|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Pope announces plans for Anglicans to convert in groups
|
FCB
Hillbilly Thomist
# 1495
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
Read this today. Stereotypes, misinformation. Somebody is feeling threatened.
I'm usually pretty thick-skinned on Catholic stuff. I figure, "we're a big target and we have been know to strut and swagger, so any criticism we get is more or less something we asked for." But this made me want to smack the good bishop upside the head.
Then I took a deep breath and decided that the charitable interpretation is that he is a bishop of little brain and so cannot be held responsible for his words.
--------------------
Agent of the Inquisition since 1982.
Posts: 2928 | From: that city in "The Wire" | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
That, and he's getting a due beating below in the comments box, the insufferable arse.
[ 05. November 2009, 18:26: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alt Wally
Cardinal Ximinez
# 3245
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by FCB:
But this made me want to smack the good bishop upside the head.
Well yes, it wasn't just some basic nativist style trope; as thurible noted in the part he quoted, Bishop Kirk had to get a shot in below the belt.
Tsk, Tsk.
[ 05. November 2009, 19:15: Message edited by: Alt Wally ]
Posts: 3684 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hooker's Trick
Admin Emeritus and Guardian of the Gin
# 89
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
then where on earth has everyone else been leaving for? Orthodoxy? Protestant denoms.?
Presumably where most people end up who leave churches, in Arizona and elsewhere: the sofa and Sunday papers.
Posts: 6735 | From: Gin Lane | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
welsh anglican
Apprentice
# 11566
|
Posted
I haven't said anything for such a long time on here BUT
for goodness sake! We fought for a reformation in the 16th century. If you think the Vicar of Rome can offer you more than the Archbishop of Canterbury then go. Leave us remaining Anglicans to welcome those beloved of Christ.
Posts: 5 | From: Wales | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by welsh anglican:
I haven't said anything for such a long time on here BUT
for goodness sake! We fought for a reformation in the 16th century. If you think the Vicar of Rome can offer you more than the Archbishop of Canterbury then go. Leave us remaining Anglicans to welcome those beloved of Christ.
A few points :
1. He's the Bishop of Rome, not its Vicar.
2. How many of those principles, over which so much blood was shed during the Reformation, are still thought by Anglicans to be important?
3. Are you suggesting that Roman Catholics are not beloved of Christ?
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alt Wally
Cardinal Ximinez
# 3245
|
Posted
Are there any monasteries around to dissolve and expropriate?
Posts: 3684 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sir Pellinore
Quester Emeritus
# 12163
|
Posted
As the actual details of how these Anglicans will be received are fleshed out I think many waverers may hold back.
So much venom has been expressed about the business from some quarters that I fear it has been blown completely out of proportion.
Normal service(s) will continue. ![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
--------------------
Well...
Posts: 5108 | From: The Deep North, Oz | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Choirboy
Shipmate
# 9659
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
then where on earth has everyone else been leaving for? Orthodoxy? Protestant denoms.?
Presumably where most people end up who leave churches, in Arizona and elsewhere: the sofa and Sunday papers.
The sofa, perhaps, but surely not the Sunday papers or the newspaper industry would be going gangbusters.
Posts: 2994 | From: Minneapolis, Minnesota USA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
Hmmm, might some of the attrition being older parishioners dying off without being replaced by their offspring?
(Getting sort of off-topic, but that occurred to me...)
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
quote:
Originally posted by welsh anglican:
I haven't said anything for such a long time on here BUT
for goodness sake! We fought for a reformation in the 16th century. If you think the Vicar of Rome can offer you more than the Archbishop of Canterbury then go. Leave us remaining Anglicans to welcome those beloved of Christ.
A few points :
1. He's the Bishop of Rome, not its Vicar.
2. How many of those principles, over which so much blood was shed during the Reformation, are still thought by Anglicans to be important?
3. Are you suggesting that Roman Catholics are not beloved of Christ?
There are plenty of Anglicans who balk at making belief in Transubstantiation, a theory derived more from Aristotle than from the Gospel writers, a mandatory doctrine in which one's eternal salvation is in peril if one does not accept it fuly.
