homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Ship's Locker   » Limbo   » Purgatory: Pope announces plans for Anglicans to convert in groups (Page 11)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  ...  20  21  22 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Purgatory: Pope announces plans for Anglicans to convert in groups
Pancho
Shipmate
# 13533

 - Posted      Profile for Pancho   Author's homepage   Email Pancho   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
John Paul II himself said he did not have the power to change the the church's stance on the ordination of women.

That statement can be read here: Ordinatio Sacerdotalis

--------------------
“But to what shall I compare this generation? It is like children sitting in the market places and calling to their playmates, ‘We piped to you, and you did not dance;
we wailed, and you did not mourn.’"

Posts: 1988 | From: Alta California | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
the coiled spring
Shipmate
# 2872

 - Posted      Profile for the coiled spring   Author's homepage   Email the coiled spring   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Was told yesterday that some of those holy martyrs of Anglican church who went over to Rome in the !990 over women becoming priest have been sneaking back through the back door. Does anybody know what how many of returned to the warmth and comfort of the C of E?

--------------------
give back to God what He gives so it is used for His glory not ours.

Posts: 2359 | From: mountain top retreat lodge overlooking skegness | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
Sir Pellinore
Quester Emeritus
# 12163

 - Posted      Profile for Sir Pellinore   Email Sir Pellinore   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
My understanding (as the kind of Anglo-Catholic I am, anyway) of sacraments and their validity is that they are definitely valid when consecrated by a priest or bishop in Apostolic Succession (which includes those in the Anglican, Orthodox, and Roman Catholic churches)...

This is the 'Three Branch' theory so beloved of a certain type of Anglo-Catholic of yore.

Sadly, the two other 'branches' never accepted it.

I suspect many of the strongest upholders of this theory went across to the TAC which has already accepted the Magisterum in toto.

Anyone who goes across to Rome from the Anglican Church has to do this. One of the most difficult things coming to Rome will mean for many Anglo-Catholics, clerical and lay, is that they will no longer be able to 'slightly differ from Rome', a very Anglican thing, particularly for the sort of A-C priest who is used to being a minipope in his own parish.

It seems to me that it hasn't fully dawned on some people - including yourself - that the concessions made to those who wish to go across are not concessions on matters of Faith and Morals. These remain the same for all present and future Catholics.

It is extremely difficult for those of us who subscribe to a relativist tradition to realise how things are in an absolute tradition.

As far as Catholics are concerned, when the crunch comes, it is the Pope who makes the final decision on matters of Faith and Morals binding all the faithful.

One of the things we Anglophones fail to realise is that Latins - and the Roman Catholic Church is very Southern European - regard us as incredibly contentious and unable to accept discipline.

I understand your need to be heard, but, after very politely hearing you the Catholic Church will say 'No'.

--------------------
Well...

Posts: 5108 | From: The Deep North, Oz | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged
Loveheart

Blue-scarved menace
# 12249

 - Posted      Profile for Loveheart   Email Loveheart   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I realise this is a tangent, but if a RC priest becomes an Anglican priest, what ceremony does he go through? Is it just a straightforward reception into the C of E?

--------------------
You must not lose faith in humanity. Humanity is an ocean; if a few drops of the ocean are dirty, the ocean does not become dirty. Mahatma Gandhi

Posts: 3638 | From: UK | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159

 - Posted      Profile for Angloid     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):


One of the things we Anglophones fail to realise is that Latins - and the Roman Catholic Church is very Southern European - regard us as incredibly contentious and unable to accept discipline.

Isn't it truer to say that the Latin attitude is 'let's have lots of rules but not be too worried about the occasional transgression', whereas the northern European one is 'let's only have a few rules but make sure we keep to them'?* The problem now is a northern European Pope administering a Latin system.

* For example, there is no speed limit on German roads.

--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!

Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Thurible
Shipmate
# 3206

 - Posted      Profile for Thurible   Email Thurible   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Loveheart:
I realise this is a tangent, but if a RC priest becomes an Anglican priest, what ceremony does he go through? Is it just a straightforward reception into the C of E?

I assume so, yes. (The interesting thing, of course, is that one must be episcopally confirmed to excercise licensed ministry in the CofE. I'm not sure if Catholics, and Orthodox, are exempted from this requirement.)

Thurible

--------------------
"I've been baptised not lobotomised."

Posts: 8049 | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
multipara
Shipmate
# 2918

 - Posted      Profile for multipara   Author's homepage   Email multipara   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I doubt if one would get past first base for priesthood as an RC if one were not confirmed...

Just by the by, I recall reading in the SSPX District of Australia and NZ that a couple of Indian candidates at their seminary in Goulburn( southern NSW )were given conditonal confirmation as the SSPX clergy had doubts about the validity of their (Nervous Order) confirmations back in Mumbai...

m

Posts: 4985 | From: new south wales | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Thurible
Shipmate
# 3206

 - Posted      Profile for Thurible   Email Thurible   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by multipara:
I doubt if one would get past first base for priesthood as an RC if one were not confirmed...


But one can be presbyterally confirmed in the Catholic Church, can't one?

Thurible

--------------------
"I've been baptised not lobotomised."

Posts: 8049 | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38

 - Posted      Profile for Honest Ron Bacardi   Email Honest Ron Bacardi   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
But isn't the oil of chrism episcopally blessed, and the presbyteral confirmation done on behalf of the bishop in person? (Just thinking about it, is this not the same justification for the priest presiding at Mass?)

--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic

Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Matt Black

Shipmate
# 2210

 - Posted      Profile for Matt Black   Email Matt Black   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
And IIRC it's only on special occasions, like the Easter Vigil, where adults are received into full communion with Rome.

--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)

Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Edward Green
Review Editor
# 46

 - Posted      Profile for Edward Green   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
This is the 'Three Branch' theory so beloved of a certain type of Anglo-Catholic of yore.

Sadly, the two other 'branches' never accepted it.


No. They have erred. The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful people, in the which the pure Word of God is preached, and the Sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ’s ordinance in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same.

--------------------
blog//twitter//
linkedin

Posts: 4893 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Thurible
Shipmate
# 3206

 - Posted      Profile for Thurible   Email Thurible   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
But isn't the oil of chrism episcopally blessed, and the presbyteral confirmation done on behalf of the bishop in person? (Just thinking about it, is this not the same justification for the priest presiding at Mass?)

I suppose so. I was just wondering how tight the 'episcopally confirmed' was.

Thurible

--------------------
"I've been baptised not lobotomised."

Posts: 8049 | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
the coiled spring
Shipmate
# 2872

 - Posted      Profile for the coiled spring   Author's homepage   Email the coiled spring   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
With all this fancy words etc coming from man where is God's needs being meet. All the infantile nonsense floating about concerns what man wants and show complete control freaky going on.

Surely it is best to be where God desires us and not what we want.

Now might be a good time to stop all the verbal diarrhoea and head damage and let God have His way with us.

All that is happens is questios being raised if any are really men of God

--------------------
give back to God what He gives so it is used for His glory not ours.

Posts: 2359 | From: mountain top retreat lodge overlooking skegness | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Loveheart:
I realise this is a tangent, but if a RC priest becomes an Anglican priest, what ceremony does he go through? Is it just a straightforward reception into the C of E?

A friend of mine had to spend one term at a theological college and then, when he got a parish, an induction (just like any priest gets when s/he starts as a vicar of a new parish).
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Thurible
Shipmate
# 3206

 - Posted      Profile for Thurible   Email Thurible   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Did he serve as a curate or as priest-in-charge, leo?

Thurible

--------------------
"I've been baptised not lobotomised."

Posts: 8049 | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
FCB

Hillbilly Thomist
# 1495

 - Posted      Profile for FCB   Author's homepage   Email FCB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Isn't it truer to say that the Latin attitude is 'let's have lots of rules but not be too worried about the occasional transgression', whereas the northern European one is 'let's only have a few rules but make sure we keep to them'? The problem now is a northern European Pope administering a Latin system.

This seems right, except I think Benedict's attitude is far more "Latin" than you give him credit for. I haven't seen or felt anything like a clampdown since he has become Pope.

In any case, this is one thing that non-Catholics often miss: for all its rules and pronouncements, Rome is in actual practice a "big tent" church (e.g. Hans Kung and Rosemary Radford Reuther are both RCs in good standing). Of course, the down side of the "in principle/in practice" distinction is that those in power can always arbitrarily decide to put the principle into practice, as a way of singling out particular individuals. But for me, at the end of the day I prefer to have lots of principles loosely enforced than few principles strictly enforced. YMMV.

--------------------
Agent of the Inquisition since 1982.

Posts: 2928 | From: that city in "The Wire" | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483

 - Posted      Profile for Myrrh         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pancho:
quote:
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
John Paul II himself said he did not have the power to change the the church's stance on the ordination of women.

That statement can be read here: Ordinatio Sacerdotalis
Nonsense, he fibbed. CCC882 is the claim for supreme power to act unhindered over the universal Church. He could if he'd wanted to.

The RCC have already instituted a development of doctrine theory to cater for all the changes they've made in the last century.

And women are already being ordained in the Roman Catholic Church, validly.


Roman Catholic Women Priests


Myrrh

Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
IngoB

Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700

 - Posted      Profile for IngoB   Email IngoB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Nonsense, he fibbed. CCC882 is the claim for supreme power to act unhindered over the universal Church. He could if he'd wanted to.

He did not fib. He was talking from the traditional Catholic point of view, which sees the pope as the foremost guardian and guarantor of the faith on earth till Christ returns. CCC882 is not about saying that the pope can do whatever he pleases, it is about saying that nothing and nobody else in the Church can hinder the pope in fulfilling his role as the foremost guardian and guarantor of the faith. You can critique the whole setup by saying that the laws in fact allow the pope to do whatever he pleases. The Catholic answer is of course papal infallibility - namely that if the pope tried to act out his powers other than as the foremost guardian and guarantor of the faith, then the Holy Spirit would stop him. Now, maybe you don't believe in that. Fine. But JPII did. I do, too. It may be a false belief, according to you, but you cannot call statements based on false beliefs a lie - since there is then no intention of speaking falsehood.

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
And women are already being ordained in the Roman Catholic Church, validly
Roman Catholic Women Priests

It is just so sad that you keep spreading FUD about the RCC. What is in it for you?
That only men would be ordained in the RCC was not in question for about 1,500 years before that. In the times of the Church Fathers things get a bit murky, with the same vague sources getting different interpretations. But anyway, your claim about valid women ordinations now in the RCC is not even wrong.

--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear

Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
New Yorker
Shipmate
# 9898

 - Posted      Profile for New Yorker   Email New Yorker   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
But anyway, your claim about valid women ordinations now in the RCC is not even wrong.

Sorry to be obtuse this afternoon, but don't you mean the claim is wrong? Or perhapsh not even correct?

[ 30. October 2009, 16:46: Message edited by: New Yorker ]

Posts: 3193 | From: New York City | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
Did he serve as a curate or as priest-in-charge, leo?

Thurible

Vicar will freehold.

--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com

Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Pancho
Shipmate
# 13533

 - Posted      Profile for Pancho   Author's homepage   Email Pancho   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Myrrh,
IngoB gave a better response than I ever could.

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:

And women are already being ordained in the Roman Catholic Church, validly.
Roman Catholic Women Priests

You should probably read the following story: Vatican decrees excommunication for participation in 'ordination' of women .

The excommunicated members of Womenpriest are not examples of validly ordained priests in the Church. None of them would be allowed to serve at the altar in a Catholic church.

--------------------
“But to what shall I compare this generation? It is like children sitting in the market places and calling to their playmates, ‘We piped to you, and you did not dance;
we wailed, and you did not mourn.’"

Posts: 1988 | From: Alta California | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716

 - Posted      Profile for ChastMastr   Author's homepage   Email ChastMastr   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
Sadly, the two other 'branches' never accepted it.

Sadly, yes, but that's part of our doctrinal differences. It doesn't mean I don't believe it's true.

quote:
Anyone who goes across to Rome from the Anglican Church has to do this.
Yep, that's been my understanding of the situation. Which is why I don't understand the desire to go across from that point of view.

quote:
It seems to me that it hasn't fully dawned on some people - including yourself - that the concessions made to those who wish to go across are not concessions on matters of Faith and Morals. These remain the same for all present and future Catholics.

I don't understand what you mean by "including yourself" here. We are in agreement about Rome's point of view on these matters, which is why I keep being baffled, and possibly a bit disturbed, by the way the offer is being received.

quote:

It is extremely difficult for those of us who subscribe to a relativist tradition to realise how things are in an absolute tradition.

I imagine it might be; not being a relativist, I don't know from experience...

quote:
One of the things we Anglophones fail to realise is that Latins - and the Roman Catholic Church is very Southern European - regard us as incredibly contentious and unable to accept discipline.
I don't know about the English-speaking aspect of it, but I would agree that the Episcopal Church in the US certainly seems that way in my observation. But I've been used to that since becoming a Christian.

quote:
I understand your need to be heard, but, after very politely hearing you the Catholic Church will say 'No'.
I'm not sure what you mean here. I don't think I have a particular need to heard... did you think I was one of the people leaving the Episcopal Church? [Confused]

--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity

Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
Did he serve as a curate or as priest-in-charge, leo?

Thurible

Vicar will freehold.
sorry - for 'will' read 'with'

--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com

Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
IngoB

Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700

 - Posted      Profile for IngoB   Email IngoB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
Sorry to be obtuse this afternoon, but don't you mean the claim is wrong? Or perhapsh not even correct?

No, Myrrh on anything RC is quite generally not even wrong.

--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear

Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
New Yorker
Shipmate
# 9898

 - Posted      Profile for New Yorker   Email New Yorker   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
No, Myrrh on anything RC is quite generally not even wrong.

A phrase with which I was not familiar.
Posts: 3193 | From: New York City | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Sir Pellinore
Quester Emeritus
# 12163

 - Posted      Profile for Sir Pellinore   Email Sir Pellinore   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
Sadly, the two other 'branches' never accepted it.

Sadly, yes, but that's part of our doctrinal differences. It doesn't mean I don't believe it's true.

...

The 'Three Branch' theory is not Anglican 'doctrine'. It was a belief held by a number of Anglo-Catholics to self-justify.

Justifying Anglican belief and sacraments is best IMO done from within the Anglican tradition itself otherwise you end up with absurdities like the 'Three Branch' theory which many Anglicans would not accept. I find Edward Green's statement much more Anglican than the 'Three Branch' theory.

Latins and Northerners? Well, it is significant the Pope is German. I think my point was that the Catholic Church inherited the legal framework and mindset of Imperial Rome.

I know you weren't about to go across, CM, but trying to understand those who do.

When I talk of 'relativist' and 'absolute' I mean that, with the rise of critical biblical scholarship since the midnineteenth century, Anglicans and members of other churches which came out of the Reformation have moved away from feeling they have to believe literally in what were once considered core Christian beliefs. We are talking here of matters such as the Virgin Birth; the Incarnation and the Resurrection.

Some Anglicans still hold to these beliefs and it is they who take issue with the liberals.

The Catholic and Orthodox Churches require members to subscribe to these beliefs.

I would understand you, CM, to be what I call a relativist.

I fear this is not a terribly good post but it is the best I am capable of.

It may well raise many questions which I fear I do not have the expertise to answer.

--------------------
Well...

Posts: 5108 | From: The Deep North, Oz | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483

 - Posted      Profile for Myrrh         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
He did not fib. He was talking from the traditional Catholic point of view, which sees the pope as the foremost guardian and guarantor of the faith on earth till Christ returns. CCC882 is not about saying that the pope can do whatever he pleases, it is about saying that nothing and nobody else in the Church can hinder the pope in fulfilling his role as the foremost guardian and guarantor of the faith. You can critique the whole setup by saying that the laws in fact allow the pope to do whatever he pleases. The Catholic answer is of course papal infallibility - namely that if the pope tried to act out his powers other than as the foremost guardian and guarantor of the faith, then the Holy Spirit would stop him. Now, maybe you don't believe in that. Fine. But JPII did. I do, too. It may be a false belief, according to you, but you cannot call statements based on false beliefs a lie - since there is then no intention of speaking falsehood.

This isn't about the gloss put on it however sincere, and I'm not arguing about the sincerity of your belief, this is about the wording.

This claims that the pope's supreme power over the universal Church is unhindered.

It either is or it isn't. (*)

If it is always a power he can exercise unhindered then it is a lie to say there are any restrictions.

You may believe, and some might hope, that the Holy Spirit stops the pope from making errors, but since pontifications from the chair have shown a consistent violent and bloody immorality through centuries of practise, then either the Holy Spirit is lax in his duties or some have a different idea of her guidance.

Luke 9:55-57 (New King James Version)
55 But He turned and rebuked them, and said, “You do not know what manner of spirit you are of. 56 For the Son of Man did not come to destroy men’s lives but to save them.” And they went to another village. (*)

So, the exercise of this supreme power is unhindered, definitively denying the power of the Holy Spirit to any but the pope. Therefore the pope exercises supreme unhindered power over the Holy Spirit. In contradiction to Pentecost, where it is clear the power of the Holy Spirit descended equally upon all and therefore definitively available to all.

So, the exercise of this supreme power is unhindered, even over Christ. Making Christ of questionable worth to us when He says He is there Himself whenever two or three are gathered in His name, since the papal claim is we must together with Christ look to the pope for supreme ruling.

Why the Anglo Catholics want to go to this is beyond my ken.


quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
It is just so sad that you keep spreading FUD about the RCC. What is in it for you?

Whatever FUD is, just doing my bit.


quote:
...That only men would be ordained in the RCC was not in question for about 1,500 years before that. In the times of the Church Fathers things get a bit murky, with the same vague sources getting different interpretations. But anyway, your claim about valid women ordinations now in the RCC is not even wrong.
Oddly right, then?

Well, there's valid and licit and I think the claims for validity are non existent because a) as you say above, they are built on an innovation and limited tradition, and b) because of the linear nature of succession in the RCC a validly ordained bishop can do as he please and still maintain the line of succession. Which takes us back to Anglican successions and their validity.


Myrrh

(*)
quote:
There was hardly a country in Europe which Gregory did not try to annex to Rome. All the kingdoms of Spain belonged to the Papacy, he said; and other monarchs who had innocently accepted "blessed banners" found that their kingdoms were subject to Rome and owed vassalage in men and money, He claimed Hungary. He threatened to annex France. The United States of Europe, under the control of the Papacy, was Gregory's supreme ideal. Not that he had the least idea of pacifying Europe, on the modern plan. He set swords flying, and flung out threats of war, on the slightest provocation. Armies were the Lord's appointed instruments for making kings "obedient." He claimed the right to interfere in any concern, secular or spiritual, of any country of Europe. "If the Pope is supreme in spiritual things," he naively said, "he had all the greater right to intervene in the smaller matters which are called temporal." And, ignorant as Gregory was, he must have had some knowledge of the fact that his most active assistants — such as Bishop Bonitho, Bishop Anselm, and Cardinal Deusdedit — used and perpetrated forgeries in establishing his credentials.

Popes and the Church

That of course is the 'two swords' doctrine.

M.

Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Quam Dilecta
Shipmate
# 12541

 - Posted      Profile for Quam Dilecta   Email Quam Dilecta       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Angloid has written wisely about Latin vs. Anglo-Saxon attitudes. The difference can be seen most starkly in legal systems: Roman Law begins with legislation; Common Law is based on accumulated precedents. In Roman thinking, (whether that of the ancient republic, the subseqent empire, or the Roman Catholic Church) the rules cannot change, but exceptions can be made. In the Common Law tradition, the rules are empirically derived and can be bent over time to reflect actual behavior.

Adherents of the Common-Law approach often accuse the Roman side of harshness (for defending the integrity of the law) and of hypocrisy (for allowing occasional dispensations), while those on the Roman side are apt to call proponents of the Common-Law approach muddle-headed and sentimental.

--------------------
Blessd are they that dwell in thy house

Posts: 406 | From: Boston, Massachusetts, USA | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716

 - Posted      Profile for ChastMastr   Author's homepage   Email ChastMastr   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
[The 'Three Branch' theory is not Anglican 'doctrine'. It was a belief held by a number of Anglo-Catholics to self-justify.

I must take issue with your statement here -- I certainly believe it because I think it is true, and the others I have known who believe it appear, IMO, to be doing so in all intellectual honesty, and not to "self-justify."

I have not accused you of intellectual dishonesty and would appreciate the same courtesy.


quote:
Justifying Anglican belief and sacraments is best IMO done from within the Anglican tradition itself otherwise you end up with absurdities like the 'Three Branch' theory
Obviously I don't think it's absurd at all.

quote:
which many Anglicans would not accept.
Then I would disagree with them.

quote:
When I talk of 'relativist' and 'absolute' I mean that, with the rise of critical biblical scholarship since the midnineteenth century, Anglicans and members of other churches which came out of the Reformation have moved away from feeling they have to believe literally in what were once considered core Christian beliefs. We are talking here of matters such as the Virgin Birth; the Incarnation and the Resurrection.

Some Anglicans still hold to these beliefs and it is they who take issue with the liberals.

I'd be one of those people who take issue with them myself, yes. It's often been frustrating believing in more core Christian beliefs than most of the priests I have met, which is why at one point I considered going back to Rome.

quote:
The Catholic and Orthodox Churches require members to subscribe to these beliefs.

Technically, so do we; it's right there in the Baptism and Confirmation ritual in the BCP.

quote:
I would understand you, CM, to be what I call a relativist.
I'm not quite sure how, but regardless, I hope you don't mean that pejoratively.

quote:
I fear this is not a terribly good post but it is the best I am capable of.
Yikes! I hope you are not ill or something; I'm not trying to be nasty -- just clear about these things.

quote:
It may well raise many questions which I fear I do not have the expertise to answer.
Not sure what questions those would be...

David

--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity

Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716

 - Posted      Profile for ChastMastr   Author's homepage   Email ChastMastr   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
So, the exercise of this supreme power is unhindered, even over Christ. Making Christ of questionable worth to us when He says He is there Himself whenever two or three are gathered in His name, since the papal claim is we must together with Christ look to the pope for supreme ruling.

I've... never, ever heard anything to suggest that the Popes have any power over Jesus Himself, nor that Jesus looks to the Papacy for ruling. Not when I was studying my catechism before being baptized Roman Catholic, not from any priest, nor anything I have read or heard since joining the Episcopal Church, nor anything I have ever read in any historical or church document going back all through the history of the Christian Church. It sounds like the sort of thing some anti-Catholic Protestants would claim RCs believe based on the words "infallibility of the Pope" but apart from what that doctrine actually consists of as ever taught by the RCC. In all seriousness, where did you hear this? [Confused]

--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity

Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
IngoB

Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700

 - Posted      Profile for IngoB   Email IngoB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Whatever FUD is, just doing my bit.

It's a well-known tactic. Look, I have very little doubt that some demon is egging you on to do "your bit". That's not what I asked though. I asked "What is in it for you?" I think you will find your hands and heart quite empty in spite of all your efforts...

--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear

Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Chesterbelloc

Tremendous trifler
# 3128

 - Posted      Profile for Chesterbelloc   Email Chesterbelloc   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
And IIRC it's only on special occasions, like the Easter Vigil, where adults are received into full communion with Rome.

Maybe if you do RCIA. I didn't.

I was received into the Church at Michaelmas in a private house chapel. I received Confirmation in the same place next Candlemas at the hands of the same cleric, the former parish priest of the parish in which the house is located. [My fellow former-Anglicans sometimes jest that should we be visited by a congenial bishop we could get him to do me "properly". ;-) ]

--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."

Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Triple Tiara

Ship's Papabile
# 9556

 - Posted      Profile for Triple Tiara   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
That's very odd and a breach of the canonical requirements. When a candidate is received into full communion - whatever the date - the priest is required at the same time to confer upon them the sacrament of confirmation.

--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.

Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
the coiled spring
Shipmate
# 2872

 - Posted      Profile for the coiled spring   Author's homepage   Email the coiled spring   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
That's very odd and a breach of the canonical requirements. When a candidate is received into full communion - whatever the date - the priest is required at the same time to confer upon them the sacrament of confirmation.

Is this comething Christ gave us

--------------------
give back to God what He gives so it is used for His glory not ours.

Posts: 2359 | From: mountain top retreat lodge overlooking skegness | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
Emma Louise

Storm in a teapot
# 3571

 - Posted      Profile for Emma Louise   Email Emma Louise   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
No, Myrrh on anything RC is quite generally not even wrong.

A phrase with which I was not familiar.
That's a new one on me too! You learn something every day on the ship...
Posts: 12719 | From: Enid Blyton territory. | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349

 - Posted      Profile for Anglican_Brat   Email Anglican_Brat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Methinks the Pope's real motive in this is to convert the Anglican Choirs of England such as King's College of Cambridge in order to teach Roman Catholics how to sing properly. [Big Grin]

--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.

Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007  |  IP: Logged
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376

 - Posted      Profile for Forthview   Email Forthview   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I once heard the choir of Lichfield (anglican) cathedral singing at Mass in the (rc) cathedral of Strasbourg. I had no idea when I went into the cathdral who was singing but thought it was a very 'anglican' sound.

Most of the choir members received Communion.I wonder if this was an 'anglican use'Mass ?

Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007  |  IP: Logged
Leetle Masha

Cantankerous Anchoress
# 8209

 - Posted      Profile for Leetle Masha   Email Leetle Masha   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
You mean like this, Anglican_Brat? [Biased]

--------------------
eleison me, tin amartolin: have mercy on me, the sinner

Posts: 6351 | From: Hesychia, in Hyperdulia | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716

 - Posted      Profile for ChastMastr   Author's homepage   Email ChastMastr   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
That's very odd and a breach of the canonical requirements. When a candidate is received into full communion - whatever the date - the priest is required at the same time to confer upon them the sacrament of confirmation.

I was just baptized after months of first CCD and then private study with a very nice nun (because I asked so many questions the lay person couldn't answer; she pretty much helped me find the books I needed, this being before the Internet or even decent local bookshops where I was). But then I had not been baptized before, so that may have been the reason.

--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity

Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Bishops Finger
Shipmate
# 5430

 - Posted      Profile for Bishops Finger   Email Bishops Finger   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Being in a rather Hellish mood this morning, I am very tempted to apply Pauli's remark 'That's not right. It's not even wrong.' to the opponents of women bishops..........

Ian J.

--------------------
Our words are giants when they do us an injury, and dwarfs when they do us a service. (Wilkie Collins)

Posts: 10151 | From: Behind The Wheel Again! | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Alt Wally

Cardinal Ximinez
# 3245

 - Posted      Profile for Alt Wally     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
I've... never, ever heard anything to suggest that...
That should tell you something.
Posts: 3684 | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Quam Dilecta
Shipmate
# 12541

 - Posted      Profile for Quam Dilecta   Email Quam Dilecta       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
In response to Forthview's note about the members of a CofE choir receiving communion in Strasbourg Cathedral, it is my understanding that the RC bishops in France have generously granted permission for baptised Christians who believe in the Real Presence to receive the sacrament when they are visiting France and unable to receive the sacrament in thier own churches. It is very likely that their hosts informed the singers about this provision before the mass.

--------------------
Blessd are they that dwell in thy house

Posts: 406 | From: Boston, Massachusetts, USA | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by the coiled spring:
quote:
That's very odd and a breach of the canonical requirements. When a candidate is received into full communion - whatever the date - the priest is required at the same time to confer upon them the sacrament of confirmation.

Is this comething Christ gave us
Yes it is: Matthew 16:19 "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven."

--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com

Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483

 - Posted      Profile for Myrrh         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
I've... never, ever heard anything to suggest that the Popes have any power over Jesus Himself, nor that Jesus looks to the Papacy for ruling. Not when I was studying my catechism before being baptized Roman Catholic, not from any priest, nor anything I have read or heard since joining the Episcopal Church, nor anything I have ever read in any historical or church document going back all through the history of the Christian Church. It sounds like the sort of thing some anti-Catholic Protestants would claim RCs believe based on the words "infallibility of the Pope" but apart from what that doctrine actually consists of as ever taught by the RCC. In all seriousness, where did you hear this? [Confused]

You've missed that I'm analysing the actual words used - IngoB has put in a link to CCC882. It's a statement about the papacy that has been fine tuned to say exactly what it says. I recall there was a huge kerfuffle about the word 'subsist' a few years ago, there's no ambiguity here in CCC882, it means what it says. The pope has assumed and teaches a superiority over the rest of the members of the Church in claiming he alone has perfect dibs on the Holy Spirit, which IngoB finds comforting and I find against the teachings of Christ. CCC882 is the statement about this and I've simply deconstructed it to show how this claim makes nonsense of Christ's teaching.

Myrrh

IngoB - I wrote:

quote:
Oddly right, then?

Well, there's valid and licit and I think the claims for validity are non existent because a) as you say above, they are built on an innovation and limited tradition, and b) because of the linear nature of succession in the RCC a validly ordained bishop can do as he please and still maintain the line of succession. Which takes us back to Anglican successions and their validity.

Apologies, this belonged in thought to the references you gave, so better read: I think the claims for what is valid or not are non existent, etc.

As with the reply to the Anglicans re valid priesthood, what the RCC think as priesthood is not an absolute. Here, those in the RCC ordaining women to the priesthood from valid succession have merely taken it out of the control of pope and magisterium, as did the Anglicans when they left. Illicit according to that control, but it cannot be ruled invalid.

These links have more on the women currently in the priesthood who have upped and done it, and the those still arguing from within the RC Church, much history and arguments on the subject, worth a good read.


Roman Catholic Women Priests

WomenPriestsdotorg


When Pope John Paul II wrote "Priestly ordination, which hands on the office entrusted by Christ to his Apostles of teaching, sanctifying and governing the faithful, has in the Catholic Church from the beginning always been reserved to men alone" in his Apostolic Letter, Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, he is not speaking the truth. Out of ignorance maybe, but the knowledge of the early Church hasn't been lost entirely, note the image of "Bishop Theodora in Women’s Episcopal Succession" and explanation on the first link.

And of course, always to be remembered here in Ireland, our own dear sweet Brigid, ordained bishop.

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Whatever FUD is, just doing my bit.

It's a well-known tactic. Look, I have very little doubt that some demon is egging you on to do "your bit". That's not what I asked though. I asked "What is in it for you?" I think you will find your hands and heart quite empty in spite of all your efforts...
What you think 'a little demon' might well be correct, I don't know 'what's egging me on', but if it is I'm glad of him, he made me look at my own Church first. Painful though it was. Perhaps just supporting, from the easy sideline, the braver as the likes of Ludmila Javorova who "regards herself as someone who has to offer her life in this cause: “In battle the first line always falls, so that the second line can get through.” (second link for her story).


Put not your trust in men and princes..


Myrrh

Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716

 - Posted      Profile for ChastMastr   Author's homepage   Email ChastMastr   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Apart from demons, and FUD, isn't this diving right on down into Dead Horses territory rather than Anglo-Papal relations at this point? [Confused]

--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity

Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Chesterbelloc

Tremendous trifler
# 3128

 - Posted      Profile for Chesterbelloc   Email Chesterbelloc   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
That's very odd and a breach of the canonical requirements. When a candidate is received into full communion - whatever the date - the priest is required at the same time to confer upon them the sacrament of confirmation.

If you say so, Father. But the priest in question was in a position to know the relevant rules and I would be astonished to hear he'd disregarded them. I was received acccording to the new rite within the context of an usus antiquior Mass of the quasi-parochial community to which I belong. The officiant was the parish priest of the parish within which we operate.

Sorry for the further derailment, folks. [Hot and Hormonal]

--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."

Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483

 - Posted      Profile for Myrrh         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
Apart from demons, and FUD, isn't this diving right on down into Dead Horses territory rather than Anglo-Papal relations at this point? [Confused]

It still is about this. One of the points I've been making is that Anglican succession, as it comes from the linear model of succession of the RCC, is valid.

And so, the RCC is wrong to say it is invalid as it can only be called illicit in respect of RCC organisation. The women priests is another example of this.

The Anglicans never lost succession.

If the Anglo-Catholics want to 'return' because they don't like the way the Anglicans are going they will be going back to the claims of papacy, CCC882, and there is no guarantee that all the things they dislike aren't going to happen anyway in the process of "development of doctrine", which is the new doctrine from the infallible magisterium teaching authority to explain changes in the RCC.

What they should be considering, istm, is first whether or not they agree with the papal claims to supreme unhindered power over the universal Church, because it denies the power of the Holy Spirit equally to its members.

If they don't agree with this claim they'd be better off working out some arrangement with the Anglican community if they want whatever benefits there are in being part of a larger organisation, or going their own way.


Myrrh

Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Triple Tiara

Ship's Papabile
# 9556

 - Posted      Profile for Triple Tiara   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
That's very odd and a breach of the canonical requirements. When a candidate is received into full communion - whatever the date - the priest is required at the same time to confer upon them the sacrament of confirmation.

If you say so, Father. But the priest in question was in a position to know the relevant rules and I would be astonished to hear he'd disregarded them. I was received acccording to the new rite within the context of an usus antiquior Mass of the quasi-parochial community to which I belong. The officiant was the parish priest of the parish within which we operate.

Sorry for the further derailment, folks. [Hot and Hormonal]

Well, I do say so Chesterbelloc. Of course you have no reason to trust my word, especially since you would be astonished to trust me against your own priest. So I will need to quote Chapter and verse to you, which I have no difficulty in doing.

quote:
The Rite of Reception into the Full Communion of the Catholic Church respects the traditional sequence of confirmation before eucharist. When the Bishop, whose office it is to receive adult Christians into the full Communion of the Catholic Church (RCIA no.481) entrusts the celebration of the rite to a presbyter, the priest receives from the law itself (Canon 883:2)* the faculty to confirm the candidate for reception and is obliged to use it (Canon 885:2)^; he may not be prohibited from exercising it. The confirmation of such candidates for reception should not be deferred, nor should they be admitted to the Eucharist until they are confirmed. A diocesan bishop who is desirous of confirming those received into full communion should reserve the rite of reception to himself.

* Can. 883 The following possess the faculty of administering confirmation by the law itself:
§2. as regards the person in question, the presbyter who by virtue of office or mandate of the diocesan bishop baptizes one who is no longer an infant or admits one already baptized into the full communion of the Catholic Church;

^Can. 885 §1. The diocesan bishop is obliged to take care that the sacrament of confirmation is conferred on subjects who properly and reasonably seek it.
§2. A presbyter who possesses this faculty must use it for the sake of those in whose favor the faculty was granted.


That is a from the National Statutes of the Catechumenate, confirmed by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments on 26 June 1988 (Prot. 1191/66). It is in the back of the Ritual The Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults, which I presume is what you mean by the "new rite". It simply expands upon what is already explicit in the Rite itself. For Confirmation is part of the Rite itself and there is no option given there to administer Confirmation at a later date.

--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.

Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Low Treason
Shipmate
# 11924

 - Posted      Profile for Low Treason   Email Low Treason   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Pardon me, folks...
*wrests the thread back on topic with herculaean effort*

In Tuesday's Guardian Hans Küng has suggested that any Anglicans who take advantage of Benny's generous offer "will never be more than second-class priests in the Roman church, ... [because] other Catholics are not meant to take part in their liturgical celebrations".

There does seem to be some signs that what is intended is a sort of ecclesiastical apartheid here. The ex-anglicans would be separated from the main body of the RC church, with their own priests and congregations kept firmly in their own churches with their old liturgical usage*. Would other Catholics be free to join them? Would the ex-anglican priests be allowed to minister to those outside their immediate flock?

I suspect maybe not.

However, it is all quite academic, as I very much doubt any complete congregation feels strongly enough to cross the Tiber lock, stock and barrel, together with clergy. Even in the highest and spikiest A-C

As to the church building, one FiFer is quoted in this week's Church Times as saying that "we must now apply ourselves to the task of securing our buildings and our assets.... If whole congregations are to enter a new Ordinariate..issues of finance and bricks and mortar will have... to be tackled".

Its not going to happen. If (say) the whole staff of a branch of Tesco decided to resign to work for Sainsbury's they would not expect to take the store with them. The bricks and mortar of a church do not belong to the congregation; they belong to the Church of England.

So the question is this: If Anglican clergy decide to become R/C, they can continue to celebrate in their 'traditional use' - which will I suspect be something which fairly closely resembles the Novus Ordo. They will have a small, probably negligable following from their former parish, no building, no assets. The CoE is certainly not going to be handing out any sort of dowry. According to Dr Küng, whose opinion makes sense to me at least, they will be set apart from the rest of the Church, in their own little nest of aspic. What on earth do they expect to do?

--------------------
He brought me to the banqueting house, and His banner over me was love.

Posts: 1914 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376

 - Posted      Profile for Forthview   Email Forthview   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The only way that I can see those who are already Catholics being kept away from possible 'anglican use' Catholics would be by the obligation to come to the financial support of one's own parish.

Catholics easily go from one church building to another in order to attend Mass.In most areas there is a list of different Mass times within a given area.I can't see that any one would be forbidden from attending any church or rite which was in full communion with the Holy See.

Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  ...  20  21  22 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools