Thread: Pope Francis interview 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=026379
Posted by sonata3 (# 13653) on :
 
I have to wonder - how far can this Pope go? Did the conclave know what it would be getting? Given that cardinals have been chosen by his two predecessors, is it possible for Pope Francis to make significant change?

[ 23. September 2013, 12:54: Message edited by: Ancient Mariner ]
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
What a guy! I mean WHAT a guy. Even though he wouldn't give me communion ... YET!, what a guy.

God bless the Pope.
 
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
Whoa- I like him! [Yipee]

I probably don't agree with him in all things, but yeah, I like him.
 
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :
 
He's not changing doctrine or dogma, and it's not realistic to imagine that he will. These are pastoral moves, shifts of emphasis. The Pope remains Catholic.
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
Don't we all.
 
Posted by sonata3 (# 13653) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
He's not changing doctrine or dogma, and it's not realistic to imagine that he will. These are pastoral moves, shifts of emphasis. The Pope remains Catholic.
Understood, and I would agree, but is it possible the church will ordain married men as priests, or allow women to be ordained to the permanent diaconate, without changing doctrine or dogma?
 
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :
 
That one is a bit further away.

The point is to reduce the rigidity of condemnation that too many of the church leaders have decided to present.

Up to now, any visibly gay person has to rely on the local priest being a bit flexible against the orders of some elderly conservative in a fancy dress.

There's a difference between "hang 'em all" and "he/she is a person just as we all are"

and it may mean the difference between a RC church that fades as the Millennials mature or one that has a bit of life (I'm talking US/Canada/UK here - I don't know enough about the other bits of the world))
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Don't we all.
no
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
Who chooses to exclude themselves then?
 
Posted by Herrick (# 15226) on :
 
On ordination for women? He did say that the 'genius' of the female should be always considered.
 
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :
 
The interview itself.

Thurible
 
Posted by Mr. Rob (# 5823) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sonata3:

... I have to wonder - how far can this Pope go? Did the conclave know what it would be getting? Given that cardinals have been chosen by his two predecessors, is it possible for Pope Francis to make significant change?

The electors knew exactly what they would be getting. Given the lead time after Benedict's resignation announcement, together with the advanced state of Internet and telecommunications, the college of cardinals was given unprecedented opportunity for mutual consultation before meeting face to face in Rome for further conference before a largely ceremonial conclave. The result was the quick election of Borgolio, with an even larger majority than had elected Ratzinger. Make no mistake, Pope Francis has a large and powerful mandate from the residential cardinal archbishops who elected him to make sweeping changes in the governance of the church.

*
 
Posted by Mockingale (# 16599) on :
 
Even if it doesn't represent a change in doctrine, it's a step in the right direction. I wouldn't expect a Pope to turn on a dime on doctrine, even if some of the things (the ban on contraception and IVF) make very little sense to me.

He's right - it's one thing to have these doctrines that are difficult to accept, and another to act as if they are the most important questions in the Christian life. The emphasis of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops on dead horse issues is illustrative. Imagine if instead of worrying so much about contraceptives in health care plans they refocused that energy on the unfair portrayal and treatment of the poor in US politics and the media.

[ 20. September 2013, 10:54: Message edited by: Mockingale ]
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
I also like this guy.
 
Posted by TheAlethiophile (# 16870) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
The Pope remains Catholic.
And there lies the problem. As soon as he embraces the reformation, renounces the anathemas of the Council of Trent, then we might start to consider the catholic church to once again be part of christianity. Until then, it remains detached from the rest of the Church at large.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sonata3:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
He's not changing doctrine or dogma, and it's not realistic to imagine that he will. These are pastoral moves, shifts of emphasis. The Pope remains Catholic.
Understood, and I would agree, but is it possible the church will ordain married men as priests, or allow women to be ordained to the permanent diaconate, without changing doctrine or dogma?
The ministry of women isn't dogma.

Dogma =
quote:
truths formally and explicitly revealed by God are certainly dogmas in the strict sense when they are proposed or defined by the Church. Such are the articles of the Apostles' Creed. Similarly, truths revealed by God formally, but only implicitly, are dogmas in the strict sense when proposed or defined by the Church. Such, for example, are the doctrines of Transubstantiation, papal infallibility, the Immaculate Conception, some of the Church's teaching about the Saviour, the sacraments, etc. All doctrines defined by the Church as being contained in revelation are understood to be formally revealed, explicitly or implicitly
this RC source.

It is only a change in dogma if you see it as a change in 'teaching about the sacraments, i.e. the 'matter' of the sacrament of ordination.

[ 20. September 2013, 14:18: Message edited by: leo ]
 
Posted by Lothiriel (# 15561) on :
 
This bit of the interview caught my eye:

quote:
We have to work harder to develop a profound theology of the woman.
This sounds rather patronizing. We seem to have unmarked theology, which is implicitly male, and then there is a marked subset for females.

Although Francis is using more conciliatory language and being a little more inclusive than his predecessors, he's not re-shaping Catholic doctrine or practice on this matter as far as I can see. He still sees women as Other.
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TheAlethiophile:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
The Pope remains Catholic.
And there lies the problem. As soon as he embraces the reformation, renounces the anathemas of the Council of Trent, then we might start to consider the catholic church to once again be part of christianity. Until then, it remains detached from the rest of the Church at large.
Way to give as good as you get.
[Biased]
 
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sonata3:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
He's not changing doctrine or dogma, and it's not realistic to imagine that he will. These are pastoral moves, shifts of emphasis. The Pope remains Catholic.
Understood, and I would agree, but is it possible the church will ordain married men as priests, or allow women to be ordained to the permanent diaconate, without changing doctrine or dogma?
The former change would be simply an adjustment of discipline. The Church has (rightly or wrongly) backed itself into a corner regarding the ordination of women to any office of the sacred ministry.
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Rob:
quote:
Originally posted by sonata3:

... I have to wonder - how far can this Pope go? Did the conclave know what it would be getting? Given that cardinals have been chosen by his two predecessors, is it possible for Pope Francis to make significant change?

The electors knew exactly what they would be getting. Given the lead time after Benedict's resignation announcement, together with the advanced state of Internet and telecommunications, the college of cardinals was given unprecedented opportunity for mutual consultation before meeting face to face in Rome for further conference before a largely ceremonial conclave. The result was the quick election of Borgolio, with an even larger majority than had elected Ratzinger. Make no mistake, Pope Francis has a large and powerful mandate from the residential cardinal archbishops who elected him to make sweeping changes in the governance of the church.

*
Moreover, Borgolio was reportedly the runner-up in the previous election, which means the cardinals present for both of the last two papal conclaves thoroughly considered his potential twice. It's hard to think they didn't know exactly what they were doing. I only wonder how many of them wish they'd gone with Borgolio last time.

All in all, however Pope Francis ends up working out for the Catholic Church, he certainly is good for Christianity, at least where I live, where the Catholic Church has the only religious voice big enough to be a counterweight to the conservative evangelicals in the marketplace of ideas. One friend, an Episcopal priest who is pleased with what Pope Francis has been saying, put it this way: "He's good for the brand."
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
The man's name is Jorge Mario Bergoglio, not "Borgolio".

I've read the interview. He's a typical modern Jesuit. There are people who think a pope taking the name "Pius" can do no wrong... well, what about Pope Pius VII then? [Biased]
 
Posted by Organ Builder (# 12478) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
He's a typical modern Jesuit.
...except that he is the Pope. I think I would consider that to take him out of the "typical" range. It also means that if he teaches the "typical modern Jesuit" line, it's going to have a lot more impact within the Catholic Church than it would if he were NOT the Pope.
 
Posted by Plique-à-jour (# 17717) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
One friend, an Episcopal priest who is pleased with what Pope Francis has been saying, put it this way: "He's good for the brand."
Bingo.

The problem I have with all Pope Francis's public pronouncements is that if they were a cynical attempt to make the general public forget what they've heard about the Catholic Church in the last decade or so, they'd sound exactly the same. I get the queasy feeling that some of the people running the Church think that this obvious rebranding is a solution. The worst of it is that it seems to be working on the media.
 
Posted by Plique-à-jour (# 17717) on :
 
Let me clarify that: whether the Pope himself is cynical or not is unknowable, but his selection, and the character they've decided to attribute to him, is manifestly about damage limitation and image crafting.
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
And ... here is Pope Francis speaking out against abortion today: original in Italian, comment with some translation in news.
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
quote:
IngoB: And ... here is Pope Francis speaking out against abortion today: original in Italian, comment with some translation in news.
In the second article, there are pictures of him with Porfirio Lobo. There are some things about that guy that I can only say in Hell.
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
And ... if you want to know what Pope Francis thinks about gay marriage, you can read that here, in a three year old letter. (Warning, this is hosted on Rorate Caeli, a website generally NSFL.)
 
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 
I think that was evident in the original interview we were discussing, where he prefaced his comments with a statement along the lines of:

Of course I am a son of the church but
 
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TheAlethiophile:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
The Pope remains Catholic.
And there lies the problem. As soon as he embraces the reformation, renounces the anathemas of the Council of Trent, then we might start to consider the catholic church to once again be part of christianity. Until then, it remains detached from the rest of the Church at large.
Wow. Even I find this hilarious.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:

All in all, however Pope Francis ends up working out for the Catholic Church, he certainly is good for Christianity, at least where I live, where the Catholic Church has the only religious voice big enough to be a counterweight to the conservative evangelicals in the marketplace of ideas. One friend, an Episcopal priest who is pleased with what Pope Francis has been saying, put it this way: "He's good for the brand."
I think he's playing "the long game", personally. I think he knows that attitudes need to change before dogma can, so he is attacking attitudes first.

He might not see the fruit in his tenure, but it will be worth the effort down the line.
 
Posted by roybart (# 17357) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
He's not changing doctrine or dogma, and it's not realistic to imagine that he will. These are pastoral moves, shifts of emphasis. The Pope remains Catholic.
It looks like we are entering a new stage in the ongoing struggle for the power to decide what "Catholic" means.

quote:
Asked what it means for him to "think with the church," a phase used by the Jesuit founder St. Ignatius, "Francis said that it did not mean "thinking with the hierarchy of the church."

"This church with which we should be thinking is the home of all, not a small chapel that can hold only a small group of selected people," he aid. "We must not reduce the bosom of the universal church to a news protecting our mediocrity."
The RCC itself has always been a big tent, whatever the leadership of the time has done or not done. It is heartening that Pope Francis both acknowledges and embraces this.

As a former Catholic, I've long felt that the RCC -- i.e., the "official church," the church of John Paul II and Benedict XVI, and of the curias and hierarchies they have given such great power -- is guilty of what you might call the Sin of Disproportion. The focus and passion have been whittled down to a relatively small number of contentious moral issues. The connection with God's own priorities and for the value of every single created person has become less and less clear.

Add me to the list of those who will be watching closely and wishing this Pope well. In my case, as one who departed from the RCC long ago, I will by necessity be doing this from the outside looking in.
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
The man's name is Jorge Mario Bergoglio, not "Borgolio".
[Hot and Hormonal]
quote:

And ... here is Pope Francis speaking out against abortion today: original in Italian, comment with some translation in news.
The AP and Cardinal Dolan both say Pope Francis has sent "shockwaves" through the church. Do you think this is true?
 
Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :
 
I was going to start a thread asking how the Pope was being received after some of his recent pronouncements. Mainly because of a blog I stumbled across after it was linked to from another I read. But I've been a bit busy and didn't get round to it.

The author of this blog has an enormous bee in his bonnet over the current Pope. Part of this stems from an apparent obsession on his part over dead horses, that the Pope hasn't spoken enough about for his liking (and indeed, has apparently "endorsed" by not kicking one out of his entourage).

Another significant aspect of it though appears to be a dislike of the Pope's general behaviour - namely - didn't wear the red shoes, didn't wear the right outfit, didn't turn up to some official concert, didn't live in the official residence, didn't go to the official summer residence, didn't drive round in the official car etc etc.

Now, as a Methodist, we don't set much stall by the expected actions of the President of Conference - but they are only for a year at a time anyway. So I was interested to find out what Catholics thought of him. Which The Ship is good for.

I'd guess that as was mentioned up thread, the Catholic Church is in fact a big place, and lots of different factions will be rather cheesed off with each particular Pope for their own reasons. Perhaps it's just easier for people to publicise that nowadays.
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
The AP and Cardinal Dolan both say Pope Francis has sent "shockwaves" through the church. Do you think this is true?
In my opinion, so far Pope Francis has managed to generate a lot of waves in the press and probably also in the episcopate. I do not think that either of these has in turn managed to stir up the Church at large significantly. Radicals on either side have of course fulfilled their "canary in a coal mine" role, but their excitement (positive or negative) is no accurate measure of the overall state of the Church.

I think what is being underreported here is just how ordinary Pope Francis is in terms of much of parish life in the West. I think a good number of priests and indeed bishops could begin a reading of Pope Francis various statements with "As I have been saying for the last few decades, ..." I've heard the same sort of thing ever since I joined the RCC, just from lower ranks of the hierarchy.

From my perspective, with sympathies for the conservative and traditional side of things without being fully signed up to any particular group, the problem here is that there was a kind of "checks and balance" thing going on between Rome, the regional episcopate and the laity / parish priests. People less happy with Rome in the last decades would perhaps call it a stalemate. It seems like one of the players, Rome, has now toppled over. What will happen next is unclear to me, but I for one will probably not like it...
 
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :
 
I like what I've read of him too. Mostly. It's very confusing.
 
Posted by bad man (# 17449) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by CL on 25 September, 2012 here :
The cultural, liturgical and theological war that has raged in the Catholic Church since the 1960s is over bar the shouting; the liberals lost decisively and irrevocably when Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger was elected Pope.
I suppose it's not over until it's over, eh?

Which is never, as long as the Church is a living body of living people.
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
FWIW, Pope Francis has excommunicated a "rebel priest" based on a direct complaint to the CDF without consulting the local bishop: secular media report. (Rebel about the usual stuff apparently: female ordination, gay marriage, etc.)
 
Posted by Lawrence (# 4913) on :
 
I agree that Francis is playing "the long game", which is the only game in an organization that has a two thousand year old world view. I think Francis is mostly what he appears to be: a simple man committed to the gospel of Jesus Christ. What he is not is a simpleton and he is not naive. He understands the power politics of the Church, but he also understands how important the church is and can be (must be). He will not be co-opted by the existing power structure but he will not be sand-bagged by it either.

I lilke the guy and I pray for his success.
 
Posted by *Leon* (# 3377) on :
 
And another interview with the pope!

Plenty of very interesting quotes. Maybe more significantly, he tallks with some detail about reforming the curia. This seems to be the first actual 'action'.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
Don't hold your breath.

The college of cardinals still has over 100 members who were put there by JP II and he tended to make bishops and cardinals out of people whose conservatism chimed with his own.

Benedict XVI was made a cardinal by Paul VI and I think has demonstrated by his abdication that he is less conservative than had been thought.

It may be that Francis I is more traditional than people wish.
 
Posted by SeraphimSarov (# 4335) on :
 
He will confound both the "liberals" who are already whining that he is not ordaining women and passing out contraception at the Vatican and the Trads because he is not wearing brocade for every Papal Mass and not concentrating on the 2 issues that they think he should
He's doing very well
 
Posted by Timothy the Obscure (# 292) on :
 
I thought the most interesting part of the interview was Francis's remark about a horizontal as opposed to a vertical church structure--that could have real repercussions. Monarchy is as anachronistic in the church as it is in the state.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
quote:
Posted by Timothy the Obscure
Monarchy is as anachronistic in the church as it is in the state.
An odd statement in light of the fact that the triple tiara is still the official symbol of the papacy and is used on all official documents as well as buildings and insignia.
 
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
quote:
Posted by Timothy the Obscure
Monarchy is as anachronistic in the church as it is in the state.
An odd statement in light of the fact that the triple tiara is still the official symbol of the papacy and is used on all official documents as well as buildings and insignia.
True, but if he goes on making statements like that it will be the triple tiara that starts to look odd.
 
Posted by roybart (# 17357) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by *Leon*:
And another interview with the pope!
My favorite quote from this interview:
quote:
Proselytism is solemn nonsense, it makes no sense. We need to get to know each other, listen to each other and improve our knowledge of the world around us.... The world is crisscrossed by roads that come closer together and move apart, but the important thing is that they lead towards the Good.
I'm not naive about this. There are elements of brilliant public relations in his outreach at this time. Francis certainly believes is spreading the Word and is not averse to slamming voices within the Church who go too far (in his estimation) from traditional Church views of what "the Good" involves.

But ... having said all that ... I admit to feeling a rush of hope when I read phrases like "expand the circle of ideas." Or when he says, in a tone vastly different from that used by Benedict when making essentially the same point:
quote:
Personally I think that being a minority is actually a strength."
The interviewer from La Repubblica chooses to stay away from dead horses like the abuse scandal, abortion, homosexuality, and the role of women in the church. So does the Pope. I'm glad they did so. There is so much else about life, inside and outside "the church," that needs talking about and listening for.

[ 06. October 2013, 21:54: Message edited by: roybart ]
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
I've only just got round to reading the Scalfari interview, but the Holy Father says two things in particular with which I strongly agree:

"Proselytism is solemn nonsense, it makes no sense. We need to get to know each other, listen to each other and improve our knowledge of the world around us."

The Son of God became incarnate in order to instill the feeling of brotherhood in the souls of men. All are brothers and all children of God. Abba, as he called the Father. I will show you the way, he said. Follow me and you will find the Father and you will all be his children and he will take delight in you. Agape, the love of each one of us for the other, from the closest to the furthest, is in fact the only way that Jesus has given us to find the way of salvation and of the Beatitudes."

Preaching usually gets us nowhere, it just irritates people and pushes them further away. especially preaching which centres on dogma with threats of damnation if you don't accept what I say. The way of Jesus is agape, love of God and neighbour. As St Francis of Asisi said, "Preach the gospel at all times. If necessary use words."
 
Posted by art dunce (# 9258) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
I've only just got round to reading the Scalfari interview, but the Holy Father says two things in particular with which I strongly agree:

"Proselytism is solemn nonsense, it makes no sense. We need to get to know each other, listen to each other and improve our knowledge of the world around us."

The Son of God became incarnate in order to instill the feeling of brotherhood in the souls of men. All are brothers and all children of God. Abba, as he called the Father. I will show you the way, he said. Follow me and you will find the Father and you will all be his children and he will take delight in you. Agape, the love of each one of us for the other, from the closest to the furthest, is in fact the only way that Jesus has given us to find the way of salvation and of the Beatitudes."

Preaching usually gets us nowhere, it just irritates people and pushes them further away. especially preaching which centres on dogma with threats of damnation if you don't accept what I say. The way of Jesus is agape, love of God and neighbour. As St Francis of Asisi said, "Preach the gospel at all times. If necessary use words."
I think this is especially true when trying to reach young people. When they speak of compassion they talk about the Dalai Lama and not Christ and certainly never the church.
 
Posted by roybart (# 17357) on :
 
"Preaching," insofar as it is limited to talking TO or AT someone, without the qualities of listening and learning that the Pope is careful to mention, can definitely be a turn-off. (Except, I suspect, for those who already agree with the preacher and are at best looking for new arguments to defend old convictions.)
 
Posted by PaulBC (# 13712) on :
 
I like the man's thoughts they seem more inclusive than many of his predecessors. Also his approach to humility , less formality than most of his predcessors.
All churches need to be less formal and more humble helps to get the Gospel message out . But I think Pope Francis may be setting an universal example.
 
Posted by Timothy the Obscure (# 292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
quote:
Posted by Timothy the Obscure
Monarchy is as anachronistic in the church as it is in the state.
An odd statement in light of the fact that the triple tiara is still the official symbol of the papacy and is used on all official documents as well as buildings and insignia.
True, but if he goes on making statements like that it will be the triple tiara that starts to look odd.
I don't think an '84 Renault has that much headroom.
 
Posted by Sir Kevin (# 3492) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sonata3:
....but is it possible the church will ordain married men as priests?
The church has done so, but not very many. Most come from the Anglican tradition. I have seen one of them preach at my old RC parish. The Pope does remain Catholic.
 
Posted by *Leon* (# 3377) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sonata3:
but is it possible the church will ordain married men as priests
I think that transferring power from the vatican to local churches could have very wide-ranging effects. Instead of this question being considered by a bunch of theologians who are isolated from reality, it will be decided by a bunch of bishops who have a lot of vacancies to fill and not enough priests.
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
Before we all get too carried away with what the Pope actually said in the Scalfari interview, let's take account of the rather stunning news that Scalfari “did not tape his interview with Pope Francis, nor did he take notes, so the text was an after-the-fact reconstruction.”
 
Posted by Frankenstein (# 16198) on :
 
[QUOquote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
The Pope remains Catholic.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And there lies the problem. As soon as he embraces the reformation, renounces the anathemas of the Council of Trent, then we might start to consider the catholic church to once again be part of christianity. Until then, it remains detached from the rest of the Church at large.
TE] [/QUOTE]
Why should the Pope embrase the reformation, the Catholic Church had its own reformation, the Council of Trent being part of it.
The reformation has begotten several thousand denominations, none of which seem too keen on of being one Christian body.
 
Posted by Frankenstein (# 16198) on :
 
It seems to me that after the Oxford Movement, the Church of England, has desperately been trying to return to Rome.
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Frankenstein:
It seems to me that after the Oxford Movement, the Church of England, has desperately been trying to return to Rome.
There's only ever been a small section of the Church of England which has desperately tried to return to Rome. Those of us who felt that way were given the opportunity when Pope Benedict XVI erected the Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham. But there have only been about 1500 people, clergy and laity, who took up the Pope's offer. Hardly significant to either the Church of England or the Roman Catholic Church.
 
Posted by Frankenstein (# 16198) on :
 
From Wikipedia

The Oxford Movement was a movement of High Church Anglicans, eventually developing into Anglo-Catholicism. The movement, whose members were often associated with the University of Oxford, argued for the reinstatement of lost Christian traditions of faith and their inclusion into Anglican liturgy and theology. They conceived of the Anglican Church as one of three branches of the Catholic Church.
It was also known as the Tractarian Movement after its series of publications Tracts for the Times, published between 1833 and 1841. The group was also disparagingly called Newmanites (pre-1845) and Puseyites (post-1845) after two prominent Tractarians, John Henry Newman and Edward Bouverie Pusey. Other well-known Tractarians included John Keble, Charles Marriott, Richard Hurrell Froude, Robert Wilberforce, Isaac Williams and William Palmer.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:
Originally posted by Frankenstein:
It seems to me that after the Oxford Movement, the Church of England, has desperately been trying to return to Rome.
There's only ever been a small section of the Church of England which has desperately tried to return to Rome.
But those of us who remain want to work towards unity (and that isn't just those of us in the catholic wing) - otherwise what has ARCIC been about?

[ 10. October 2013, 14:47: Message edited by: leo ]
 
Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Frankenstein:
From Wikipedia

The Oxford Movement was a movement of High Church Anglicans, eventually developing into Anglo-Catholicism. The movement, whose members were often associated with the University of Oxford, argued for the reinstatement of lost Christian traditions of faith and their inclusion into Anglican liturgy and theology. They conceived of the Anglican Church as one of three branches of the Catholic Church.
It was also known as the Tractarian Movement after its series of publications Tracts for the Times, published between 1833 and 1841. The group was also disparagingly called Newmanites (pre-1845) and Puseyites (post-1845) after two prominent Tractarians, John Henry Newman and Edward Bouverie Pusey. Other well-known Tractarians included John Keble, Charles Marriott, Richard Hurrell Froude, Robert Wilberforce, Isaac Williams and William Palmer.
So?? Nothing there about what proportion of the CofE belonged to the Oxford Movement.
 
Posted by Frankenstein (# 16198) on :
 
I would say that the Oxford Movement engaged the brains of the intellectual elite and not the average person in the pew.
Nevertheless the Movement has affected the liturgy and rubrics of the C of E not to mention the doctrine of the more High Church members.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
What effected the liturgy is not so much the oxford Movement as the Cambridge Camden Society and other ritualistic movements that it gave birth to.
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
What effected the liturgy is not so much the oxford Movement as the Cambridge Camden Society and other ritualistic movements that it gave birth to.
Indeed. Although as an Oxford man (and AC) it pains me to say it, the Oxford Movement is more of an interesting cul-de-sac than anything else. Most of the real heavy lifting was done by folk from the other place.
 