--------------------
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
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
Maybe a Catholic theologian could explain this better, but I thought that transubstantiation was expressed in Aristotelian terms, not that one was actually required to subscribe to Aristotelian thought. Presumably that which is being described is amenable to other descriptive forms.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
AB I should leave those who are roman catholics to worry about their eternal salvation being in peril if they do not accept transubstantiation.
I can assure you that no Roman Catholic would consider your eternal salvation to be in peril if you do not accept this doctrine. It may of course be in peril for other reasons,but that must be,as in everyone's case, between God and you.
The word 'transubstantiation' is a word which tries to cover in human language something which is difficult for us to comprehend.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
FCB
Hillbilly Thomist
# 1495
|
Posted
When the term "transubstantiation" arose, the only works of Aristotle that were known in the West were his Categories; it was only much later that anyone read his Physics or Metaphysics, so there is nothing particularly "Aristotelian" about even the term transubstantiation. All it involves is the affirmation that the one can distinguish between something is and how it appears (in the way I might affirm that I am the same person even if I lose 20 lbs or grow six inches).
Aquinas, of course, later tried to neaten this up and make it conform to Aristotle's thought, but no one is required to affirm Aquinas's particular construal of transubstantiation.
I have had this come up with a number of Catholic-minded Anglicans: they see transubstantiation as a real sticking point. For the life of me, I can't really see why, particularly if one believes that what is on the altar after the consecration is not bread and wine but the body and blood of Christ. What exactly is it about the doctrine that proves so difficult to Anglicans who might be inclined in a Romeward direction?
[ 06. November 2009, 12:00: Message edited by: FCB ]
--------------------
Agent of the Inquisition since 1982.
Posts: 2928 | From: that city in "The Wire" | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alt Wally
Cardinal Ximinez
# 3245
|
Posted
quote:
There are plenty of Anglicans who balk at making belief in Transubstantiation
I would hope so, having myself once witnessed at an Episcopal Church the unconsumed contents of the chalice unceremoniously dumped on the grass.
Posts: 3684 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Organ Builder
Shipmate
# 12478
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
quote:
There are plenty of Anglicans who balk at making belief in Transubstantiation
I would hope so, having myself once witnessed at an Episcopal Church the unconsumed contents of the chalice unceremoniously dumped on the grass.
Where, exactly, do you think the remaining particles go when a sacrarium is used?
--------------------
How desperately difficult it is to be honest with oneself. It is much easier to be honest with other people.--E.F. Benson
Posts: 3337 | From: ...somewhere in between 40 and death... | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
If you go and dig up the sacrarium after three days, you will find they are not there anymore ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
[ 06. November 2009, 15:26: Message edited by: Triple Tiara ]
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alt Wally
Cardinal Ximinez
# 3245
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Organ Builder:
Where, exactly, do you think the remaining particles go when a sacrarium is used?
I think we may be talking about something different. I ran across
this (pdf) which makes me think what I witnessed was not unique.
Posts: 3684 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Organ Builder
Shipmate
# 12478
|
Posted
At the risk of appearing Eccles-ish, you do know what a sacrarium is, don't you? And you do know that RCs use them too? And you do know where anything that goes down it ends up?
So if the church is small and doesn't have a sacrarium, how is pouring it on the ground different when it comes directly from the chalice instead of being funneled to the ground after being poured into something that looks like a sink but isn't?
--------------------
How desperately difficult it is to be honest with oneself. It is much easier to be honest with other people.--E.F. Benson
Posts: 3337 | From: ...somewhere in between 40 and death... | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alt Wally
Cardinal Ximinez
# 3245
|
Posted
Organ Builder, I think the difference is between consuming all that can possibly be consumed, rinsing and pouring; and just pouring out what is leftover. Does that make sense?
Posts: 3684 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Organ Builder
Shipmate
# 12478
|
Posted
AW, I've always seen the consumption of anything that wasn't deliberately planned for Reservation, but that is probably because I prefer the higher-candle congregations.
Still, I'm not sure I would care to make my judgments on the reverence of others based on quantity, since it is my understanding that the Completeness of the Sacrament is in every portion. So (if we move from the wine to the bread for a moment...) a respectful manner of disposing of one host--or one crumb--would still be a respectful manner for disposing of a whole bakery's worth (though I can't imagine why that would ever be a necessity).
--------------------
How desperately difficult it is to be honest with oneself. It is much easier to be honest with other people.--E.F. Benson
Posts: 3337 | From: ...somewhere in between 40 and death... | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alt Wally
Cardinal Ximinez
# 3245
|
Posted
Organ Builder
quote:
AW, I've always seen the consumption of anything that wasn't deliberately planned for Reservation, but that is probably because I prefer the higher-candle congregations.
I was used to both reservation and benediction before attending the un-named parish. I was surprised not only by this practice (i.e. the grass), but by the somewhat Zwinglian views I ran across in conversation with others about communion. The same parish later had a Lutheran pastor as an interim minister.
For my own part, I could come to no other conclusion that this difference in approach to the sacrament was not catholic. Not just at that parish, but in any joined to it in sacramental union, since that is the foundation of a "catholic" church. It was an ecclesological problem in my mind without resolution. In other words I couldn't be in one parish where the sacrament was reserved and adored, and go down the street where the altar servers are essntially just dumping the same stuff out. Everybody deals with these things in their own way though.
Transubstantion is something I of course accept, and it is not only consistent with the gospels (John of course in particular), but with the church fathers and therefore the tradition of the church itself.
quote:
Still, I'm not sure I would care to make my judgments on the reverence of others based on quantity, since it is my understanding that the Completeness of the Sacrament is in every portion
But we don't allow just stuffing everything down the sacrarium. So it enters the equation.
----
The article Thurible posted is interesting. I noticed this quote
quote:
What would the Anglican Church do if 400,000 Methodists asked to come into the Church of England while being allowed to keep their distinctive traditions? My guess is that it would be churlish to refuse, and they would be warmly welcomed, despite the possible risks.
I believe in this thread it has been suggested that this would be a good thing, and if necessary to do so without re-ordaining anyone. I believe Dom Gregory Dix said that if something like that ever happened, it would essentially prove that Leo XIII was basically correct.
Posts: 3684 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Olaf
Shipmate
# 11804
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
One of the clergy in his diocese comments thusly.
Thurible
From Thurible's link, I loved this:
quote:
To make a certain number of churches in Wales available for the use of a personal ordinariate would make a great deal of sense – financially certainly, but also in terms of the future of inter-church relationships in Wales: a generous response from the Church in Wales itself would help dispel the perception that damage has been done to ecumenical relationships (not only by the recent announcement itself, but also by the developments which made the offer necessary) and it would inevitably result in a reciprocal generosity of approach on the part of those who wish to leave and also the wider community of the Catholic Church which they would be joining. It would be ecumenical credit in the bank and a truly charitable response to those Christian brothers and sisters who are unable to accept the changes brought about in Anglicanism in recent years.
I have to ask, what's the point of "ecumenical credit in the bank," especially when all of the credit seems to be one-sided? Getting the Vatican to concede anything is next to impossible. (And I don't count the ordinariate option as a concession; it's already something they do with the Eastern Rite churches.]
Pardon my unusual candor, but if the pope wants more churches in Wales, he can sell a ring or two.
[ 06. November 2009, 20:27: Message edited by: Martin L ]
Posts: 8953 | From: Ad Midwestem | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
quote:
What would the Anglican Church do if 400,000 Methodists asked to come into the Church of England while being allowed to keep their distinctive traditions? My guess is that it would be churlish to refuse, and they would be warmly welcomed, despite the possible risks.
I believe in this thread it has been suggested that this would be a good thing, and if necessary to do so without re-ordaining anyone. I believe Dom Gregory Dix said that if something like that ever happened, it would essentially prove that Leo XIII was basically correct.
That seems almost incomprehensible to me. That ordained Protestant elders are priests in the Church of God makes sense. But to claim that some Anglicans are, but the rest of the Anglicans and the Methodists and Presbyterians aren't, because they do things the way the Church of Rome does, even whole that Church says they don't - well its somewhere between absurd and superstitious.
If Dix believed that Anglican orders are valid, which I assume he must have, it seems strange to think that he might have found them retrospectively invalidated by association with Methodism. Church unity rippling back in time to cause church disunity four hundred years earlier. Sounds like a good plot for an SF novel, but not very like believable ecclesology.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
caercybi06
Shipmate
# 15105
|
Posted
In the anglican Church of Canada "any uncomsumed wine or bread shalkl be consumed by the clergy present in a reverent & devout manner" thats a paraphrase of one the rubric in the BCP 1962
![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif)
--------------------
In a hole in the ground there lived a hobbitt JRR Tolkien
Posts: 59 | From: Victoria BC Canada | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
Uh, to wit, the Anglican Church of Canada and the United Church of Canada contemplated exactly that in the 1970's. We United Churchers are Methodist (and Presbie and Congregationalist) but in the end the Anglicans backed out. The Anglicans felt that something "distinctively Anglican" would be lost if they merged with us, though the proposed Basis of Union did provide for Episcopal governance.
To be fair the UCCan is a third larger than the Anglicans, so the numbers were different.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
quote:
What would the Anglican Church do if 400,000 Methodists asked to come into the Church of England while being allowed to keep their distinctive traditions? My guess is that it would be churlish to refuse, and they would be warmly welcomed, despite the possible risks.
I believe in this thread it has been suggested that this would be a good thing, and if necessary to do so without re-ordaining anyone. I believe Dom Gregory Dix said that if something like that ever happened, it would essentially prove that Leo XIII was basically correct.
That seems almost incomprehensible to me. That ordained Protestant elders are priests in the Church of God makes sense. But to claim that some Anglicans are, but the rest of the Anglicans and the Methodists and Presbyterians aren't, because they do things the way the Church of Rome does, even whole that Church says they don't - well its somewhere between absurd and superstitious.
If Dix believed that Anglican orders are valid, which I assume he must have, it seems strange to think that he might have found them retrospectively invalidated by association with Methodism. Church unity rippling back in time to cause church disunity four hundred years earlier. Sounds like a good plot for an SF novel, but not very like believable ecclesology.
I'm glad you said that, Ken. If Dix did believe that, then he must have been extremely and uncharacteristically muddle headed on this issue. Ordinations are either what they purport to be or not (and from years on the Ship, I suspect that Ken and I would disagree at a fundamental level about how to answer that question). The Catholic Church's position is quite clear and the reception of a large number of ministers who are then ordained as Catholic priests merely indicates that the Catholic Church is following its own lights. It is neither supporting nor confuting evidence for the correctness of those lights.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
Pardon my unusual candour,says Martin L.,but if the pope wants some more churches in Wales,he should sell a ring or two.
I wouldn't call that candour,I would call it stupidity.
Martin l. seems to have a good understanding of Catholic rites and music as well as administration.He has a good understanding of Lutheranism and I learn a lot from him.
But I cannot understand what makes him think that the pope's offer to 'diaffected anglicans' is so he can get some church buildings 'free' in Wales.Even if that were the case he might have to sell more rings to maintain them.
I know little about the Catholic church in Wales and even less about the Anglican church in Wales,but to me this statement is a cheap and bigoted jibe which is not worthy of Martin L.
Now what if Obama were to sell off the White
House, he could then buy Afghanistan and solve the problems of that region - a good idea ?
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
FreeJack
Shipmate
# 10612
|
Posted
Who is eligible to be the Ordinary - in England?
Of the CofE bishops who might go (PEV or otherwise) who is single and acceptable to Rome and the transferring constituency?
Or would Rome consecrate a priest who converted in the post-1994 period who has experience in both the CofE and ordinary Roman Catholic life?
Or would the Ordinary be a senior priest as no-one is eligible to be bishop? (Doesn't sound as convincing to me.)
I get the impression that Ebbsfleet and Richborough will go soon (but they are both married?). Beverley and Fulham wait a bit. Likewise Chichester and Horsham don't need to go while in office. I don't know of many others.
Posts: 3588 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
This is what happens when you post at 1.30am whilst knackered:
quote:
I wrote:
That ordained Protestant elders are priests in the Church of God makes sense. But to claim that some Anglicans are, but the rest of the Anglicans and the Methodists and Presbyterians aren't, because they do things the way the Church of Rome does, even whole that Church says they don't - well its somewhere between absurd and superstitious.
quote:
I would have done better to write:
That ordained Protestant elders are priests in the Church of God makes sense. (whether it is true or not, it is a statement that means something)
But to claim that some of the Anglicans are priests (because they do things the way the Church of Rome does, even though that Church says they don't), but that the rest of the Anglicans and all the Methodists and Presbyterians aren't priests - well its somewhere between absurd and superstitious.
And - adding to my rantlet - the reason I think its superstitious is because it makes ordination a matter of form rather than content.
[ 07. November 2009, 11:35: Message edited by: ken ]
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
That ordained Protestant elders are priests in the Church of God makes sense. (whether it is true or not, it is a statement that means something)
Absolutely.
quote:
But to claim that some of the Anglicans are priests (because they do things the way the Church of Rome does, even though that Church....
and very large proportions of their own churches
quote:
....says they don't), but that the rest of the Anglicans and all the Methodists and Presbyterians aren't priests - well its somewhere between absurd and superstitious.
To which you might add that it's also indicative of a mechanistic and reductionist sacramental theology, which gives the lie to protestations by those who would seem to take this view of being of one mind with the Catholic Church.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alt Wally
Cardinal Ximinez
# 3245
|
Posted
quote:
If Dix believed that Anglican orders are valid, which I assume he must have, it seems strange to think that he might have found them retrospectively invalidated by association with Methodism.
I don't think retrospective invalidation was what he was getting at. I think his point was that at such a time that the Church of England changed its understanding of what's constitutes ordination and sacred ministry to be in line with accepting of a fully Protestant understanding of same, the position of Leo would be validated. It would cease to be a catholic church, or at least a via media, in any meaningful sense.
[ 07. November 2009, 11:58: Message edited by: Alt Wally ]
Posts: 3684 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alt Wally
Cardinal Ximinez
# 3245
|
Posted
That should read
"changed its understanding of what constitutes ordination and sacred ministry to be in line with or accepting of a fully Protestant understanding"
Third try on that.
Posts: 3684 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
In which case Dix had clearly fallen for the great Anglo-Catholic delusion about what the faith of the Church of England had been for most of the period from the sixteenth century until the middle of the nineteenth.
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
quote:
If Dix believed that Anglican orders are valid, which I assume he must have, it seems strange to think that he might have found them retrospectively invalidated by association with Methodism.
I don't think retrospective invalidation was what he was getting at. I think his point was that at such a time that the Church of England changed its understanding of what's constitutes ordination and sacred ministry to be in line with accepting of a fully Protestant understanding of same, the position of Leo would be validated. It would cease to be a catholic church, or at least a via media, in any meaningful sense.
Doesn't this rather assume that the Methodist understanding of what its presbyters are and do, is a 'fully Protestant understanding'? While I am sure that there are few if any Methodist ministers whose understanding of the priesthood would be the same as that of SSPX, I would have thought that there are many gradations between that and a 'fully protestant understanding' of ministry which is basically to say that ordination makes no difference.
--------------------
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
|
|
Edward Green
Review Editor
# 46
|
Posted
Much like understandings of the real presence I don't see why understandings of ordination have to be strictly 'protestant' or 'catholic'?.
Of course the former understanding in some churches seems to be that leadership is something that is intrinsic to a person that they are born with. As opposed to something people carry as representatives. Methodists I trained with certainly talked in the latter terms.
Surely it is time that western sacramental church moved beyond defining itself in reference to Rome, be it Methodist, Lutheran or Anglican. Of course the only designator to describe such churches is reformed catholic, which takes us back to square one.
In terms of Episcopacy I think that all churches including Rome need to truly rediscover the nature of Apostolic ministry and from that a renewal of Presbyterial and Diaconal ministry.
[ 07. November 2009, 13:49: Message edited by: Edward Green ]
--------------------
blog//twitter//
linkedin
Posts: 4893 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alt Wally
Cardinal Ximinez
# 3245
|
Posted
quote:
Doesn't this rather assume that the Methodist understanding of what its presbyters are and do, is a 'fully Protestant understanding'?
Angloid, you are right in correcting me. There is no single understanding of ordination or any of the other sacraments. So not a full Protestant understanding, but simply a Protestant understanding states the case correctly.
Posts: 3684 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Olaf
Shipmate
# 11804
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
Pardon my unusual candour,says Martin L.,but if the pope wants some more churches in Wales,he should sell a ring or two.
I wouldn't call that candour,I would call it stupidity.
Martin l. seems to have a good understanding of Catholic rites and music as well as administration.He has a good understanding of Lutheranism and I learn a lot from him.
But I cannot understand what makes him think that the pope's offer to 'diaffected anglicans' is so he can get some church buildings 'free' in Wales.Even if that were the case he might have to sell more rings to maintain them.
I know little about the Catholic church in Wales and even less about the Anglican church in Wales,but to me this statement is a cheap and bigoted jibe which is not worthy of Martin L.
Now what if Obama were to sell off the White
House, he could then buy Afghanistan and solve the problems of that region - a good idea ?
Forthview, I was referring to something stated in a link provided earlier upthread.
I don't think the pope wanted anything to do with the church buildings in Wales. Somebody, on a linked blog, had suggested that the Church in Wales donating some underused churches for the purposes of use by Anglicans converting to Catholicism would be "ecumenical credit in the bank." I merely thought that statement was laughable. We constantly dance around the issue of ecumenism on these threads, but for Protestants ecumenism means retaining our autonomy and being able to share in the Christian life and sacraments together (something which is easily achievable), but for the Catholic Church the fact is that ecumenism means submission to the pope, something we Protestants understand as an unnecessary human contrivance. For us, this is like dealing with a stubborn brother or sister, who will concede nothing and expects us to concede everything. This doesn't mean dialogue should ever be cut off altogether, but it means no easy goal is in sight.
As for my comment about the rings, I must admit I was feeling to be in an unusually snarky mood, and I do apologize. My comment was entirely tongue-in-cheek, not serious. I did find it rather pushy for the blogger to suggest that, on top of springing the conversion plans with little or no warning on Anglican leadership committed to ecumenical dialogue, it should be expected that Anglicans would want to answer in kind with a gesture of ecumenical friendship.
I guess I hope they do donate some churches for the purpose. It would show a truly Christian act of compassion--one in which nothing has been received, is given, or expected in return.
[ 07. November 2009, 22:34: Message edited by: Martin L ]
Posts: 8953 | From: Ad Midwestem | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
FreeJack
Shipmate
# 10612
|
Posted
Would the converting FiF CofE clergy accept the same ordinary as for the Traditional Anglican Communion in England? Do they get on? Do they have the same partrimony? Or would there be two Ordinaries?
Posts: 3588 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sir Pellinore
Quester Emeritus
# 12163
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by FreeJack:
Would the converting FiF CofE clergy accept the same ordinary as for the Traditional Anglican Communion in England? Do they get on? Do they have the same partrimony? Or would there be two Ordinaries?
From what I understand the ordinariats will be for all Anglicans who wish to come across to them.
The TAC was, I believe, once looking for a personal prelacy. That isn't happening.
I would've thought going across to Rome would be just that. I do not see the Vatican sponsoring one TAC and one FIF ordinariat in any locality. Enough (some would say more than enough) concessions have been made. Rome will not sponsor Anglican factionism within itself. That would be ludicrous.
--------------------
Well...
Posts: 5108 | From: The Deep North, Oz | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
Martin L - I think we have to keep going on the dialogue.We,imperfect beings,find it so difficult to finds the right words some times.
