:

    “The authority of Julius m, and of Paul IV, which we have quoted, clearly shows the origin of that practice which has been observed without interruption for more than three centuries, that Ordinations conferred according to the Edwardine rite should be considered null and void. This practice is fully proved by the numerous cases of absolute re-ordination according to the Catholic rite even in Rome.

    16. In the observance of this practice we have a proof directly affecting the matter in hand. For if by any chance doubt should remain as to the true sense in which these pontifical documents are to be understood, the principle holds good that “Custom is the best interpreter of law.” Since in the Church it has ever been a constant and established rule that it is sacrilegious to repeat the Sacrarnent of Order, it never could have come to pass that the Apostolic See should have silently acquiesced in and tolerated such a custom. But not only did the Apostolic See tolerate this practice, but approved and sanctioned it as often as any particular case arose which called for its judgment in the matter.”


    I’d like to know what passes through the mind of an Anglican “vicar” (or however he’s called) that wants to be ordained a Catholic priest.

    1) He thinks he has valid orders

    2) He knows that he is requested to be ordained (not “conditionally ordained”; ordained!)

    3) He knows that to repeat a valid conferred sacrament would be a sacrilege

    So what does he think?

    Does he think that he will commit a sacrilege?

    Does he think that the Church will force him to commit a sacrilege?

    How can he profess to believe in a church of which he thinks that she is making him commit a sacrilege?

    How can he thinks all that and say in conscience that he wants to be a Catholic priest?

    Catholicism is rather straightforward. There is no space for the typical anglican distinguos.

    You are required to believe everything that the Church believes, and profess everythign that the Church professes.

    How one may want to convert to Catholicism, let alone become a Catholic priest, if he doesn’t believe that is beyond me.


  13. Mudabor, the fundamental problem with your article on conversion is that you do not regard or address Anglicans about to convert to the Catholic faith in the way that the Church regards and addresses these Anglicans. In presuming to represent the Church, you put words in her mouth that she would never use.

    Mundabor wrote: “This little advice is given in charity (the real one. Fake charity is for whinos, and Anglicans…).”

    Granted there are deep problems within Anglicanism, but there are also great examples of piety, sometimes permeating an entire parish. That’s why we’re seeing these conversions. Anglicans, sometimes entire congregations of them, are leaving because their piety has put them in conflict with the liberal elements in their communion. From there, they have realized that it is only in the authority of Rome that such matters can ever be finally resolved. This often happens after a long period of reflection when they have realized that they are never going to reform the Anglican communion, that they are being called instead into full communion with the historical Church which dates back to the apostles and thus to Christ Himself.

    Mundabor wrote: “Catholics deal with Truth, not false compassion. Anglicans need to be told the Truth without any fear that they might be “hurt”. They’re heretics, of course they will!”

    Actually, if you have followed Pope Benedict XVI’s leadership on this issue, you’ll know that the Church speaks with grave concern to Anglicans considering conversion lest they be hurt. She even speaks with grave concern and respect to Anglicans with no desire to convert who feel we are culling sheep from their herd. She does not call them heretics. In the Catechism, in the prayers of the Easter Vigil, and in numerous ecumenical documents, the Church distinguishes between heretics who cause separation and those who are later “born into separation through no fault of their own.” This is not some Modernist waffling as some would describe it. Rather, as our first pope said in 1 Peter 3:15: “Always be ready to give an answer for the hope that you have, but do this with gentleness and respect.”

    Mundabor wrote: “12) The decision to embrace the Truth is difficult. It requires the acknowledgment that one (and one’s old soi-disant “church”) was wrong all the time. That one’s ancestors were wrong all the time. That one’s former organisation had no Catholic being or legitimation whatsoever. Nothing less is required. If you can’t say this to yourself with a sense of elation and Truth finally found, you are still a Heretic.”

    The Church emphatically does not claim that Anglicans or Lutherans or even Independent Baptists were “wrong all the time” or that their “ancestors were wrong all the time.” C. S. Lewis (a heretic by your calculus) once said that as an atheist he had to believe that all religious people throughout the world and throughout all time had been simply and entirely wrong. Once he became a Christian, he was able to take a less ridiculous view.

    Let’s not forget that Lewis and Chesterton started out as pious Anglicans. Both men led me to the Catholic Church. Chesterton’s book which had the greatest impact on my conversion to Catholicism was actually written while he was still an Anglican. All of Lewis’ books played a major role in my conversion to the Church. Yet they were all written by an Anglican because he never became Catholic himself. The great theme of converts like Scott Hahn and Steve Ray and others is NOT that they were “wrong all the time” before, but that Catholicism is the fullness of the truth they had already sought and imperfectly believed in.

