Thread: Francis welcomes Justin 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=025483
Posted by Truman White (# 17290) on
:
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?
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
Some very scary people commenting on that blog. Good job the RCC is a broad church.
Posted by sebby (# 15147) on
:
Maybe they will have the same personal chemistry as Benedict XVI and Rowan Williams?
Posted by Gildas (# 525) on
:
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.
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on
:
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.
Posted by argona (# 14037) on
:
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.
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on
:
![[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.
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on
:
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
Posted by CL (# 16145) on
:
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.
Posted by Indifferently (# 17517) on
:
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.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
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.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
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'.
Posted by Indifferently (# 17517) on
:
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.
Posted by Indifferently (# 17517) on
:
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.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
The majority of Anglicans in this country go to church about once a year. I wonder why.
Citation needed.
Posted by Rosa Winkel (# 11424) on
:
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).
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
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?
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on
:
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.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
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...
Posted by Indifferently (# 17517) on
:
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.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
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.
Posted by Indifferently (# 17517) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
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.
Posted by Rosa Winkel (# 11424) on
:
I understood Angloid's comment about a "broad church" to mean that the RC church includes the likes of mad Holocaust deniers as well as brilliant parishioners and priests who work among the poor.
Posted by Indifferently (# 17517) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
I don't see how that's for you to decide, Indifferently.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
I'm pretty sure the first Supreme Governor of the Church of England was able to obtain the divorces he sought.
Posted by Indifferently (# 17517) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
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.
Posted by Rosa Winkel (# 11424) on
:
Are you ex-Anglican, Indifferently?
Ex-members of any confession with an axe to grind are very, very tiring.
Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on
:
Perhaps Indifferently would be happier with Genreal Synod if they refused to accept divorce, but were perfectly okay with having your wife beheaded instead?
Posted by Clodsley Shovel (# 16662) on
:
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......
Posted by Gildas (# 525) on
:
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.
Posted by TomM (# 4618) on
:
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...)
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
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.
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on
:
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
Posted by Indifferently (# 17517) on
:
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.
Posted by Vade Mecum (# 17688) on
:
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?
Posted by Rosa Winkel (# 11424) on
:
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.
Posted by Maureen Lash (# 17192) on
:
Returning to the topic, I read Pope Francis remark on the Ordinariate as a muted apology. What do others think?
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Indifferently (# 17517) on
:
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.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
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?
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on
:
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
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on
:
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.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
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.
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on
:
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.
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
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).
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on
:
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 ]
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on
:
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
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
I would say that it has its ups and downs, mainly related to individual primates' interests and qualities, and to their personal fit with their papal interlocutors. Michael Ramsey and Paul VI were one such pair and, to a lesser extent, Rowan Williams and Benedict XVI. The England-centric focus and lesser academic and linguistic qualities of other primates, such as Donald Coggan and George Carey were on the valley side.
John Holding is correct on the gravely diminished ability of Archbishops of Canterbury to speak for a wide range of churches whose own leaders often have a limited mandate. I suspect many in the Vatican are aware of this, but are keeping their eyes open to how Frank and Justin hit it off.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
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.
Article 17, on Predestination, doesn't sound all that Catholic to me, but I'm happy to be corrected. Article 22 on Purgatory specifically repudiates Catholic doctrine, so that seems a bit iffy too. Likewise Article 28 explicitly denies Transubstantiation, and seems to imply rejection of any belief in the Real Presence, again contrary to Catholic teaching.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
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.
You could always come over to the dark side ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
...well, The Salvation Army people do wear dark uniforms! And on moral issues there is hardly any difference between us and Rome.
![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
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
Indeed, but it also works a different way - we need to remember that not all Anglicans are in the UK the US or Canada and therefore are a lot less liberal and would reject any suggestion of moving away from traditional church teaching on doctrine and morality.
When will comfortable western churches being to realise that the Christian centre of the world has moved away from Europe and the North Americas and lies firmly with the South and East?
It is the Episcopal church in the US that is out of step with the majority view. You cannot dictate any longer what the African churches are saying.
And neither should you just insult them when they disagree with your liberal beliefs. That's just patronising and not a little rascist.
Posted by FooloftheShip (# 15579) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
And neither should you just insult them when they disagree with your liberal beliefs. That's just patronising and not a little rascist.
It is not racist. They are purporting to speak in the name of Christ whilst spouting hatred and bile. The colour of a person's skin neither condemns nor excuses them. Hatred is hatred, whether the speaker's skin is white, black, blue, pink or purple.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
When will comfortable western churches being to realise that the Christian centre of the world has moved away from Europe and the North Americas and lies firmly with the South and East?
It is the Episcopal church in the US that is out of step with the majority view. You cannot dictate any longer what the African churches are saying.
And neither should you just insult them when they disagree with your liberal beliefs. That's just patronising and not a little rascist.
To be honest, any serious commentator within the Anglican polity knows this already, and it's incredibly patronising of you to suggest they don't.
If you'd been paying attention over the last, ooh, twenty years or so, you'd have realised that it's the African and Asian anglicans telling the decadent western churches what they can do to whom and with what. Perhaps you ought to nip over to Nigeria and tell them they've no right to dictate to the CofE what we say?
Or is that you're happy to insult us when we disagree with your conservative beliefs? And since when has disagreeing with an African or an Asian been racist? People can be wrong everywhere: it's not continent specific...
Posted by Rosa Winkel (# 11424) on
:
Anglicans from the Global South have personalities, are individuals and are very diverse. They're not some object that can be used by those who wish to score points. I mean, when we start denying these people their diversity simply because of where they live, then we're into very dodgy territory. For that reason, I won't take any lessons about racism about those who do so.
I mean, there are pro-LGBT Ugandans, South Africans and Brazilians.
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
It is the Episcopal church in the US that is out of step with the majority view. You cannot dictate any longer what the African churches are saying.
And neither should you just insult them when they disagree with your liberal beliefs. That's just patronising and not a little rascist.
Comments that have singularly little to do with the points I was trying to make having to do with a polity which, from the evidence of your comments, you do not understand.
At the least, please recognize that when I was talking about the Anglican CHurch of Canada, I was not talking about TEC -- you've been around too long to be able to plead ignorance that the two are different and separate. Even if it were true that TEC had insulted African bishops -- TEC did not, what has that to do with positions taken by the Anglican CHurch of Canada. Unless you are one of those who believes that all "Liberals" are the same, no matter where they are, and are by definition not CHristians, despite the fact that we are. Alexander Pope wrote that "when ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise". I'm not sure where the wisdom lies in your comments.
John
[ 17. June 2013, 16:20: Message edited by: John Holding ]
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Article 17, on Predestination, doesn't sound all that Catholic to me, but I'm happy to be corrected.
Is St Augustine Catholic? For Indifferently's "Catholic" I would read "patristic".
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Article 22 on Purgatory specifically repudiates Catholic doctrine, so that seems a bit iffy too.
The target is not so much Purgatory per se, but the concomitant doctrines of the merits of the saints and the treasury of those merits.
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Likewise Article 28 explicitly denies Transubstantiation, and seems to imply rejection of any belief in the Real Presence, again contrary to Catholic teaching.
Denying Transubstantiation doesn't mean denying the Real Presence (a spiritual presence is no less real--it could be argued that it's even *more* real than a physical one). Cranmer was not a Zwinglian, but a virtualist in his Eucharistic theology.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
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.
So it wasn't Peter Tatchell, it was Gramsci?
I doubt if either Peter Tatchell or the Archbishop of Canterbury are either Gramscians or Marxists. Though the late and rather wonderful Herbert McCabe, who was a Roman Catholic priest, might have been. And there is an Anglo-Catholic priest near me who got the local council to rename the street his vicarage was on "Gramsci Way". And the previous Archbishop of Canterbury had probably at least read Gramsci, which I guess you haven't.
And what has language like "LGBT" got to do with either Gramsci or Marx anyway? You seem to be getting your left-wing bogey-men confused, lumping them all together into one thing.
quote:
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.
Oh but now its not the Marxists, its that cabal of radical revolutionaries the Gernal Synod!
These seem to be messages in a bottle from a strange little world, partioned in two by an unbridgeable gap, where on one side of the Great Divide there are xenophobic little-Englander homophobic (but mildly camp and probably celibate) Tory-voting hish-and-dry Erastian Anglo Catholics who like dressing up and fuss about the minutiate of liturgy and canon law; and on the other side of the Great Gulf Fixed there is everybody else in the world of any other political or religious opinions whatsoever.
So it doesn't matter if someone is a Marxist or a Methodist or a Muslim or liberal or gay or French or an atheist or a Buddhist or a botanist or a social worker or an asylum-seeker or an ordained woman or a Gramscian or an elected member of thee General Synod an anarchist or a liberal-democrat or a logical positivist because really, deep down inside, those are all just different names for the same kind of thing. Not One Of Us.
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?
Oh, the Bible of course ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Like it says in the 39 articles. Personally I'd agree with almost every word of almost (but not quite) all of them.
Which is one of the reasons why Indifferently's blather is so frustrating. It seems to be surrounding the Catholic and Reformed Christian teaching that is at the heart of the Church of England with a whole load of other bumf that you have to believe in order to count as truly and properly Anglican.
Posted by roybart (# 17357) on
:
Posted by ken:
quote:
These seem to be messages in a bottle from a strange little world, partioned in two by an unbridgeable gap, where on one side of the Great Divide there are xenophobic little-Englander homophobic (but mildly camp and probably celibate) Tory-voting hish-and-dry Erastian Anglo Catholics who like dressing up and fuss about the minutiate of liturgy and canon law; and on the other side of the Great Gulf Fixed there is everybody else in the world of any other political or religious opinions whatsoever.
Brilliant! Genuinely witty invective is hard to do. Did you mean to type "high-and-dry"?
Posted by Indifferently (# 17517) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
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.
Article 17, on Predestination, doesn't sound all that Catholic to me, but I'm happy to be corrected. Article 22 on Purgatory specifically repudiates Catholic doctrine, so that seems a bit iffy too. Likewise Article 28 explicitly denies Transubstantiation, and seems to imply rejection of any belief in the Real Presence, again contrary to Catholic teaching.
You are conflating Catholicism with Tridentine Romanism. Article 17 conforms fully to the teaching of S Augustine. Article 22 rejected the mediaeval innovation which could broadle be described as "treasury of merit" and all things with it. 27 merely deals with the false making of a philosophical concept (substance versus accident) originating in pagan philosopher Aristotle into church dogma (the Real Absence of bread and wine).
The Articles dealt with innovations foreign to the Church Fathers, Councils and Scripture.
Posted by Indifferently (# 17517) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
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.
So it wasn't Peter Tatchell, it was Gramsci?
I doubt if either Peter Tatchell or the Archbishop of Canterbury are either Gramscians or Marxists. Though the late and rather wonderful Herbert McCabe, who was a Roman Catholic priest, might have been. And there is an Anglo-Catholic priest near me who got the local council to rename the street his vicarage was on "Gramsci Way". And the previous Archbishop of Canterbury had probably at least read Gramsci, which I guess you haven't.
And what has language like "LGBT" got to do with either Gramsci or Marx anyway? You seem to be getting your left-wing bogey-men confused, lumping them all together into one thing.
quote:
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.
Oh but now its not the Marxists, its that cabal of radical revolutionaries the Gernal Synod!
These seem to be messages in a bottle from a strange little world, partioned in two by an unbridgeable gap, where on one side of the Great Divide there are xenophobic little-Englander homophobic (but mildly camp and probably celibate) Tory-voting hish-and-dry Erastian Anglo Catholics who like dressing up and fuss about the minutiate of liturgy and canon law; and on the other side of the Great Gulf Fixed there is everybody else in the world of any other political or religious opinions whatsoever.
So it doesn't matter if someone is a Marxist or a Methodist or a Muslim or liberal or gay or French or an atheist or a Buddhist or a botanist or a social worker or an asylum-seeker or an ordained woman or a Gramscian or an elected member of thee General Synod an anarchist or a liberal-democrat or a logical positivist because really, deep down inside, those are all just different names for the same kind of thing. Not One Of Us.
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?
Oh, the Bible of course Like it says in the 39 articles. Personally I'd agree with almost every word of almost (but not quite) all of them.
Which is one of the reasons why Indifferently's blather is so frustrating. It seems to be surrounding the Catholic and Reformed Christian teaching that is at the heart of the Church of England with a whole load of other bumf that you have to believe in order to count as truly and properly Anglican.
I gather that you are some sort of clergyman. Not sure all your posts on here demonstrate that very well, including this suggestion that I am a camp Tory-voting bigot. Since none are actually true, I suggest you withstands this innuen'o immediately.
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
And I thought that quote:
Erastian Anglo Catholics
was a contradiction in terms.
I've now had time (ah! what did insomniacs do before the Internet?) to look at the two bishops' statements and they were both generic and territory-conscious with a whiff of references to each other's troubles. I would also interpret them as being the opening of a conversation, and we will just have to see how it goes.
Remember that we have two outsiders who have inherited very different but still substantial messes to deal with. I see an awareness of that. We also will suffer/benefit from (take your choice) their less intensively intellectual roots than their predecessors. In reading Rowan & Bendedict's texts, you could see how they were both really enjoying the exchange of deep and (for the rest of us) requiring-much-chewing thought. From Frank and Justin, I sense figures who are well aware of the troubles out there in their own turfs, and wouldn't mind having a similar mind around with which to confer. We might also note that Frank is perhaps the first pope with a working knowledge of local Anglicanism, rather than glories-of-English-cathedral-choir Anglicanism.
Posted by Indifferently (# 17517) on
:
That should read "withdraw" that "innuendo".
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
That should read "withdraw" that "innuendo".
OK I withdraw my accusation that you vote Tory, It seems to me verly likey from the combination of cultural conservtism and political right-wingery in some of your comments here, but of course I don;t actually know for sure, I'm just guessing.
Are you also withdrawing your strange statements about the Archbishop of Canterbury bowing down to Peter Tatchell? Or being a Gramscian Marxist?
If not, could you offer some evidence that that either of those things is the case? Or at least some explanation of what on earth you meant by them?
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
We might also note that Frank is perhaps the first pope with a working knowledge of local Anglicanism...
Does he? Is there that much of it in Argentina?
He has a reputation for getting on well with evangelicals (as does the ABC) but I hadn't heard he'd had much to do with Anglicans as such.
Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on
:
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.
[Pedantry]
The Archbishop of York is the Primate of England; the Archbishop of Canterbury is the Primate of All England. It is a fudge that the Pope came up with in Norman (I think) times when the two were arguing about which was more important.
[/Pedantry]
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
We might also note that Frank is perhaps the first pope with a working knowledge of local Anglicanism...
Does he? Is there that much of it in Argentina?
He has a reputation for getting on well with evangelicals (as does the ABC) but I hadn't heard he'd had much to do with Anglicans as such.
Not much, but it is there-- there are two dioceses, the northern of which is primarily aboriginal; the southern more or less an ethnic church for the remnants of the anglophone community (many with Hispanic names through intermarriage), even if about half of the services are in Spanish. However, Pope Frank has lunched on a number of occasions with Archbishop Venables and they worked together on some ecumenical stuff-- this seems to be more hands-onish contact than we've seen in previous pontifical c.v.s.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
That should read "withdraw" that "innuendo".
OK I withdraw my accusation that you vote Tory, It seems to me verly likey from the combination of cultural conservtism and political right-wingery in some of your comments here, but of course I don;t actually know for sure, I'm just guessing.
Come now, it's far more likely that he votes UKIP/BNP.
Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on
:
You know, I looked at this thread title and seriously thought you were all discussing a meeting between Justin Beiber and the Pope.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0