What for some is described as some by 'coming into full communion of faith' is described by others as 'submission to the pope'
What some see as a generous recognition of the strength of anglican patrimony is seen by others as an underhand attempt to gain new followers and territory .
I fully understand your impatience with the stubbornness of the Catholic Church and with what may seem as a patronising attitude,when it says, as it does,that we are all in some way,members of the Church,but refuses the Sacraments to those who are not in full communion.
The arguments for an against this go on and we must keep up the dialogue until we find agreement.
If we keep our focus on Jesus Christ and what we think He tells us,then we are on the right road.It is with Him that we must try to be in communion,rather than with the pope.
Not all that long ago,Catholics and non Catholics would not have worshipped together.Catholics would not have participated in 'Protestant' services and Protestants would not have wanted to approach the altar for Communion in a popish church.That has changed,and that is a positive step - well I think so.Non catholic churches can in some ways move forward more quickly than the Catholicchurch which has the weight of tradition behind it as well as a well nigh universal presence ,all of which has to be taken into account.
Please forgive us if we are not able so easily as you to move forward so quickly,but let us keep on learning about each other.
Selling rings is only a drop in the ocean, and it would make no more sense to dispose of the Vatican than it would make sense of Americans to dispose of the White House.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by FreeJack:
Would the converting FiF CofE clergy accept the same ordinary as for the Traditional Anglican Communion in England? Do they get on? Do they have the same partrimony? Or would there be two Ordinaries?
The logic of the announcement (since we still haven't seen the Constitution) would be that there would be one jurisdiction for the RC(A)s. I imagine that they would have to learn to get on, whether or not that might be the inclination of any of them-- I suspect that TAC, having finally achieved much of what they wanted, and the Tibercrossing FiFers, having finally made the leap, will not quibble overmuch. Given that the English Latin hierarchy is not terribly thrilled about having one Anglican ordinariate, I can't see them putting up with two.
As far as passing on a few empty(ish) churches to the RC(A)s, I can't see that it would hurt anybody and would be a nice gesture. Some clarity and humility in signage would be the appropriate response.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
If it happens that some FiF congregations in England do make the transition corporately, will they then be expected to conform to the liturgical norms of the 'ordinariate'? It seems to me that many of them will, ironically, experience Anglican liturgy for the first time when they become Roman Catholic.
--------------------
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
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
But wouldn't the case for such currently NO-using parishes be that they would for the first time - from their POV - be able to use a liturgy in the Anglican tradition that is a liturgy authorised by the Holy See and hence "legitamised"?
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
But wouldn't the case for such currently NO-using parishes be that they would for the first time - from their POV - be able to use a liturgy in the Anglican tradition that is a liturgy authorised by the Holy See and hence "legitamised"?
Hah! The Church of SS Gilbert and Sullivan I see. ![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
--------------------
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
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
A good point, L.Sv.K. I think one of the main objections that FiF parishes have to current Comic Worship rites is the wonky (in their view) eucharistic prayers. If that gets addressed along with other lesser quibbles, it it surely must be, then they may be quite happy. Eventually.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by FreeJack:
Would the converting FiF CofE clergy accept the same ordinary as for the Traditional Anglican Communion in England? Do they get on?
I'd imagine that those few of FiF who know anything about TAC assume it to be an American sect and have no idea that there might be any of them here.
There are probably about as many people in the congregations of FiF and ABC churches within walking distance of where I am now as there are in all of TAC in the USA. TAC in England probably has fewer congregants than just one of those parishes. Their website lists about twenty churches but most of them seem to be occasional or monthly meetings, presumably in the house of an ex-CofE priest. Only five or six offer weekly Sunday services.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
chiltern_hundred
Shipmate
# 13659
|
Posted
ken scripsit:
quote:
I'd imagine that those few of FiF who know anything about TAC assume it to be an American sect and have no idea that there might be any of them here.
Actually, the TAC advertise in New Directions, so anyone who reads it will be aware that they have a presence here, but not of how small it is.
Posts: 691 | From: Duck City, UK | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