    I do strongly agree with you that any Anglicans who want to smuggle in Anglican ideas into the Catholic Church are misguided and doomed to heartache. But when you say boldly (and perhaps you imagine in “love”) that they should just “forget the old Anglican ways,” you are asking more of them than the Church is asking. For, as the relevant documents (see below) all attest, the Church intends for Anglicans to preserve precisely those rites and prayers which they have cherished through the centuries. (So much for their ancestors having been “wrong all the time.”) The Church makes the same concession for the Eastern Rite churches who remain in full communion with her. She does this because she is Catholic in the fullest sense.

    Of those Eastern churches who are NOT in full communion with her because of schism, far from dismissing them with a neat label, the Catholic Church says that our bond is still so profound that we continue to share priestly ordination and the Presence of Our Lord in the Eucharist with them.

    I also noticed on your blog that you describe yourself as a “Traditionalist” Catholic and as “very conservative.” Unfortunately, this does not seem to entail being especially obedient to the papacy, as you have failed to follow Pope Benedict XVI’s leadership (or the examples set in Church documents) in how you speak to Anglicans. On your blog, I also found a link to the Society of St. Pius X which was founded by the notorious Archbishop Lefebvre who died excommunicated from the Church. This is ironic considering your trumpeting against schismatics and heretics.

    • Mark Sells, I am afraid that you miss the mark in some cases, and open an open door in others.

      Anglicanism isn’t truth. It isn’t, because it’s heresy. This doesn’t mean that Anglicanism is all wrong: it can’t be wrong in what it doesn’t differ from the Church (say: belief in the Trinity); it can only be wrong in what it does. 2+2=4 can’t be wrong because an Anglican says it.

      I never questioned that some Anglicans have come to accept that they have to accept Rome’s authority. My problem are those who don’t. Read my message twice and you’ll see this clearly enough. Their period of reflection can be more or less wrong ( I say this too), but doesn’t make what is wrong right.

      As to the heretic, I prefer to call a heretic a heretic. Still in Pius XII’s times no one was even allowed to say “anglican church” without writing “so-called” before it!
      This was truthful, and charitable. Pope Benedict ( a very strong man; one who comes to Westminster saying that he is the successor of Peter, and wearing Pope Leo XIII’s stola) is a man of V II. At times, I don’t think he uses the right tones. I prefer Pius XII’s approach any day. Just so you know, heresy is a matter of doctrine, not papal convenience. However a Pope decides to call a heretic according to contingent situations, a heretic is a heretic is a heretic.

      I do not have to use a Pope’s words. To say so means to say that Pope Benedict was disobedient to Pope Pius XII. Worse than that, it means that you don’t believe in Catholicism, but in a Pope. You must get your Catholicism straight.

      You don’t make an argument as to why Anglicans shouldn’t be wrong all the time. You certainly don’t mean to say that the Church says that there were times where Anglicans were justified in being heretics, do you? To say so is to be, clearly, a heretic.

      C S Lewis was a heretic. A very good one, if you ask me. Still a heretic. Being liked by you or even having contributed to your conversion doesn’t make of one a Catholic. Chesterton was at a time an excellent heretic. He even became a Catholic. Hf he hadn’t, he’d have remained a heretic. This is nothign to do with your, or mine, preferences. If you’re Anglican, you’re heretic.

      As to the “smuggling:”. The anglican mentality I want them to discard is the doublethink, as I think should be clear enough by reading my post. The converts of the Ordinariate can have all the hymns they want. I even like them a lot. I will attend to their mass with great joy. Mind, though, that these hymns and prayers will be purged from heresy. Again, if an Anglican says 2+2=4 this is not wrong because he is an Anglican. It is in being an Anglican that he is wrong!

      Schismatic is one thing, heretic another. The Eastern churches are schismatic, the Anglicans are heretics. There can be no discussion on that, because the Church says so.

      In my speaking of the Anglicans, I am perfectly and absolutely orthodox. You must learn a bit more about Catholicism. When you do, you’ll know that I do not have to use the same words of the pope of the day. See above, Pius XII.

      Archbishop Lebfebvre was, I am afraid, more Catholic than you’ll ever be in your life, though circumstances moved him to a disobedience with whom one might legitimately disagree.
      He wasn’t, and isn’t, “notorious” in the least.
      He wasn’t even schismatic (“imperfect communion” is here the operative word), much less heretic.
      Once again, you must get your Catholicism straight.


  14. You questioned whether pgoings could read. You told him to shut up. You compare Anglicans to “whinos.” (I guess whino is a portmanteu for a whiner and a wino.)

    You lift up an archbishop excommunicated from the Church as a model Catholic for your readers to emulate. Yet, bizarrely, you admit he chose disobedience. You tell me I need to get my Catholicism straight. Well, I do know to begin and end all things with obedience to the Church.

    You have a lot that you could teach the world about the facts of Catholicism (matters we mostly agree about, in fact), but, for now, it’s being distorted through a spirit that is utterly at odds with the Catholic Church Herself.

    I deal with the same thing when I struggle to charitably share my Catholic faith with others. You might have a friend look over your major posts before putting them online, preferably a priest friend or spiritual advisor. In the meantime, I admire you for the diligence and energy with which you share the faith.

    • Mark Sells,

      I tell you that you need to set your Catholicism straight because you really need to. And I am, frankly, sick and tired of people who can’t read, or cant think, or both. This blog takes a lot of my free time and I will use the time to fight the good fight, not to teach to the unteachable or repeat the same things ad nauseam to people too stupid to get simple concepts.

      I have never said that Catholics should emulate Lefebvre (another sign that you also have a problem in reading my messages). I never encouraged Catholics to become members of the SSPX. I am not a member myself. I do not attend there myself. You can use the search function of this blog and persuade yourself of this simple fact. But Archbishop Lefebvre is certainly entitled to my admiration and prayers, and he gets both.

      You think that my “spirit” is at odd with Catholicism because the Catholicism you know is the diluted, cowardly, wishy-washy one given to us by a cowardly clergy (and very often by Popes too prudent and too slow in putting their foot on the gas pedal). My Catholicism would not have been considered hard, much less distorted, by any Christian age of the past. Read your St. Thomas Aquinas, your St. Pius X, your Leo XIII, your Pius XII, (plenty of links on this blog) and you’ll be easily persuaded of that.

      On the contrary, the distortion of Catholicism is in thinking that a heretic should not be called so, because a Pope has written something you interpret in this sense somewhere! (Besides, I have written a post about Infallibility, I think it would help you to read that, too) . This is absurd and is, I am sorry to say, so Anglican. Truth doesn’t depend from sensitivities of the moment, due to concrete circumstances and to personal decisions of Popes, which could be wrong.

      With your mentality, we should all start kissing Korans as Pope John Paul II did, or be told that we are disobedient. Again, you need to educate yourself about infallibility as you have a clear deficit there.

      Please read again what I wrote about the diamond. The Church’s diamond is very hard, but very beautiful. As long as you can’t cope with how hard it is, you’ll never see the beauty.

      As to your dealings with your non-Catholic friends, my personal suggestion is to never confuse Truth and Charity (I have written on that too). Whenever you compromise the Truth, you simply have not been charitable.

      Please read the subtitle of this blog: “Catholicism without compromise”. Then please read my “about the author” page, in case you have any doubt on what you will find here.

      I do not believe in your kind of “charity”. I call it “false compassion” and I think that it is exactly this mentality that has put us in this mess in the first place.

      My blog reflects this mentality. I believe in telling the truth. The truth is hard. I believe that charity is best served in being assertive all of the times, polite most of the times, sarcastic when opportune, and outright provocative when indispensable. If you can’t stand the heat, stay out of this kitchen. With all that, I admit that I am not the born diplomatician. For that, you’ll have to click elsewhere. But if you ask me, I still think that I am damn good at what I do and will continue to do things as I can do them best: openly and assertively.

      The truth of the matter is that my offended and “hurt” readers will remember my blog when they have long forgotten the so-called charitable waffle of their friends and relatives. They’ll be hurt perhaps, and they’ll hate me.
      But it will leave a mark on them, because truth hurts and the hurt stays. I don’t care a straw about how many people hate me. I care about whether I am contributing to their conversion.
      I think I am. If you disagree, though.

      If you want to read a sugary Catholic blog making you feel comfortable, you have picked the wrong one. This blog is meant at “telling it as it is”, even if it hurts.

      Because you see, at some point it will have to.

      Thanks for your compliments. At least you see my good faith and sincere intention. Not everyone does.


%d bloggers like this: