|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Francis welcomes Justin
|
Truman White
Shipmate
# 17290
|
Posted
Thought I'd kick this off. Short commentary from an RC paper on this meeting. The journalist doesn't see much hope of the communions uniting in any formal sense, but reckons relationships between the two will benefit from the mix of these particular personalities.
I'm a bit one step removed from all this in the circles I move in - any early thoughts from you good people who are closer to this particular piece of the action?
Posts: 476 | Registered: Aug 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
Some very scary people commenting on that blog. Good job the RCC is a broad church.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
sebby
Shipmate
# 15147
|
Posted
Maybe they will have the same personal chemistry as Benedict XVI and Rowan Williams?
--------------------
sebhyatt
Posts: 1340 | From: yorks | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Good grief, that comments thread makes the Telegraph Blog site look like a dialogue between Baroness Williams and Sister Lavinia Byrne.
On the plus side - new sig.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
Having read the first few comments:
Well, it is nice(!) to know that there are lots of people who want to go back to the "my side is right and yours is wrong" of previous generations. Nothing like a bit of tradition to make sure that we obscure whatever it was that Jesus once talked about.
The new Pope must have really shaken up some of his flock, to get that kind of "Christian love" exposed so thoroughly. I do note, that since ++Justin is obviously a heretic/schismatic/whatever, he is not offered the merest notice at all. Dogpiles on the priest are the Order of the Day.
ISTM that, IRL, Catholics and Anglicans (and Baptists and Methodists and non-denoms and ....whoever) can actually agree to disagree about some stuff while getting on with doing other, kinder and more useful stuff. Cripes, even Pope F. himself had something nice to say about atheists and doing good together.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
argona
Shipmate
# 14037
|
Posted
And I thought the comments after Guardian Belief pieces were bonkers! Thing is, of course, these are equally out on a limb, even in their own particular tree.
Posts: 327 | From: Oriental dill patch? (4,7) | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
It seems those who form the choir in Damian Thompson's Telegraph blog have migrated to the Catholic Herald. I recognise all the names from the last time I read the comments in Thompson's blog a few years ago.
This always comes to mind when I read any of those commentators.
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pyx_e
Quixotic Tilter
# 57
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
It seems those who form the choir in Damian Thompson's Telegraph blog have migrated to the Catholic Herald.
This. (I was going to post the same thing)
Ah the internet, giving a voice to the mad, bad and frustrated for over a decade now.
Anyway it is nice that Francis and Justin get on.
Fly Safe, Pyx_e
--------------------
It is better to be Kind than right.
Posts: 9778 | From: The Dark Tower | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
CL
Shipmate
# 16145
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Some very scary people commenting on that blog. Good job the RCC is a broad church.
It's not and that is a frankly bizarre thing to say. Catholic theology and ecclesiology totally precludes it.
Posts: 647 | From: Ireland | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Indifferently
Shipmate
# 17517
|
Posted
Perhaps the Pope could impress upon our archbishop that the Church is not supposed to be of the world, so that Justin will stop pandering to political correctness and bowing down to the likes of Peter Tatchell.
Posts: 288 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Jan 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
Perhaps the Pope could impress upon our archbishop that the Church is not supposed to be of the world, so that Justin will stop pandering to political correctness and bowing down to the likes of Peter Tatchell.
"Bowing down to the likes of Peter Tatchell"? Do you have any photos of this alleged incident? When did it happen? Or are you making it up? Maybe its time to stop taking the tablets if they screw your brain this badly. And coming out with guff like "pandering to political correctness" is a sure sign of a right-winger who has run out of ideas, if they ever had any in the first place.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
How on Earth is ++Justin bowing down to the likes of Peter Tatchell when ++Justin holds a firmly traditional view of that particular Dead Horse? With regards to the other Dead Horse, ++Justin agrees with the majority of Anglicans in this country. Hardly bowing to 'political correctness'.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Indifferently
Shipmate
# 17517
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
Perhaps the Pope could impress upon our archbishop that the Church is not supposed to be of the world, so that Justin will stop pandering to political correctness and bowing down to the likes of Peter Tatchell.
"Bowing down to the likes of Peter Tatchell"? Do you have any photos of this alleged incident? When did it happen? Or are you making it up? Maybe its time to stop taking the tablets if they screw your brain this badly. And coming out with guff like "pandering to political correctness" is a sure sign of a right-winger who has run out of ideas, if they ever had any in the first place.
Stalin was fond of accusing his enemies of being mentally ill. I take it as a compliment.
As for Justin, a Christian bishop shames himself by using the language of a Gramscian Marxist when he talks of "the LGBT community". No wonder everybody thinks the C of E is so limp and cowering before the orthodoxies of our day - it is.
We should take some inspiration from our friends in the Church of Rome and start sticking up for the faith once delivered to the saints.
Posts: 288 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Jan 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Indifferently
Shipmate
# 17517
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
the majority of Anglicans in this country.
The majority of Anglicans in this country go to church about once a year. I wonder why.
Posts: 288 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Jan 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
The majority of Anglicans in this country go to church about once a year. I wonder why.
Citation needed.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rosa Winkel
Saint Anger round my neck
# 11424
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by argona:
And I thought the comments after Guardian Belief pieces were bonkers! Thing is, of course, these are equally out on a limb, even in their own particular tree.
Sometimes, they migrate here (those kinds of comments, I mean).
--------------------
The Disability and Jesus "Locked out for Lent" project
Posts: 3271 | From: Wrocław | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
We should take some inspiration from our friends in the Church of Rome and start sticking up for the faith once delivered to the saints.
Yep, 'cause Jesus was all about the gay-bashing. Seriously, is Archbishop Justin really not homophobic enough for you?
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pyx_e
Quixotic Tilter
# 57
|
Posted
quote:
The majority of Anglicans in this country go to church about once a year. I wonder why.
Whereas some folk attend other churches endlessly and still don't get it.
--------------------
It is better to be Kind than right.
Posts: 9778 | From: The Dark Tower | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
If the article was not written as flame bait in the first place, then it admirably succeeds in serving as such:
quote:
There was no mention whatever of the question of women bishops in the Anglican communion. Presumably the reason for this is because the matter is simply not worth discussing, and can be relegated to the realm of things we simply must agree to disagree on. ...
The Catholics and the Anglicans are now more or less singing from the same hymn sheet when it comes to morality. There are several Anglican theologians (as well as some nominal Catholics) who are not doing so, but the Anglican mainstream seems sound on many of the great matters of the day, such as the rights of the unborn, and questions to do with embryonic “research”.
In both cases, it is the author's interpretation that brings on the "LOL, WTF?" factor. Women bishops is an issue not worth discussing, at the very point when the CofE is publicly struggling to introduce them over and against her own administrative structures? And Catholics and Anglicans share essentially the same outlook on the great moral matters of the day, merely because one can cite a few issues where they do largely agree?
Now, personally I actually agree with the author that female ordinations is a lost cause as far as the CofE goes, or at least certainly as far as its hierarchy goes. But from a Catholic perspective, in my opinion a bit more value judgement than just "agree to disagree" is required there. This is a major ecclesial issue on which the CofE leadership appears hell-bent to get it wrong. At a minimum I would expect a bit of sadness from a Catholic author that it seems useless now to talk with them about this.
I also think a shift away from at least some of the sexual morals topics to others, like indeed poverty, is warranted. As important as these matters are, one cannot let them overshadow everything. And it is nice to hear that the Anglican mainstream agrees with Catholic teachings on abortion. (Is that in fact the case? I have no idea...) However, most Anglican would probably agree that using contraception is licit, even a good thing, and they would take it for granted that marriages can be divorced. And while I may simply have been listening to liberal Anglicans for too long, I do not hear that many Anglican voices calling homosexuality intrinsically disordered. Now, it may even be technically accurate to say that the UK Catholic and Anglican mainstream agree on all theses issues as well. But that would be so then because the Catholic mainstream ignores official Catholic teaching, and rather obviously that would not be an easy topic for Catholics either. At any rate, to simply summarise this complex situation as Anglicans and Catholics basically agreeing on morals is provocative.
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Some very scary people commenting on that blog. Good job the RCC is a broad church.
It's not and that is a frankly bizarre thing to say. Catholic theology and ecclesiology totally precludes it.
If you would both define the meaning of "broad" in "broad church", then we could possibly judge which one of you is less wrong...
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Indifferently
Shipmate
# 17517
|
Posted
To the above, I say that the teachings of the Church of England can be found in the Book of Common Prayer. Divorce is absolutely not allowed.
Posts: 288 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Jan 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
To the above, I say that the teachings of the Church of England can be found in the Book of Common Prayer. Divorce is absolutely not allowed.
Unfortunately that's demonstrably not the teaching of the Church of England, and I'm not sure it ever has been. Divorce has been frowned upon a lot more than it is today (quite rightly, I think), but it has always been possible for at least some CofE members in some circumstances.
My understanding, and certainly the view I've encountered form most other Anglicans of my acquaintance, is that marriage is for life, but that out of compassion we accept that some people fall short of that for a number of reasons, some better than others.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Indifferently
Shipmate
# 17517
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
To the above, I say that the teachings of the Church of England can be found in the Book of Common Prayer. Divorce is absolutely not allowed.
Unfortunately that's demonstrably not the teaching of the Church of England, and I'm not sure it ever has been. Divorce has been frowned upon a lot more than it is today (quite rightly, I think), but it has always been possible for at least some CofE members in some circumstances.
My understanding, and certainly the view I've encountered form most other Anglicans of my acquaintance, is that marriage is for life, but that out of compassion we accept that some people fall short of that for a number of reasons, some better than others.
When has divorce been accepted as possible? Aside from a very stupid decision by General Synod - acting on authority they do not have - about ten years ago the Church of England has never allowed divorce.
Edward VIII had to abdicate because his scandalous "marriage" to Mrs Simpson would have excommunicated him.
The Book of Common Prayer is clear, and it is the Church's legally binding standard of doctrine:
"I REQUIRE and charge you both, as ye will answer at the dreadful day of judgement when the secrets of all hearts shall be disclosed, that if either of you know any impediment, why ye may not be lawfully joined together in Matrimony, ye do now confess it. For be ye well assured, that so many as are coupled together otherwise than God's Word doth allow are not joined together by God; neither is their Matrimony lawful."
[ 16. June 2013, 15:34: Message edited by: Indifferently ]
Posts: 288 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Jan 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
To the above, I say that the teachings of the Church of England can be found in the Book of Common Prayer. Divorce is absolutely not allowed.
Unfortunately that's demonstrably not the teaching of the Church of England, and I'm not sure it ever has been. Divorce has been frowned upon a lot more than it is today (quite rightly, I think), but it has always been possible for at least some CofE members in some circumstances.
My understanding, and certainly the view I've encountered form most other Anglicans of my acquaintance, is that marriage is for life, but that out of compassion we accept that some people fall short of that for a number of reasons, some better than others.
When has divorce been accepted as possible? Aside from a very stupid decision by General Synod - acting on authority they do not have - about ten years ago the Church of England has never allowed divorce.
Edward VIII had to abdicate because his scandalous "marriage" to Mrs Simpson would have excommunicated him.
The Book of Common Prayer is clear, and it is the Church's legally binding standard of doctrine:
"I REQUIRE and charge you both, as ye will answer at the dreadful day of judgement when the secrets of all hearts shall be disclosed, that if either of you know any impediment, why ye may not be lawfully joined together in Matrimony, ye do now confess it. For be ye well assured, that so many as are coupled together otherwise than God's Word doth allow are not joined together by God; neither is their Matrimony lawful."
Are you unfamiliar with the role of General Synod? If the CoE has never allowed divorce, then how come divorced people can become priests?
CoE doctrine is NOT just defined according to the BCP.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Indifferently
Shipmate
# 17517
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
To the above, I say that the teachings of the Church of England can be found in the Book of Common Prayer. Divorce is absolutely not allowed.
Unfortunately that's demonstrably not the teaching of the Church of England, and I'm not sure it ever has been. Divorce has been frowned upon a lot more than it is today (quite rightly, I think), but it has always been possible for at least some CofE members in some circumstances.
My understanding, and certainly the view I've encountered form most other Anglicans of my acquaintance, is that marriage is for life, but that out of compassion we accept that some people fall short of that for a number of reasons, some better than others.
When has divorce been accepted as possible? Aside from a very stupid decision by General Synod - acting on authority they do not have - about ten years ago the Church of England has never allowed divorce.
Edward VIII had to abdicate because his scandalous "marriage" to Mrs Simpson would have excommunicated him.
The Book of Common Prayer is clear, and it is the Church's legally binding standard of doctrine:
"I REQUIRE and charge you both, as ye will answer at the dreadful day of judgement when the secrets of all hearts shall be disclosed, that if either of you know any impediment, why ye may not be lawfully joined together in Matrimony, ye do now confess it. For be ye well assured, that so many as are coupled together otherwise than God's Word doth allow are not joined together by God; neither is their Matrimony lawful."
Are you unfamiliar with the role of General Synod? If the CoE has never allowed divorce, then how come divorced people can become priests?
CoE doctrine is NOT just defined according to the BCP.
They are not acting legitimately and are driving the Church of England into heresy. They would need an act of Parliament to repeal the Prayer Book and change the Church doctrine on marriage. They have not done so. The Articles also teach that the Church cannot establish laws contrary to the plain words of Scripture.
General Synod is a rogue body with no legitimate authority at all.
[ 16. June 2013, 15:53: Message edited by: Indifferently ]
Posts: 288 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Jan 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
I don't see how that's for you to decide, Indifferently.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
I'm pretty sure the first Supreme Governor of the Church of England was able to obtain the divorces he sought.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Indifferently
Shipmate
# 17517
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I'm pretty sure the first Supreme Governor of the Church of England was able to obtain the divorces he sought.
1. Henry VIII was not Supreme Governor.
2. He obtained a decree of nullity, not a divorce.
In other words, your statement is complete and utter nonsense.
[ 16. June 2013, 16:25: Message edited by: Indifferently ]
Posts: 288 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Jan 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I'm pretty sure the first Supreme Governor of the Church of England was able to obtain the divorces he sought.
1. Henry VIII was not Supreme Governor.
2. He obtained a decree of nullity, not a divorce.
In other words, your statement is complete and utter nonsense.
Petty quibbling. Supreme head then. Happy now? Pretending your marriage never happened is basically rules-lawyering around a divorce.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643
|
Posted
Perhaps Indifferently would be happier with Genreal Synod if they refused to accept divorce, but were perfectly okay with having your wife beheaded instead?
--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...
Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Clodsley Shovel
Apprentice
# 16662
|
Posted
Or, he could head over to the baptistboard.com where they get really REALLY worked up about these things, and all manner of other things as well, before calling each other names and doubting each others salvation......
Posts: 41 | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Indifferently:
quote:
When has divorce been accepted as possible? Aside from a very stupid decision by General Synod - acting on authority they do not have - about ten years ago the Church of England has never allowed divorce.
It isn't divorce which is objectionable. I doubt very much, for example, whether the Catholic Church would object to a woman who had been the subject of domestic abuse obtaining a civil divorce for her own protection. What is objectionable, from the Catholic point of view, is the remarriage of divorced persons. This happens routinely in the Church of England. So essentially IngoB is right that the Church of England and the Church of Rome are at variance on this issue.
Insisting that Anglican theology does not permit this, on the grounds that the Prayer Book does not permit this is rather akin to saying that the Catholic Church frowns on the Mass in the vernacular because the Council of Trent says so. Rather a lot of water has flowed under the bridge since then.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
TomM
Shipmate
# 4618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
Perhaps Indifferently would be happier with Genreal Synod if they refused to accept divorce, but were perfectly okay with having your wife beheaded instead?
Well then she would be dead, and once she's dead you can remarry! ;-)
(Though presumably in this modern age, a wife should be able to have her husband beheaded too...)
Posts: 405 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rosa Winkel:
Are you ex-Anglican, Indifferently?
Ex-members of any confession with an axe to grind are very, very tiring.
Actually Indifferently IS an Anglican, iirc.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
All of you - tone down the rhetoric, avoid the dead horses and accusations of mental illness (like other personal insults) should be restricted to hell. Which is over there =>
Doublethink
Purgatory Host
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Indifferently
Shipmate
# 17517
|
Posted
I am an Anglican. As such I hold fast to the doctrines found in the Book Book of Common and and Thirty Nine Articles of Religion. I humbly wish other people within the Church of England would do the same.
Posts: 288 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Jan 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vade Mecum
Shipmate
# 17688
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
I am an Anglican. As such I hold fast to the doctrines found in the Book Book of Common and and Thirty Nine Articles of Religion. I humbly wish other people within the Church of England would do the same.
And some of us wish the 39 articles consigned to the the dustbin of heresies as the nasty perversions of catholic truth they are, and recognise the deeply flawed nature of the Cranmerian liturgucal imposition. Who is to say which if any of us is right, and on what grounds?
--------------------
I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
Posts: 307 | From: North London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rosa Winkel
Saint Anger round my neck
# 11424
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
I am an Anglican. As such I hold fast to the doctrines found in the Book Book of Common and and Thirty Nine Articles of Religion. I humbly wish other people within the Church of England would do the same.
Your posts don't always come across as particularly humble in regards to what you wish from others.
Like (elsewhere) with someone trying to convince Anglicans that they're part Calvinistic, the CoE sees its history as predating the Reformation. Our heritage comes from the various forms of the BCP and those centuries, but there's much much more to us than that.
--------------------
The Disability and Jesus "Locked out for Lent" project
Posts: 3271 | From: Wrocław | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Maureen Lash
Apprentice
# 17192
|
Posted
Returning to the topic, I read Pope Francis remark on the Ordinariate as a muted apology. What do others think?
Posts: 32 | From: Moseley | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Yet we must include him too, Rosa Winkel! A bugger isn't it?
[ 16. June 2013, 21:20: Message edited by: Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard ]
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Indifferently
Shipmate
# 17517
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
I am an Anglican. As such I hold fast to the doctrines found in the Book Book of Common and and Thirty Nine Articles of Religion. I humbly wish other people within the Church of England would do the same.
And some of us wish the 39 articles consigned to the the dustbin of heresies as the nasty perversions of catholic truth they are, and recognise the deeply flawed nature of the Cranmerian liturgucal imposition. Who is to say which if any of us is right, and on what grounds?
The Articles and the Prayer Book conform fully to the truths of the Catholic faith. I beg you to provide one counter-example. Because you can't.
Posts: 288 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Jan 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Maureen Lash:
Returning to the topic, I read Pope Francis remark on the Ordinariate as a muted apology. What do others think?
The only one I've seen, ML, is this one in the Tablet. I thought it pretty neutral. Was there another account somewhere perhaps?
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
I am an Anglican. As such I hold fast to the doctrines found in the Book Book of Common and and Thirty Nine Articles of Religion. I humbly wish other people within the Church of England would do the same.
Which gives me an opportunity to point out that the vast majority of Anglicans in the world do not live in Angland, are not members of the CofE and attach no importance at all to the 39 articles, save as a historical document dealing with issues that have ceased to have any importance in the 400 years since they were created.
If you want to speak as "an Anglican" please remember that "Anglican" means more than a member of the CofE.
A point I hope the current Bishop of Rome remembers -- I rather expect he does. Clearly in his meeting with AB Justin, he was talking only with the (functional) head of the CofE. I do hope he was not under the impression that his comments related in any way to the rest of the Anglican churches throughout the world, for whom Justin does not speak, and whom he does not represent. Some representatives of the Church Of Rome in past decades seem to have confused the CofE with the Anglican communion. I hope this is no longer the case.
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
Is not the definition of the Anglican Communion those who are in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury? This surely means he has at least some role beyond the Church of England.
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
Is not the definition of the Anglican Communion those who are in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury? This surely means he has at least some role beyond the Church of England.
Well, of a sort, but he's primus inter pares rather than being the boss, and has no actual authority over the rest of the Anglican Communion.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
I understand that, just as I understand the nature of autonomy for Orthodox Churches. However, John Holding went further than saying he has no authority to the point of saying the ABC neither speaks for nor represents Anglicans outside the CofE. Which strikes me as rather odd.
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
Canterbury has, as name-forgotten eminent figure wrote, a primacy of honour. I have always been of the opinion that, when Canterbury deals with the Pope, he does so as a semi-patriarchal figure for the Anglicans rather than the leader of the CoE (which has become more and more marginal player in world Anglicanism). Indeed, if he were primarily the Primate of England, I do not know if he could count on papal audiences more than could the Archbishop of Uppsala. This is presumably why Canterbury speaks elliptically in his Roman statements.
The XXXIX and the 1662 BCP are not authoritative or definitive in any real way for the great majority of the world's Anglicans, whose clergy do not subscribe to them, nor would they use that particular rite in their liturgy (Canadians haven't for half a century, and the US hasn't for over two hundred years).
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
I understand that, just as I understand the nature of autonomy for Orthodox Churches. However, John Holding went further than saying he has no authority to the point of saying the ABC neither speaks for nor represents Anglicans outside the CofE. Which strikes me as rather odd.
He speaks for and represents Anglicans outside the CofE only to the extent that he has consulted with them and they have all agreed about what he has to say. As many of those bodies have no individual authorities who can speak on their behalf (our Primate, for example, is really more a moderator of General Synod and its executive committee than an authority figure), it is hard to imagine how Canterbury can have validly consulted with and obtained agreement on just about anything.
For example (a relatively minor one), his reported comments in response to Pope Francis's remarks on traditional morality in the family, run contrary to what most of the Bishops in Canada would support, and to what I expect will be approved at General Synod this summer. A number of branches of the communion either already or will likely soon part company with Canterbury on this and similar matters. (and of course, some others certainly support his position, going further in that direction to the point of strongly supporting legislation that penalizes gays for simply being gay)
Even on the basis of what the last Lambeth agreed, there's precious little apart from platitutes that Canterbury can say on behalf of the communion. And nothing he says can bind any of its components (including the CofE, for that matter) in any way at all.
John
[ 17. June 2013, 01:27: Message edited by: John Holding ]
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
Canterbury has, as name-forgotten eminent figure wrote, a primacy of honour. I have always been of the opinion that, when Canterbury deals with the Pope, he does so as a semi-patriarchal figure for the Anglicans rather than the leader of the CoE (which has become more and more marginal player in world Anglicanism). Indeed, if he were primarily the Primate of England, I do not know if he could count on papal audiences more than could the Archbishop of Uppsala. This is presumably why Canterbury speaks elliptically in his Roman statements.
I fear that you are right to the extent that Rome may believe this is Canterbury's role.
I would suggest, however, since the elevation of George Carey (and Rowen Williams, to be fair), and possibly during the tenure of his two predecessors, Canterbury's historic and perceived role as a quasi-Patriarchal figure has tailed off into irrelevance.
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
