Thread: Leaving the Romans Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=023168
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :
 
In today's NYT, Bill Keller suggests that the Roman Catholic Church has laid down a gauntlet: if you are not going to toe the official line, then leave.

Keller agrees with Bill Donohue on this. The RC Church is not going to change.

Keller's solution parallels Pope Benedict's: a smaller church may be a better church. But Keller's solution is for the leavers to form a new Catholic, but not Roman, church, where the spiritual gifts of those who are suffocated by the hierarchy can be developed and flourish.

Quoting a nun who followed this suggestion in Rochester, NY:
quote:
“It was certainly painful, after 42 years,” she told me. “I lost my community. I lost my home. I lost so much. But, God being God, I gained much more.”
Is this a significant possibility in the US context?
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
You mean like the Reformation all over again?
 
Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :
 
No chickens in this fight, but there are already a number of Catholic groups outside of the RC framework - so it doesn't sound as if there it would be an altogether unprecedented step.

It seems like there is also some discussion along these lines in Ireland.
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
You mean like the Reformation all over again?
Quite. What's wrong with any one of the gazillion existing denominations already out there? As Ruth would say, "TEC welcomes you!" Does the USA really need a new ecclesial body?
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
Of the ex-RCs I know, they divide (roughly) with about 50% stop attending anything anywhere aside from weddings, etc, another 20% Anglican, 10% Orthodox, about 15% to various evangelical or crystal-worshipping groups, and the remainder go non-Xn (Buddhists, Jews or Muslims, in my experience). There was an ephemeral Old Catholic group in Ottawa for a while, in a garage near the bus terminal, but they seem to have totally disappeared. The OCs manage two house missions in Québec, which suggests that the 6.4 million census RCs do not see them as an option.

Almost all of those I know who become Anglican have done so from inter-marriage, although I know two families who made a point of crossing to Canterbury after RC priests had behaved inappropriately with members of their family, at a time when diocesan authorities were... unresponsive. While a majority of the members of the half-dozen francophone Anglican congregations in Canada are ex-RC, that we speak of a half-dozen suggests that this is not a demographic avalanche.

With respect to the 50% dropping off, I think many RCs are not denominationalists in their approach and do not have other Xn bodies on their radar as options. There is the Church, and then there is not the Church.
 
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :
 
quote:
With respect to the 50% dropping off, I think many RCs are not denominationalists in their approach and do not have other Xn bodies on their radar as options. There is the Church, and then there is not the Church.
It's surprising given the opportunities for ecumenical cross-pollination (inter-denominational marriages, joint ministry projects, etc.), when RC's have an opportunity to experience worship -- oftentimes worship nearly indistinguishable from the average RC Mass -- that the above is true, but that's been my experience also, meeting ex-RC's.
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
When RC's have an opportunity to experience worship -- oftentimes worship nearly indistinguishable from the average RC Mass.
More oftentimes far better, not only musically speaking but also in attention to liturgical detail.

Certainly the spirit of community is far stronger in, say, Episcopalian, Methodist, Presbyterian or Lutheran congregations than in RC ones, more often than not.

I think the average RC would be pleasantly surprised at how welcome, and how comfortable, he was made to feel in almost any non-RC church.

The trick is to get disenchanted RCs to do a little exploring. A good opportunity, I should think, for churches concerned about dwindling memberships.
 
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
Do Protestants grow up with an awareness of other denominations (including which ones are "a lot like us" and which are "strange") and Catholics don't? That could mean Catholics are generally unaware the traditional Episcopal service is basically the same as Catholic.

My childhood Catholic friends were told it was a serious sin to set foot in a non-Catholic church. That kind of taboo can stick long after you've stopped believing the authority.

Also, intriguing to me but it may indicate an extent to which being Catholic is a cultural identity, my ex-Catholic friends, even the "atheists", are very aware of their status -- like the one who told me the Catholic church was OK with her remarriage because -- and then one of those to me convoluted hair-splitting reasonings that make sense only to Catholics. She left the Catholic church before her first marriage, and yet is aware of her status regarding her second marriage in their eyes. "If I ever want to go back I'm welcome." That sounds like a strong tribal identity!

If Catholic is part of self-identification, then one wants to call oneself Catholic no matter what. Not unlike people calling themselves Christian while denying most of the historic creed. Clinging to familiar labels is really important to some people.
 
