|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Pope announces plans for Anglicans to convert in groups
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
If the claim of the Church of England to be the continuation of the Catholic church in England is based on the fact that it is/was the church of the majority of English people,then one could put forward the argument that by the same process in Scotland the church of Scotland (Presbyterian in government since 1688) is the national Catholic church of Scotland. The church of England as a 'national' Catholic church ought to be in full communion with the church of Scotland.
If the claims of the Church of England to be the national church are based on something else ,as for example apostolic succession,claims of right order etc,then it ought to be in full communion with the wider Catholic church and not to be picking and choosing which doctrines of the wider Catholic church it will accept and which not.
It's not about picking and choosing, it's about different understandings of catholicity (which I accept is also at the heart of the CoS question, upon which I do not feel qualified to comment).
It's also not (just) about having the allegiance of the majority of the people- part of my argument is that there is in England and Wales an enormous and important institutional continuity.
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hooker's Trick
Admin Emeritus and Guardian of the Gin
# 89
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
Yes, and there is of course nothing "catholic" about this as it's the triumph of private judgment and the scuppering of any sort of infallibility of the church.
The Church of England has never in its history claimed to be infallible about anything.
quote:
The reformation has won in the CofE,
I can't find it particularly shocking news that the Reformation has 'won' in a reformed church.
quote:
Originally posted by cor ad cor loquitur:
Book of Divine Worship? Anglican Missal?
I have a hard time imaging that these books would find any wide favour with most Anglican-to-Catholic converts, especially in England. Even if the new mass translation is horrible, I assume the vast majority of Catholics will use it.
ETA: As with all historical developments, the Reformation represents both continuity and change. It's a bit rose-bespectacled, though, to indulge in too many romantic reveries about the CofE continuing as the 'catholic' church in England. There were Catholics active in England from the Reformation up til the re-establishment of the hierarchy. The Howards, not to mention to Stuarts (to use a notable example or two) must have been mightily confused about the CofE to have remained so stubbornly true to those 'other' catholics.
And even if the Church of England is catholic, it is not so in the sense the Pope would understand. That is not a sad or lamentable secret, and there is certainly room in a post-Christian Europe for churches of several flavours and self-understandings to pursue God's Kingdom.
[ 11. November 2009, 16:26: Message edited by: Hooker's Trick ]
Posts: 6735 | From: Gin Lane | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
FYI, this from GAFCON:
quote:
Statement from GAFCON/FCA Primates Council
We have received the Archbishop of Canterbury’s letter informing us
of the Pope’s offer of an ‘Apostolic Constitution’ for those
Anglicans who wish to be received into the Roman Catholic Church. We
believe that this offer is a gracious one and reflects the same
commitment to the historic apostolic faith, moral teaching and global
mission that we proclaimed in the Jerusalem Declaration on the Global
Anglican Future and for this we are profoundly grateful.
We are, however, grieved that the current crisis within our beloved
Anglican Communion has made necessary such an unprecedented offer. It
represents a grave indictment of the Instruments of Communion whose
very purpose is to strengthen and protect our unity in obedience to
our Lord’s clear command. Their failure to fully address the
abandonment of biblical faith and practice by The Episcopal Church and
the Anglican Church of Canada has now brought shame to the name of
Christ and seriously impedes the cause of the Gospel.
The Primates Council of the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans
(GAFCON/FCA) is convinced, however, that Anglicanism has a bright
future as long as we remain grounded in the Holy Scriptures and
obedient to our Lord Jesus Christ’s call to reach the lost and make
disciples of all nations teaching them to observe the whole Gospel. We
also believe that there is room within our Anglican family for all
those who hold true to the ‘faith once delivered to the saints’.
We would like to encourage those Anglicans who are considering this
invitation from the Roman Catholic Church to recognize that Anglican
churches are growing throughout the world in strength and offering a
vibrant testimony to the transforming work of Christ.
We are convinced that this is not the time to abandon the Anglican
Communion. Our Anglican identity of reformed catholicity, that gives
supreme authority to the Holy Scriptures and acknowledgement that our
sole representative and advocate before God is the Lord Jesus Christ,
stands as a beacon of hope for millions of people. We remain proud
inheritors of the Anglican Reformation. This is a time for all
Christians to persevere confident of our Lord’s promise that
nothing, not even the gates of hell, will prevail against His Church.
+Peter Abuja,
Chairman,
GAFCON/FCA Primates Council
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fëanor
Shipmate
# 14514
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
<snip>
then it ought to be in full communion with the wider Catholic church and not to be picking and choosing which doctrines of the wider Catholic church it will accept and which not.
And there's the rub. Indeed, all "churches" ought to be in full communion -- differences being resolved in forbearance and brotherly love. And on a side note, the CofE does a not-half-bad job at modeling this, on (rare) occasion.
But unfortunately, saying that the CofE somehow ought to be in communion either with Rome or with Edinburgh (or wherever the highest council of the CofS meets) is really denying the complexity of the matter. The historic episcopacy (as located in a person, and not a council) is essential to Anglicanism. Hence the stumbling block to communion. Anglicans might disagree with Rome as to what counts as "historic" or not, but it's an entirely different thing to suggest that this disagreement somehow logically necessitates Anglicans jettisoning the whole thing.
Posts: 177 | From: Somewhere Between Heaven and Hell | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alt Wally
Cardinal Ximinez
# 3245
|
Posted
quote:
The historic episcopacy (as located in a person, and not a council) is essential to Anglicanism. Hence the stumbling block to communion.
Not in the United States it isn't, and of course people have argued here it shouldn't be in the CofE either in terms of putting aside traditional notions of what constitutes valid ordination. Forthview I think has put his/her (sorry, not sure which) finger on an extremely valid point.
quote:
The Church of England has never in its history claimed to be infallible about anything.
Fallible church = Protestant church
Posts: 3684 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
FreeJack
Shipmate
# 10612
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
Originally posted by Manx Taffy:
[Albertus - so what did you really mean by "indigenous" that prevents your comment from being at best offensive?
I genuinely cannot see what might be offensive about my comment.
However, on reflection, 'indigenous' does not accurately convey the meaning that I wanted to convey.
Ken and others once posted on a thread about the CofE in England, the CofS in Scotland, Lutheran in Northern Europe, the RCC in some Western European countries etc. being the normative church.
Where normative might mean state sponsored, majority or plural or central, or least effort to join, or most allied to cultural norms, or catholic etc. but without connotation of racial indigenity or Roman Catholic world-view.
It is perhaps slightly less true than it was a few decades back.
Posts: 3588 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Olaf
Shipmate
# 11804
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fëanor:
And there's the rub. Indeed, all "churches" ought to be in full communion -- differences being resolved in forbearance and brotherly love.
But unfortunately, saying that the CofE somehow ought to be in communion either with Rome or with Edinburgh (or wherever the highest council of the CofS meets) is really denying the complexity of the matter. The historic episcopacy (as located in a person, and not a council) is essential to Anglicanism. Hence the stumbling block to communion. Anglicans might disagree with Rome as to what counts as "historic" or not, but it's an entirely different thing to suggest that this disagreement somehow logically necessitates Anglicans jettisoning the whole thing.
Indeed. This brings up all sorts of issues.
1) Most Protestants believe it is not necessary to place total control of the church in the hands of one person, who [even by his own church's estimation] is fallible and subject to error in almost everything he does or says.
2) Most Protestants believe that a requirement of full doctrinal unity is not humanly possible, and the expectation that sacramental unity be hinged upon doctrinal unity is a human [and therefore subject to fallibility] contrivance that could easily be eliminated if parties truly desired so to do.
3) Most Protestants believe that the potential for human fallibility is too great to put the church in the hands of one person, who has the right to approve or deny his closest advisors and assistants, thus ensuring that any personal idiosyncracies, pet projects, soapboxes, or stereotyped visions of others can be perpetuated indefinitely.
"Picking and choosing" doctrines must be part of any healthy church body. By the admission of even the Roman Catholic Church, the pope, the magisterium, and any other leaders are all subject to the limit of fallibility. I'm even putting aside the issue of infallibility right now, for it has only been invoked on rare occasion, and by nature any leader (especially ones with administration appointed by himself) who bestows infallibility on himself is suspect.
Anglo-Catholics who convert to Rome may indeed fit right in. Then again, they may not. Being satisfied that they were meeting Roman liturgical requirements is one thing, but actually facing the harsh reality of bishops putting an end to idiosyncratic parish practices is another thing altogether. They may be lucky and end up with a bishop of turns a blind eye to any oddball practices. This does happen in RCism on occasion. However, as the years move farther and farther into the era of JP2 and Benedict bishops, there seems to be more and more bishops appointed who toe the party line. The old days of renegade bishops who don't mind shaking up the system seem to be disappearing quickly.
Posts: 8953 | From: Ad Midwestem | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hooker's Trick
Admin Emeritus and Guardian of the Gin
# 89
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
Fallible church = Protestant church
Realistic church = Protestant church.
Posts: 6735 | From: Gin Lane | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
Blimey! I know the clocks have just gone back, but I thought it was 1 hour, not 470 years.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
The relationship of the reference to the CofE and the CofS which I was trying to make is :
If I understand,some anglicans complain that the RC church does not recognize them,as what some anglicans claim to be.
If I understand correctly anglicans do not recognise (by being in full communion) the Presbyterian Church of Scotland as being what it (sometimes) claims to be - the 'national' Catholic Church on Scotland.For one reason or another they do not recognise (sometimes) the authenticity of the sacraments(well,some of them) as conducted by Presbyterian ministers.
One big difference is that the Church of Scotland does not talk(except in fairly closed circles)of being the Catholic church of Scotland.
Its clergy woud never talk of celebrating Mass,for example - well not of them celebrating Mass)
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alt Wally
Cardinal Ximinez
# 3245
|
Posted
quote:
Realistic church = Protestant church.
Which indeed may be the case. I'm not trying to argue who is actually right. To me however, "reformed" and "catholic", is like being "a little pregnant".
Posts: 3684 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fëanor
Shipmate
# 14514
|
Posted
AltWally: At the risk of demonstrating my own ignorance, could you clarify your statement beginning: "Not in the United States it isn't..." please? Are you referring to the communion agreement between TEC and ELCA? If so, then I understand how the "historic" point begins to be dulled a bit -- but surely you accept that there's a significant difference between even an 'invalid' episcopacy, and councils that perform "episcopal" functions?
MartinL: Those are very salient points -- ones that, imho, do a nice job of illustrating the difference between anglo-catholicism and anglo-papalism. I personally have a soft spot for unity arising out of forbearance/brotherly love, as opposed to unity proceeding from "if you disagree, we'll kick you out." But my own opinions aren't exactly relevant here. (ETA: as much as I love your point #2, I think the folks in WELS might disagree with you ![[Biased]](wink.gif) )
forthview: Now I think I understand you a bit better. It's certainly an interesting point. Perhaps I'm just too dense, but it still seems "reasonable" for the CoS's lack of a 'personal' episcopacy (regardless of historicity) to impede communion. Just to satisfy my own curiousity, does the CoS (or even a subset thereof) actively desire communion with the CoE (and hence the rest of global Anglicanism)?
[ 11. November 2009, 21:05: Message edited by: Fëanor ]
Posts: 177 | From: Somewhere Between Heaven and Hell | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
FreeJack
Shipmate
# 10612
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
If I understand correctly anglicans do not recognise (by being in full communion) the Presbyterian Church of Scotland as being what it (sometimes) claims to be - the 'national' Catholic Church on Scotland.For one reason or another they do not recognise (sometimes) the authenticity of the sacraments(well,some of them) as conducted by Presbyterian ministers.
The Church of England recognises the Presbyterian Church of Scotland as being a legitimate national church. Its own Supreme Governor has received communion in the Church of Scotland.
The Church of England is in full communion with the Episcopal Church in Scotland, which means that it shares full ministry with that church. But no-one really believes that the Anglican church in Scotland is the normative national church of Scotland.
Anglo-catholics within the CofE would obviously have a problem with the orders of presbyterian ministers in the CofS, but then Anglo-catholics within the CofE have lots of issues with orders.
Posts: 3588 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
The Reformed tradition maintains that it is a valid form of the Church, others may or may not be. In modern, ecumenical times we tend to assume yes; in the absence of certainty in other ages we have assumed negative.
Many Church of Scotland folk assume that if they are in England they should be Church of England. However they also often do not settle well into CofE and this may be the source of the view that I have heard expressed in the last decade that England never has been a truly Christian nation.
If however you want to ask about validity by the Reformed Churches own standards of Anglican orders, the answer seems to come out as quite a clear invalid. The Reformed tradition requires that to be ordained your calling is tested within the church local that is by at least one local congregation (URC practice works out as one for elders, but two for ministers). This simply does not happen within the Anglican tradition, it does not happen in Roman, the first local may happen within Methodism although not the second as people are ordained by conference and Baptists actually often fulfil this criteria.
The thing is the Reformed tradition does not have an Episcopacy but does have quite strong understanding of Episcope, which depending on how strongly you doubt wider groupings, is either exercised by Presbytery or by the local church (the URC compromises on that and some powers are to Synod and some are with the local congregation). Calvin uses the texts about 'overseer' to apply to the cleric and not to the Bishop. Texts that Anglicans and RC apply to priests are applied to Elders. The church therefore is far more small scale and localised.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
Jengie, what exactly do you mean by "tested"?
Here in the UCCan a congregation has to nominate someone for ordination. Conference ordains candidates and a minister of the Conference actually lays hands on the Ordinand. You must also be ordained to a specific congregation. Our rule is no destination, no ordination. Which is how I wound up with a New Brunswick birth certificate.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
pete173
Shipmate
# 4622
|
Posted
I don't find the "indigenous" description particularly racist. Substitute rather "the denomination that goes with the grain of the prevailing culture". In England, the CofE; in Scotland, the Church of Scotland.
It might change over time, of course, (and no doubt our RC friends are rather hoping that it will), but the RC church in England has of late been the church of immigrant minorities (Poles and Filipinos now; Irish previously) and of the persecuted before that. The RCs may not like that, but it is the historical reality.
If I found myself in another country from that of my birth, I have two options: either seek out the denomination that is my "home" one, or do the slightly more incarnational thing of joining the majority culture church. I'd opt for the second of those - if I were living in Scotland, the Church of Scotland would be the obvious place to be, not the Piskies.
Posts: 1653 | From: Kilburn, London NW6 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fifi
Shipmate
# 8151
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
If I found myself in another country from that of my birth, I have two options: either seek out the denomination that is my "home" one, or do the slightly more incarnational thing of joining the majority culture church. I'd opt for the second of those - if I were living in Scotland, the Church of Scotland would be the obvious place to be, not the Piskies.
And so, if you found yourself in Italy . . . .
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posts: 591 | From: Here | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Olaf
Shipmate
# 11804
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fifi:
And so, if you found yourself in Italy . . . .
. . . . you'd be a lapsed Roman Catholic who shows up at Mass on Christmas and Easter, chatting on a cell phone the whole time! ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Posts: 8953 | From: Ad Midwestem | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
FreeJack
Shipmate
# 10612
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
If I found myself in another country from that of my birth, I have two options: either seek out the denomination that is my "home" one, or do the slightly more incarnational thing of joining the majority culture church. I'd opt for the second of those - if I were living in Scotland, the Church of Scotland would be the obvious place to be, not the Piskies.
For me, it would probably depend on which town I was in and why. If I was in Edinburgh say, I would probably go to Sts Paul and George (P&G) - the liveliest of the Episcopal churches. In an ordinary town, probably the CofS, but possibly another free church.
Posts: 3588 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Major Disaster
Shipmate
# 13229
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
I don't find the "indigenous" description particularly racist. Substitute rather "the denomination that goes with the grain of the prevailing culture". In England, the CofE; in Scotland, the Church of Scotland.
When a barb is aimed at discomforting others to one's own benefit, of course one does not judge it as a particular nuisance. That's simple complacency. The "denomination that goes with the prevailing culture" exposes the total bankruptcy of a church or its spokesman who see nothing fundamental to challenge, contradict, or confront, in the prevailing culture of a particular country, whether his own or of his neighbour. I'm alright Jack, and Dr Pangloss, meet at last.
quote:
It might change over time, of course, (and no doubt our RC friends are rather hoping that it will), but the RC church in England has of late been the church of immigrant minorities (Poles and Filipinos now; Irish previously) and of the persecuted before that. The RCs may not like that, but it is the historical reality.
A very short view of history, and selective, too. Any claim of the CofE or CofS to continuation of catholicity in Britain completely ignores their inception in an upstart disobedience and usurpation of lawful ecclesiastical authority, motivated by prospects of economic or political gain, and enforced by looting and destruction of property on a barbaric scale, with the murder of those who opposed them. A fine birth certificate of Catholicity indeed, issued fifteen centuries too late to prove legitimacy, all the niceness of ecumenical dialogue notwithstanding.
quote:
If I found myself in another country from that of my birth, I have two options: either seek out the denomination that is my "home" one, or do the slightly more incarnational thing of joining the majority culture church. I'd opt for the second of those - if I were living in Scotland, the Church of Scotland would be the obvious place to be, not the Piskies.
Even within the European Union, "the majority culture church" in different states has beliefs and practices which are directly opposed to those of other states. Such a personal relation to the church as you confess, is maintained with a commitment maintained at the level of political expediency or correctness, rather than witness to the Faith of the Church, which is martyrdom.
How does this square with a real belief in One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church that has any real existence and is not a house divided against itself?
--------------------
O Beata Solitudo! Sola Beatitudo!
Posts: 869 | From: Heart of Midlothian | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
I have no objection to the Church of England or the Church of Scotland describing themselves as indigenous. Neither am I in any way embarrassed nor do I feel compromised by the fact that the Catholic Church has a large proportion of immigrants. In my own little patch of responsibility I would guess about a third of the regular congregations are English. The rest are Irish, Polish, Chinese, Italian, Filipino, Nigerian, American and anything else you care to mention. I am quite delighted that we are able to welcome and make space for our brothers and sisters of other cultures. Each Sunday I look out at what is truly a Catholic scene, with people from all nations. And our indigenous population are part of that universal People of God. But the Catholic Church is not just some foreign ethnic chaplaincy: we are a local Church who make space always for all who are our brothers and sisters in Christ.
However, to couple indigenous with Catholic, and describe the Church of England as the "indigenous Catholic Church" is at best fantasy, ignoring the reality of the Catholic Church which continued to exist in this country despite the birth of the Anglican Church. Thomas More, John Fisher and countless others did not think the new national Church was simply a continuation of the old, and they were prepared to die for that position. How do you explain away that continuing Catholic presence if you also claim the Anglican Church was in fact the real Catholic Church?
At worst the description is one of jingoistic nationalism. The old mocking appellation of "Italian Mission to the Irish" reveals this attitude. Are English Catholics just johnny foreigners in disguise? Are they all foreign agents, as Tudor propaganda liked to suggest?
I am quite willing to admit that Albertus is not guilty of this attitude, if that is what he claims. Given the significant, ongoing presence of the Roman Catholic Church, however, his use of "indigenous Catholic Church" to describe the Anglicans was unpropitious.
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Resurgam
Shipmate
# 14891
|
Posted
Good Christians, rather than fighting the Reformation all over again, perhaps we should consider whether we're straining out gnats while swallowing camels? The Pope was petitioned for acceptance by a group of disaffected Anglicans; he assented to their request. Good news for both sides, yes?
Materialism and secularism are galloping on in society and people wonder why they aren't happy yet. I think we have better ways of building the Kingdom. ![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif)
Posts: 54 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Major Disaster:
A very short view of history, and selective, too. Any claim of the CofE or CofS to continuation of catholicity in Britain completely ignores their inception in an upstart disobedience and usurpation of lawful ecclesiastical authority, motivated by prospects of economic or political gain, and enforced by looting and destruction of property on a barbaric scale, with the murder of those who opposed them. A fine birth certificate of Catholicity indeed, issued fifteen centuries too late to prove legitimacy, all the niceness of ecumenical dialogue notwithstanding.
This should be interesting. Come on ye Anglicans..
Myrrh
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alt Wally
Cardinal Ximinez
# 3245
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fëanor:
AltWally: At the risk of demonstrating my own ignorance, could you clarify your statement beginning: "Not in the United States it isn't..." please? Are you referring to the communion agreement between TEC and ELCA? If so, then I understand how the "historic" point begins to be dulled a bit -- but surely you accept that there's a significant difference between even an 'invalid' episcopacy, and councils that perform "episcopal" functions?
The agreement you mention is one of the principle issues since it has an "out" in it that allows for non episcopal ordinations. As a precursor to full communion there is
this agreement between the United Methodist Church and the Protestant Episcopal Church. The issue is not solely one of the procedure of ordination, but the sacraments themselves which flow through ordination. The catholic understanding is authority in the church comes from the charism of a bishop handed down in succession from the apostles. The Eucharist cannot itself be valid or celebrated when removed from this framework. The Reformed Episcopal Church in the United States was started essentially over this issue, but with the circumstances reversed.
Posts: 3684 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Olaf
Shipmate
# 11804
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Major Disaster:
How does this square with a real belief in One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church that has any real existence and is not a house divided against itself?
Belief in One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church is, above all, belief in our Lord, not in an institution or in trifles thereof. Throughout the Gospels, Jesus bristles against institutionalized Judaism.
Realistically, we [humanity] recognize the utility of organization. However, we must be careful to confess the faith of the church, not the faith in the church. To do otherwise would elevate a disjointed organization to an exalted status, rather than to acknowledge that we are the church--those who carry on the apostolic tradition by confessing our faith together.
Posts: 8953 | From: Ad Midwestem | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
Dear me, why does every argument seem to boil down to "Catholicity" around here? And I didn't even start this tangent this time!
I am quite sure that my little corner of the Body of Christ is valid and true, coming as it does through joint parentage of the Church of Scotland, the Methodists (both British and American) and the Congregationalists.
As for pete173's idea of "going along with the culture", I dare him to follow that advice. Really, I expected a better argument. Whence where you go on this side of the pond, Pete? No ecclesial community has a majority, and English Canada has never had a dominant church. And just to make matters worse, the United Church of Canada is a third larger then the Anglicans.
The same bafflement awaits you if you go to the United States. Bring some dice, it might help you decide.
I am being hard, but this sort of "Church of the whatever locality" is so bankrupt its sad. Come on, stand for something. Christ is not confined to one corner of the world, nor is his faith. Aren't there any principles anymore?
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
pete173
Shipmate
# 4622
|
Posted
Yeah, there are principles, but they aren't about the type of denomination we espouse. The principles for a lot of us, as people well know, are about adherence to orthodoxy, not about ecclesial pedigree. That's why we'll never "get" each other. For those of you for whom apostolic succession, episcopacy, communion with a particular historic see are important, you'll always be looking for what is properly "catholic" in your terms. For those of us for whom the shape of the ecclesial institution is a matter of less importance, we'll pick the one that's credally orthodox and missionally doing the job.
You're looking for a manifestation of the one holy catholic and apostolic church expressed in structural and visible terms; we're looking at a church that, in all its diversity, already expresses what it means to be the one holy catholic and apostolic church.
We won't convince each other. Transferring between denominations is something that from one perspective is either unthinkable or about seeking the desideratum; from the other perspective, it's just about finding the place that works.
Cultural alignment is one criterion that one might use to evaluate which denomination or local church to get stuck into; it's not the only one.
Posts: 1653 | From: Kilburn, London NW6 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
I think the problem for Anglicanism is that it tries to be all things to all people. I noted to a fellow Anglican that Anglicanism is the one tradition where everyone complains about its short-comings. Catholics complain that we aren't high church enough, and that most parishes do not offer Solemn High Masses every Sunday. Evangelicals cry that we don't take the Bible seriously. Liberals complain that we aren't inclusive enough. Feminists complain that we still have too much masculine language in our liturgy, etc, etc.
Perhaps we Anglicans have spent too much time criticizing our faith, without looking at its positive aspects. Irrespective of what Rome does, Anglicans should concentrate on nurturing our tradition so that not only will people stay, but hopefully more people will join, including disaffected Roman Catholics.
--------------------
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
|
|
seasick
...over the edge
# 48
|
Posted
I'll think you'll find that there are complainers in all traditions... You just notice the ones in your own tradition more.
--------------------
We believe there is, and always was, in every Christian Church, ... an outward priesthood, ordained by Jesus Christ, and an outward sacrifice offered therein. - John Wesley
Posts: 5769 | From: A world of my own | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
I am quite willing to admit that Albertus is not guilty of this attitude, if that is what he claims. Given the significant, ongoing presence of the Roman Catholic Church, however, his use of "indigenous Catholic Church" to describe the Anglicans was unpropitious.
Thank you. I will stand by indigenous but will modify it to 'the main stream of the indigenous Catholic church' in England and Wales, to recognise more explicitly the continuing presence of Catholics who, while being entirely English and grounded in the traditions of the pre-Reformation English church, retained their ecclesiastical allegiance to Rome.
And that's my final contribution to this debate: other than to say that I welcome the presence of any ecclesiastical community, Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant, which maintains or increases the overall amount of Christianity in these lands. I have no doubt that we are all much better off for the revived presence of Roman Catholicism here than we would have been without it.
[ 12. November 2009, 10:40: Message edited by: Albertus ]
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
I am quite willing to admit that Albertus is not guilty of this attitude, if that is what he claims. Given the significant, ongoing presence of the Roman Catholic Church, however, his use of "indigenous Catholic Church" to describe the Anglicans was unpropitious.
Thank you. I will stand by indigenous but will modify it to 'the main stream of the indigenous Catholic church' in England and Wales, to recognise more explicitly the continuing presence of Catholics who, while being entirely English and grounded in the traditions of the pre-Reformation English church, retained their ecclesiastical allegiance to Rome.
And that's my final contribution to this debate: other than to say that I welcome the presence of any ecclesiastical community, Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant, which maintains or increases the overall amount of Christianity in these lands. I have no doubt that we are all much better off for the revived presence of Roman Catholicism here than we would have been without it.
Thank you very much, Sir. We're ever so grateful.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rosa Winkel
Saint Anger round my neck
# 11424
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
In my own little patch of responsibility I would guess about a third of the regular congregations are English. The rest are Irish, Polish, Chinese, Italian, Filipino, Nigerian, American and anything else you care to mention. I am quite delighted that we are able to welcome and make space for our brothers and sisters of other cultures. Each Sunday I look out at what is truly a Catholic scene, with people from all nations.
In these (from my view) anti-immigrant days that's cool to read.
Us Anglicans are also international, of course, but I feel our focus on the parish means we lose a focus on the rest of the communion, though of course some parishes in GB have links with parishes in the likes of Nigeria or the Solomon Islands.
--------------------
The Disability and Jesus "Locked out for Lent" project
Posts: 3271 | From: Wrocław | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
I hope you will allow me to give some sort of answer to Feanor's question about whether even a subset of the Church of Scotland would want union with the Church of England.
Of course my question was about the attitude of the Church of England to the Church of Scotland in the light of the attitude of the Roman Catholic Church to the Church of England,as I think that they sometimes treat the Church of Scotland in the way that they feel the RC church treats them.
For most Church of Scotland members there is no active wish to come closer to the Church of England.Relations between the two churches are,I think,good but most Scots,including Presbyterians see the C of E as expressing the foibles of our English cousins.It is generally seen as a 'Protestant' church which has however 'bishops', a word which raises the hackles of most Presbyterians,given the bitter and bloody struggles between the supporters of episcopacy and the supporters of Presbyterianism between 1560 and 1688. Most people would call the clergy of the Cof E 'ministers'. The word 'vicar' is unknown to most people within Scotland,except to those with great knowledge of ecclesiastical history.
The Church of Scotland has its own controversies between 'liberals' and 'conservatives' but arguments between 'Catholic' and 'Evangelicals' are virtually unknown.
Allow me a short story to illustrate this point.
A few years ago I attended a communion service in an Old Folks' Home taken by a C of S minister.For the service ,held on the 3rd Sunday of Advent the minister put on her black gown,nicely set off with a red stole.After the service she said to me 'sorry,but I haven't got a purple stole' I said 'Well don't worry! It's not important'Trying to put her at ease I added 'It's the 3rd Sunday of Advent you could have used a rose coloured stole and the red is a bit like that.'
Two Presbyterians standing by asked 'what on earth are you talking about ? 'The minister,much more liturgically aware than the parishioners ,attempted to say something in simple terms about the Western sequence of liturgical colours.'Oh' said one of the ladies ,'I thought you were wearing red because it was Christmassy !'
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Shadowhund
Shipmate
# 9175
|
Posted
'tis interesting that GAFCON's response to the Holy Father's invitation was considerably more polite and measured than the response of many Anglican liberals. Just another example of how, in observing the gay sex wars in the Anglican Communion, and in American society, it has become increasingly difficult to discern just who are the narrow-minded bigots as opposed to the broad-minded, open-hearted visionaries.
--------------------
"Had the Dean's daughter worn a bra that afternoon, Norman Shotover might never have found out about the Church of England; still less about how to fly"
A.N. Wilson
Posts: 3788 | From: Your Disquieted Conscience | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Desert Daughter
Shipmate
# 13635
|
Posted
I am a Roman Catholic myself, and do not really have a problem with the Vatican being opposed to female ordination (ie it is just not very high up on my personal agenda of faith-related concerns). Which is why Ihaven't posted here earlier.
But I now feel the issue goes much deeper than women bishops. The issue is the diversity and vitality of Catholicism (Orthodox, Roman, and Anglican)
While I respect the Vatican's stand on tradition, and agree that changing this tradition will open a whole pandora's bow of issues and problems and Zeitgeist-infected idiocies, I believe that our Catholic faith (Anglican and Roman) is not at all served by the Pope's open invitation to Anglicans.
The issue of female ordination is not cast in stone. Remaining traditional is IMHO as much justified as trying to change it. Why not accept that one part of the Catholic family opens its doors to the practice of women bishops, after all, they already have some experience with female priests, and the world did not come to an end.
Catholicism is a beautiful expression of the Cristian faith, but it needs to have many faces, and it needs to advance. Why not allow one part of the family to advance, and see what happens?
So please, all you traditional Anglo-Catholics, do not sign up with Rome. Remain yourselves and show us another face of good Catholicism, so that we may learn from you and your experiences.
--------------------
"Prayer is the rejection of concepts." (Evagrius Ponticus)
Posts: 733 | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
chiltern_hundred
Shipmate
# 13659
|
Posted
Reply to Desert Daughter:
quote:
Catholicism is a beautiful expression of the Christian faith, but it needs to have many faces
It will now have one more. Eastern-rite, Latin-rite, modern vernacular rite, Charismatic, etc, etc, etc, ... and now Anglican
quote:
and it needs to advance.
Aren't you presupposing that change and progress are one and the same?
quote:
Why not allow one part of the family to advance, and see what happens?
It has. People have seen what happens. That's why they want to leave.
Posts: 691 | From: Duck City, UK | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fëanor
Shipmate
# 14514
|
Posted
Forthview and AltWally, thanks for the responses -- they've been enlightening!
Posts: 177 | From: Somewhere Between Heaven and Hell | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Jengie, what exactly do you mean by "tested"?
That the candidate will have a decision of recognition from the councils of the local congregation. The recognition is local.
In our case that means both that the sending congregation has to bring their candidacy to a church meeting and that they need to have a call issued by the church meeting before they can be ordained.
However I am willing to accept that one and not the other is sufficient (we are stricter about the first which always has to happen than the second but it is unusual, someone going straight from theological college to a post where there is no congregation but it is necessary that they are ordained, such posts are normally second or successive pastorates). I am suspicious that the CofS is stricter on the second than the first but cannot confirm and I am happy in situations where elders are more powerful for them rather than church meeting to enact.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
The decision should be "decision of support/recognition of the vocation"
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
I am quite willing to admit that Albertus is not guilty of this attitude, if that is what he claims. Given the significant, ongoing presence of the Roman Catholic Church, however, his use of "indigenous Catholic Church" to describe the Anglicans was unpropitious.
Thank you. I will stand by indigenous but will modify it to 'the main stream of the indigenous Catholic church' in England and Wales, to recognise more explicitly the continuing presence of Catholics who, while being entirely English and grounded in the traditions of the pre-Reformation English church, retained their ecclesiastical allegiance to Rome.
And that's my final contribution to this debate: other than to say that I welcome the presence of any ecclesiastical community, Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant, which maintains or increases the overall amount of Christianity in these lands. I have no doubt that we are all much better off for the revived presence of Roman Catholicism here than we would have been without it.
Thank you very much, Sir. We're ever so grateful.
(Breaks earlier resolution).
I've tried to be gracious and eirenic about this. Maybe you could do the same.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Desert Daughter:
While I respect the Vatican's stand on tradition, and agree that changing this tradition will open a whole pandora's bow of issues and problems and Zeitgeist-infected idiocies, I believe that our Catholic faith (Anglican and Roman) is not at all served by the Pope's open invitation to Anglicans..
Your reference to "our Catholic faith (Anglican and Roman)" misses the point. There is not a shared "Catholic faith" between Roman Catholics and Anglicans on the OoW (nor on many other isues) - partly because there is no common doctrine on the OoW within the Anglican family. There is no authoritative mechanism for establishing doctrine between Anglicans themselves or between Anglicans and Roman Catholics. But there is between Roman Catholics - the magisterium.
quote:
Originally posted by Desert Daughter:
The issue of female ordination is not cast in stone. Remaining traditional is IMHO as much justified as trying to change it.
For Roman Catholics who are loyal to the magisterium, that matter is settled - definitively. The Church teaches that there are "hard deposits" of the faith which she cannot change - to depart from those is not justified. Remaining "traditional" over defined essentials is not just a personal expression of what kind of Catholic you are - it is a necessary condition of being a Catholic in the first place. This is the reason the CDF went to such elaborate, explicit measures to send out the message that the teaching that the Church does not have the authority to ordain women was to be held definitively (i.e., it was "settled").
quote:
Originally posted by Desert Daughter:
Why not accept that one part of the Catholic family opens its doors to the practice of women bishops, after all, they already have some experience with female priests, and the world did not come to an end.
Because of what I've said above, and also because the Anglicans are not a "part of the Catholic family" in the sense you imply.
quote:
Originally posted by Desert Daughter:
Catholicism is a beautiful expression of the Cristian faith, but it needs to have many faces, and it needs to advance. Why not allow one part of the family to advance, and see what happens?
As above, and what Chiltern Hundred said.
quote:
Originally posted by Desert Daughter:
So please, all you traditional Anglo-Catholics, do not sign up with Rome. Remain yourselves and show us another face of good Catholicism, so that we may learn from you and your experiences.
I refer the honourable poster to the reply I made some moments ago.
--------------------
"[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:
why does every argument seem to boil down to "Catholicity" around here?
Because "catholicity" means the fullness of faith. Because it's where our understanding of the church starts.
Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be; as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the catholic Church. It is not lawful to baptize or give communion without the consent of the bishop. On the other hand, whatever has his approval is pleasing to God. Thus, whatever is done will be safe and valid. -- St. Ignatius of Antioch
Cut the chord from this and you're in a new paradigm, and one which isn't catholic.
Posts: 3684 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
I very much doubt that Catholicity just means saying the right words at the ordination liturgies, or wearing albs rather than surplices. Catholicity means faithfulness to the apostolic witness of Jesus Christ as Lord.
If defined this way, I think we all, Catholic or Protestant, fall short of the catholic ideal.
--------------------
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
|
|
Sir Pellinore
Quester Emeritus
# 12163
|
Posted
I think, Desert Daughter, it is, at this stage, a moot point as to the number of High Church/Anglo-Catholic Anglicans who will go across to the new ordinariats.
Certainly the Traditional Anglican Communion - having left the general Anglican Communion over, principally, the issues of women's ordination and sexual behaviour issues - will do so almost en masse.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditional_Anglican_Communion
Some TAC members, such as the Primate, having formerly been Catholic priests, will not be allowed to.
The most impressive Anglo-Catholics, including the Arcbishop of Canterbury, appear to be staying.
The Anglican Church has traditionally attempted to include those inclined towards more Catholic belief and practice with those who tend to take a more Protestant stance on faith and sacraments. There have also been, particularly in countries such as England, what have been called mainstream Anglicans.
At the moment the age old Anglican consensus seems to have broken down. Accusations have been thrown to and fro. The more Conservative Evangelical dioceses in Sydney; parts of South America and African countries like Nigeria gathered together in GAFCON seem to be effectively out of communion with the Episcopal Church in the USA.
'Catholic' is a word that can mean different things to different people. The disagreement on 'Catholicity' seems to continue on this thread.
There are many who will appreciate your clearly stated and charitable approach whether they agree or disagree with you.
--------------------
Well...
Posts: 5108 | From: The Deep North, Oz | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
Sir P - I understand that the archbishop of the TAC,according to what is laid out in the apostolic constituion will not be allowed to function as an Anglican rite priest - but would he be able,if he so wished to transfer to the 'anglican rite' as a lay person ?
Or would he, if he wished to return to the Catholic church, have to be re-integrated to the Latin rite as a laicised priest in an 'irregular' marriage ?
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sir Pellinore
Quester Emeritus
# 12163
|
Posted
From what I understand, Forthview, I would think the latter. He has been married twice so I would suspect, if they observed the letter of the law, it would be difficult for him to communicate.
--------------------
Well...
Posts: 5108 | From: The Deep North, Oz | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Edward Green
Review Editor
# 46
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be; as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the catholic Church. It is not lawful to baptize or give communion without the consent of the bishop. On the other hand, whatever has his approval is pleasing to God. Thus, whatever is done will be safe and valid. -- St. Ignatius of Antioch
Cut the chord from this and you're in a new paradigm, and one which isn't catholic.
Amen and Amen. The force of the Catholic Reformation is that Rome had departed from the faith represented by the early mothers and fathers and the New Testament. Where the Reformation fell into error was when it abandoned the representative apostolic ministry.
Both still fall short of the fullness of the Catholic faith. But when I look at all sorts of movements in the wider church, be they catholic, sacramental, evangelical, charismatic, (post)liberal or neo-apostolic, I believe the Spirit is working to bring the whole church closer to this fullness.
Perhaps TAC and FiF heading Romewards is part of that. I believe it is.
--------------------
blog//twitter//
linkedin
Posts: 4893 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alt Wally
Cardinal Ximinez
# 3245
|
Posted
Anglican_Brat and Edward Green, I must disagree. The fullness of the catholic faith exists where the true eucharist does, because there is Christ himself.
That is why the issue of ordination, succession, etc. is not a trivial matter.
[ 13. November 2009, 13:36: Message edited by: Alt Wally ]
Posts: 3684 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
I've tried to be gracious and eirenic about this. Maybe you could do the same.
You got the sarcastic response for the same reason that TT took exception to your earlier post. If that's gracious and eirenic, give me patronising supercilliousness and passive aggression any day of the week.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ianjmatt
Shipmate
# 5683
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
Anglican_Brat and Edward Green, I must disagree. The fullness of the catholic faith exists where the true eucharist does, because there is Christ himself.
That is why the issue of ordination, succession, etc. is not a trivial matter.
Surely the Fathers had it the other way round. The church is where he Bishop is, and where the Bishop is, is where true eucharist can be found.
--------------------
You might want to visit my blog:
http://lostintheheartofsomewhere.blogspot.com
But maybe not
Posts: 676 | From: Shropshire | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