Posted by Amos (# 44) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:
Originally posted by Frankenstein:
It seems to me that after the Oxford Movement, the Church of England, has desperately been trying to return to Rome.
There's only ever been a small section of the Church of England which has desperately tried to return to Rome.
But those of us who remain want to work towards unity (and that isn't just those of us in the catholic wing) - otherwise what has ARCIC been about?
What ARCIC was about in 1967-68 when it first met in Malta, Buckinghamshire, and Gazzada was clear. It is arguably much less clear what it has become over the decades since then. A club, perhaps, for well-meaning, like-minded men. A despoiler of the soft-wood forests of the north.
[Razz] Of course ARCIC is now a sacred beast, and, were it to end officially--it has been more and more languid since 2007---that would be seen as a sign of disunity. So the club goes on meeting. http://www.anglicancommunion.org/ministry/ecumenical/dialogues/catholic/arcic/

[ 11. October 2013, 11:21: Message edited by: Amos ]
 
Posted by Frankenstein (# 16198) on :
 
The Oxford Movement gave rise to such people as:
Thomas William Allies, Church historian and former Anglican priest
Edward Lowth Badeley, ecclesiastical lawyer
Robert Hugh Benson, son of the Archbishop of Canterbury, novelist
John Chapman OSB, patristic scholar and Roman Catholic priest
Augusta Theodosia Drane, writer and Dominican prioress
Frederick William Faber, theologian, hymn writer, Oratorian
Gerard Manley Hopkins, poet
Robert Stephen Hawker, poet
Ronald Knox, Biblical texts translator and formerly an Anglican priest
Henry Edward Manning, later Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster
John Brande Morris,
Augustus Pugin, architect
William George Ward, theologian
Benjamin Williams Whitcher, American Episcopal priest
John Henry Newman
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Frankenstein:
The Oxford Movement gave rise to such people as:
Thomas William Allies, Church historian and former Anglican priest
Edward Lowth Badeley, ecclesiastical lawyer
Robert Hugh Benson, son of the Archbishop of Canterbury, novelist
John Chapman OSB, patristic scholar and Roman Catholic priest
Augusta Theodosia Drane, writer and Dominican prioress
Frederick William Faber, theologian, hymn writer, Oratorian
Gerard Manley Hopkins, poet
Robert Stephen Hawker, poet
Ronald Knox, Biblical texts translator and formerly an Anglican priest
Henry Edward Manning, later Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster
John Brande Morris,
Augustus Pugin, architect
William George Ward, theologian
Benjamin Williams Whitcher, American Episcopal priest
John Henry Newman
This is wandering off topic but a closer reading of Wikipedia, from whence that list comes, would of course make the distinction that, although, it is on the Oxford Movement page, that is a list of prominent *tractarians* who joined the RC church. The tractarian movement and the Oxford Movement are not quite the same thing, although they share a common wellspring and overlap on a case by case basis.

What this has to do with Pope Francis though.... I'm sure there would also be good list of leading tractarians who did not become RC, beginning of course with Dr Pusey himself....

The Tractarians, Oxford Movement and Ritualists had a profound effect on the worship of the CofE, including everyday things that we now take for granted such as weekly eucharists and vestments. They conspicuously did not encourage thousands of Roman converts, nor is the list above representative in any way of a creaming off of the intellectual elite of the CofE. For every one on that list, a bit of research could give you multiple people of equal stature who remained CofE. Which is not a criticism of where any one person ended up, but it is to say that rumours of the success of the Oxford Movement as a successful and thronged bridge to Rome are partial at best....
 
Posted by Frankenstein (# 16198) on :
 
The original posting was:

Pope Francis interview: How far can this Pope go?
Is it possible for Pope Francis to make significant change?

To me, these questions are of the ilk: “Have you stopped beating your wife?”
They imply that there is a need for change.

Vatican 2 produced many changes…

The issue of married priests is not a matter of doctrine rather a question of practise.

I find the number of posts relating to the Catholic Church astonishing and bewildering, possibly even flattering!

How about having a go at the Plymouth Brethren, the Wee Frees, The Latter Day Saints, our Ulster Presbyterian friends etc…
 
Posted by Sir Kevin (# 3492) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Frankenstein:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
The Pope remains Catholic.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And there lies the problem. As soon as he embraces the reformation, renounces the anathemas of the Council of Trent, then we might start to consider the catholic church to once again be part of christianity. Until then, it remains detached from the rest of the Church at large.
Why should the Pope embrace the reformation? the Catholic Church had its own reformation, the Council of Trent being part of it.
The reformation has begotten several thousand denominations, none of which seem too keen on of being one Christian body.

Thank you for espousing the Roman Catholic point of view so succinctly and lambasting the bigotry of the post quoted!
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0