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
I know of one denomination that has a history of welcoming ex nuns into it's fold. One of those nuns was Katharina von Bora.

There are a number of denominations that are catholic, just not Roman.
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
You mean like the Reformation all over again?
Quite. What's wrong with any one of the gazillion existing denominations already out there? As Ruth would say, "TEC welcomes you!" Does the USA really need a new ecclesial body?
No, but we do need more episcopi vagantes (wandering bishops) to ridicule. Continuing Anglicans and Sedevacantists (empty seat) are doing their part. Liberal Catholic splinter groups are lagging behind. Perhaps, we will see the election of the first, possibly second, female pope? A former nun being elected pope would make an excellent Lifetime movie.
 
Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
This is not a little "difficulty" confined to a few feisty nuns in America it is a Europe wide phenomenon (if not global). The Austrians are linking up with the Irish and there is widespread discontent about covered up paedophilia and Roman intransigence on a number of issues ... not to mention the new missal translation. Then of course there is the Lefebvrist awkward squad.

My bet is that Rome will continue to convulse new Reformations every few hundred years or so until she reforms the papacy. Decade spaced mini-schisms I suspect will become more frequent. This might just be one of those mini-quakes.
 
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
My bet is that Rome will continue to convulse new Reformations every few hundred years or so until she reforms the papacy.
I thought papacy is in a very central sense the definition of Roman Catholic.
 
Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Well, not according to the Lefebvrists ... in history of course there have been Anti-Popes and heretical Popes, (well one anyway)
 
Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
Well, not according to the Lefebvrists ... in history of course there have been Anti-Popes and heretical Popes, (well one anyway)
Presumably these kinds of non-conformists are pretty small beer though in the wide sweep of Roman Catholicism.

I dare say one could find similar break-away groups from Orthodoxy if one had the energy to bother.
 
Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :
 
Oh look, there's one.

My bet is Orthodoxy will be subject to these regular schisms until every Orthodox Christian inhabits a church on their own. My guess is this is one of the mini-quakes - after all, it only concerns 15% of all Ukrainians.
 
Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Of course ... but when we have splits it's a NORMAL state of affairs ... not acceptable, but to be expected .... as in 1 Corinthians 11:19.
 
Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :
 
Ah I see - when the Orthodox split it is only to be expected, whereas when the RCC splits it is evidence of a "new Reformations every few hundred years"
 
Posted by Pancho (# 13533) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
Well, not according to the Lefebvrists ... in history of course there have been Anti-Popes and heretical Popes, (well one anyway)
The issue the SSPX (aka Lefebvrists) have isn't with the papacy, it's with certain teachings of the Second Vatican Council. They frequently profess loyalty and love of the office of the Pope in public. Even the sedevecantists, the guys who don't believe there's been a legitimate Pope in office for a while, love the papacy in their own way. They're just freaked out the way things have gone over the past 40 years and the way they reconcile it to their way of thinking is through the belief that the past few Popes have not been legitimate ones (and it goes without saying the number of sedevecantists is very, very, very small).


edited to add another "very"

[ 18. June 2012, 17:57: Message edited by: Pancho ]
 
Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Long Ranger -
quote:
Ah I see - when the Orthodox split it is only to be expected, whereas when the RCC splits it is evidence of a "new Reformations every few hundred years"
Of course if you want to trivialise what am I am saying then that's fine.

My point - if it wasn't blisteringly obvious - is that the centralising dynamic of a monarchical papacy provokes its own reactions whereas the horizontalist ecclesiology of Orthodoxy is more like a family where, occasionally, rows and "stormings out" are to be expected. The latter is manageable, the former, often not.

[ 18. June 2012, 18:09: Message edited by: Father Gregory ]
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
Long Ranger -
quote:
Ah I see - when the Orthodox split it is only to be expected, whereas when the RCC splits it is evidence of a "new Reformations every few hundred years"
Of course if you want to trivialise what am I am saying then that's fine.

My point - if it wasn't blisteringly obvious - is that the centralising dynamic of a monarchical papacy provokes its own reactions whereas the horizontalist ecclesiology of Orthodoxy is more like a family where, occasionally, rows and "stormings out" are to be expected. The latter is manageable, the former, often not.
Give that the RCC still outnumbers every other Christian denomination on the planet, and is pretty close to all the rest put together, I'd say they've managed reasonably well. And I say this as someone who firmly rejects papal supremacy.
 
Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
And size matters does it? Less so according to BXVI.
 
Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :
 
I agree with @Arethosemyfeet - compared to the RCC, Orthodoxy is constantly splitting.

Seems that for some, very tiny numbers of people leaving another denomination is one thing, but major fractures in your own is something else.
 
Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
If Catholic is part of self-identification, then one wants to call oneself Catholic no matter what. Not unlike people calling themselves Christian while denying most of the historic creed. Clinging to familiar labels is really important to some people.
I've noticed this too - a fair number of Episcopalians who call themselves Catholic, not because, like me, their theology is on the Catholic end of the spectrum, but because they came from the RCC.

I think we're witnessing another aspect of this tribal identity on this very thread, BTW. Criticizing the current Pope or other members of the hierarchy is one thing; but when Fr. Gregory tries to make an analytical judgment about the very structure of the church, all of a sudden (some) RCs start insulting the Orthodox Church.
 
Posted by Desert Daughter (# 13635) on :
 
A tribe we are, and analysis we need. Says Yoda...

With Orthodoxy "constantly splitting" and this happening in an ever increasing number and range of countries and cultures where Orthodox are found today, I expect some very interesting theological approaches to come our way very soon. They've isolated themselves long enough (sorry, Western European pespective here [Hot and Hormonal] ).

I, for one, can't wait.

[ 18. June 2012, 19:34: Message edited by: Desert Daughter ]
 
Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
You do realise that there will therefore soon be two of me? Now that really will be Purgatory! [Two face]
 
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 
Further to Augustine's point, it depends on the background culture of the Roman Catholic in question. In French Quebec culturally there are no other churches other than the Roman Catholic Church, the Protestant churches are English. The United Church rolls out the Huguenot Cross for our twenty or so French-speaking congregations, some of whom are in Ontario. We have had twenty or so French congregations constantly for 70 years, they have never been a large group.

In rural Quebec just try to find a Protestant church outside the historically English Eastern Townships. You'll be a while.

In English North America there certainly are other churches that English Roman Catholics are aware of, it's hard to miss the buildings.
 
Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on :
 
I believe the Anglican Church in Canada does have a few Francophone congregations with the occasional ex-Catholic priest at the helm.

An interesting concept: a little bit of High Anglicanism in the heart of Francophone Canada.

SPK: few, if any, Quebecois would be descendants of Huguenots, surely? Would St Bartholomew's Day mean anything to them? I thought the original settlers and their seigneurs were carefully selected to create a monochrome Catholic Royalist New France?
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
You mean like the Reformation all over again?
Quite. What's wrong with any one of the gazillion existing denominations already out there? As Ruth would say, "TEC welcomes you!" Does the USA really need a new ecclesial body?
Perhaps not, but we're always getting new ones anyway, and we're pretty used to it.

I don't think there will be a new Reformation; that change had as much political fuel as religious, and the political and cultural conditions today aren't going to help any new Catholic splinter groups grow the way Lutheranism did. But I don't care if Spiritus Christi Church members call themselves Catholic, these folks are Protestants through and through. From their history:

quote:
On August 13, 1998, Bishop Matthew Clark, under pressure from Rome, removed Fr. Jim Callan as administrator after 22 years at Corpus Christi Church. The Vatican had trouble with three practices dear to the heart of Corpus Christi parishioners: the prominent role of women on the altar, the blessing of gay unions, and the offering of communion to those who were not
Catholic.
In other words, bears shit in the woods, and the pope is still Catholic. Only Protestants get so ticked off about this that they up and leave. If you read the rest of their history, you can see why they're going as strong as they are; their devotion was to their local parish, its practices and ministries, not to being Catholic. So while they say they're "Catholic, not Roman Catholic," their inclusivity is the very Protestant kind that seeks to gather like-minded people in the immediate vicinity, not the Catholic kind that seeks to be a universal church.

As to why they didn't just become Episcopalians -- again, because these are true Protestants. When you're really good and pissed off about something and you walk out in protest, that protest is far more visible if you start a new church you call Catholic than if you quietly fold yourself into an existing Episcopal parish.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
about 15% to various evangelical or crystal-worshipping groups,
Noice.

I see what you did there AA. [Razz]

(BTW any connection with the acronym AA and Alcoholics Anonymous is purely coincidental.)
 
Posted by otyetsfoma (# 12898) on :
 
SPK - has the ethnic cleansing reached the Gaspe? In my day there were United Churches south of New Carlisle, And Anglican from New Carlisle to Peninsula.
 
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 
It wasn't ethnic cleansing, it was the fact that we were never there. The Gaspe is the other exception, but I believe it has suffered general population decline.

Sir P:

No, there are no original Huguenot descendants in Canada, but otherwise the United Church suffers from being very English. Conveniently the Huguenots are French and we have an active relationship with the Reformed Church of France.

In post-Quiet Revolution displaying the Huguenot Cross and talking up Calvin (who was French) helps with the branding. Not to mention that while the United Church's English terminology is highly Presbyterian and therefore Scots (particularly at the congregation level), we take our French terminology lock, stock and barrel from the Reformed Church of France.

Evidence.
 
Posted by JeffTL (# 16722) on :
 
To summarize: if only there were some sort of American community of faith with bishops more open-minded than the pope...what one might term a protestant episcopal church in the United States.
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
Ruth, I think you've nailed it wrt the Spiritus Christi group. They're perhaps closer to congregationalism than anything else.

[Edited to remove gratuitous scare quotes round name of group.]

[ 19. June 2012, 09:28: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]
 
Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:
...I've noticed this too - a fair number of Episcopalians who call themselves Catholic, not because, like me, their theology is on the Catholic end of the spectrum, but because they came from the RCC...
Interesting, because the most "Catholic" Anglicans in Australia don't. Many come from a Reformed or Evangelical background.

There is, historically, much bitterness between Orthodoxy and the RCC and vice versa. I think this sometimes carries across to the convert Orthodox.

Interesting that Desert Daughter, like many other Catholics; Anglicans etc. is interested in Orthodox spirituality. I think that is engendering a quiet revolution amongst many in the West. It certainly changed my life.

Thanks SPK and Augustine, I'm sorry I flipped past your post.
 
Posted by St.Silas the carter (# 12867) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):


There is, historically, much bitterness between Orthodoxy and the RCC and vice versa. I think this sometimes carries across to the convert Orthodox.

Sometimes?
 
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:

I think we're witnessing another aspect of this tribal identity on this very thread, BTW. Criticizing the current Pope or other members of the hierarchy is one thing; but when Fr. Gregory tries to make an analytical judgment about the very structure of the church, all of a sudden (some) RCs start insulting the Orthodox Church.
I am trying very hard to see which Catholics insulted the Orthodox Church, and am failing miserably. Care to help me out?
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
I believe the Anglican Church in Canada does have a few Francophone congregations with the occasional ex-Catholic priest at the helm.

An interesting concept: a little bit of High Anglicanism in the heart of Francophone Canada.

SPK: few, if any, Quebecois would be descendants of Huguenots, surely? Would St Bartholomew's Day mean anything to them? I thought the original settlers and their seigneurs were carefully selected to create a monochrome Catholic Royalist New France?
To my knowledge, only one of our francophone parishes has a former RC cleric. While there are some ex-RC priests now in Anglican livery and several are francophone, RCs and Anglican bishops place transferred clergy well away from their former zones of ministry.

Francophone Anglicans range from low (old family roots), MTR (RC transfers) or high (African), the diversity circumscribed by their small numbers.

Sir Pellinore is correct in that Huguenots were excluded from settlement in New France. This was partly because Henri IV (shipmates might enjoy the portrait in [URL=La Reine Margot]http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/queen_margot/[/URL] which explains much about him) needed for fortify his Catholic street creds and because Louis XIV felt that the evangelizing mission of New France would be encumbered by replicating European religious diversity (not that he liked Huguenots very much to begin with). Some of the Huguenots who had taken refuge in Ireland appeared in Québec City and Montréal in the 1770s but that is another (interesting but really obscure) story.
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:

I think we're witnessing another aspect of this tribal identity on this very thread, BTW. Criticizing the current Pope or other members of the hierarchy is one thing; but when Fr. Gregory tries to make an analytical judgment about the very structure of the church, all of a sudden (some) RCs start insulting the Orthodox Church.
I am trying very hard to see which Catholics insulted the Orthodox Church, and am failing miserably. Care to help me out?
I believe she is assuming the long ranger is Roman Catholic.
 
Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :
 
Who me? When did I give that impression?
 
Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
Who me? When did I give that impression?
I think, to many, you are just an unknown pink pony.

Perhaps they read something behind the air of mystery?

Perhaps they're indulging in "aura reading"?

[Killing me]
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0