|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Pope announces plans for Anglicans to convert in groups
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
So many details of what is being offered will only come with the published text of the Apostolic Constitution, so I don't want hazard too many guesses here.
However, it seems abundantly clear to me that this deal is for the most part for the TAC who submitted themselves a couple of years back to Rome in full acceptance of the Magisterium, asking for a corporate reception. Since then, of course, and long before too, the "mainstream" solid Anglo-Papalists and some tentative camp-followers have been asking for much the same kind of deal. Their end goal, however much they got sidelined by the cosy status quo (which got less and less cosy as time went on), was always full reunion as a body with the Holy See.
I can understand that desire - even though I submitted personally some time ago, after being an A-P for all of my adult life, and am heartily glad I did. That was definitely the right move for me. But other A-Ps who have been nurtured in the Catholic faith (and this is true whatever one may think of the validity of orders and whatever) in their own parishes and organisations, and have strong attachments to their own clergy and fellow parishioners as living ecclesiastical communities, with their own histories of witnessing to the faith, already have a corporate Catholic identity which it seems perfectly healthy and reasonable to want to keep hold of as much as possible through the transition. Provided they submit fully to the complete teaching of the Church, I see no reason why some sort of corporate allowance be made for the good of their souls. That's the supreme rule, after all.
Therefore, any notions that this is a cynical attempt at sheep-stealing some Anglicans by allowing them to be pseudo-catholics just to get one over on the Anglican Communion is, well, unfair. The Pope will be in so much trouble over this with his own bishops, if past reactions to such schemes are anything to go by, that this should rather be seen as a heroically generous attempt to Do The Right Thing by shepherdless sheep.
[ 21. October 2009, 09:22: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jon G
Shipmate
# 4704
|
Posted
Originally posted by Multipara quote:
those who are that way inclined
Indeed, I believe the present moves are part of a greater project by the Pope to create some boundaries between kosher/non-kosher faith.
Unfortunately, developments in the area of sexuality and gender can not forever be ignored as some kind of liberal plot.
Whether in 20 or 200 years it's going to have to be addressed.
--------------------
At the dark end of the street
Posts: 182 | From: Newcastle west | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Corvo
Shipmate
# 15220
|
Posted
I think the statment is mainly being read as an invitation to existing 'disaffected' Anglicans or former Anglicans to join the RC church.
Several contributors have reasonably asked why such as these haven't already joined it anyway, and, especially given the 'papalism' of some in liturgy, what the point of an 'Anglican rite' would be.
I wonder whether the papal eye is actually on something he envisages might happen in the future, that is to say, an almost complete 'collapse' of Anglicanism into its constituent parts (evangelical/catholic/liberal/ whatever), and an ecclesial 'realignment' in which the RC church picks up (provides a home for) much larger numbers who wish to remain in a 'liturgical' community.
In other words the creation of an 'Anglican Rite' out of (rather than specifically for ) the currently disaffected is an investment for a envisaged future in which maybe the only place one might be able to hear Evensong or 1662 language will be an Anglican Rite Catholic church.
[ 21. October 2009, 10:11: Message edited by: Sacred London ]
Posts: 672 | From: The Most Holy Trinity, Coach Lane, North Shields | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jon G
Shipmate
# 4704
|
Posted
I like what Bishop Alan wrote about all this.
--------------------
At the dark end of the street
Posts: 182 | From: Newcastle west | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jon G:
I like what Bishop Alan wrote about all this.
I hope I'm not infringing his copyright by quoting this bit: quote:
you’ll get two sorts of “convert”:
1. people who really should try out and perhaps are called by God to be part of the Roman tradition: Hip, hip, hooray!
2. people who aren’t terribly good at living in any tradition on anything but their own terms.
The second sort of convert will carry on inexorably being as they are, because it’s personaity based and they can’t help it. This may not be good news for your own people. Where, for example, does it leave genuine Roman Catholic clergy who have faithfully and heroicially struggled and somehow managed to live within their Church’s discipline, because they sincerely believed it was necessary, to know that Auntie in Rome is now doing a PostModern family promotion for married Anglicans, but you’re not invited?
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Though what has really changed? Individual Anglicans (priests and laity) have been welcomed on those terms already. The 'Continuing Anglicans' (who hardly exist in England anyway, and are not necessarily or mostly pro-papal in the US or elswhere) are the only real groups that might consider the offer. A few C of E priests might take a small remnant of laity with them, and submit as a group. But there aren't going to be any parishes as such that take up the offer.
[ 21. October 2009, 10:52: Message edited by: Angloid ]
--------------------
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
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Isn't it a smack in the face to the Church of Rome that we think our orders and sacraments are valid?
If, as some people seem to think, this implies almost automatic re-ordination for Anglican priests who want to join the new Apostolic Whatsit then the slap in the face isn't to continuing Anglicans but to those individuals who gave up their ANglican orders and went into the Church of Rome as lay people.
Talk of appointing bishops from among the community of ex-Anglicans seems to me to imply that there is to be a semi-automatic recognition of the orders of the Tiber-swiming Anglican priests. Which would imply that Anglican orders and sacraments aren't so much invalid as incomplete. OK as far as they go, but needing to be topped up by the Pope's magic juice to be really as good as they can be.
There is a process of discernment and formation and training and education that goes into being a Roman Catholic priest, just as there is one for Anglicans (or Lutherans, or Methodists, or Presbyterians or whoever). Is the Vatican really promising to bypass or short-circuit or fast-track that process for Anglicans? If they are, then this is de facto recognition of the Anglican processes of discernment and formation, which looks a lot like de facto recognition of Anglican orders. It would be rather odd to imagine a load of priestless heretical sectarians who were by some miracle almost infallibly capable of discerning who should be a priest in the church of God and who shouldn't. But if the Vatican really isn't promising that, then this is perhaps less than it seems on the surface.
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
On one hand, at least in the short-term, this would further entrench the evangelical ascendancy in the CofE.
Evangelical ascendency? It doesn't look like one from here! Liberal-catholic with charismatic tinges I'd say.
Oh, and what Angloid just said...
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
FCB
Hillbilly Thomist
# 1495
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
[Is the Vatican really promising to bypass or short-circuit or fast-track that process for Anglicans? If they are, then this is de facto recognition of the Anglican processes of discernment and formation, which looks a lot like de facto recognition of Anglican orders.
At least since Vatican II it has been standard Catholic teaching that ministers in protestant churches are genuine ministers of Jesus Christ, and their pastoral formation/experience is perfectly "valid." However, they have not received the sacrament of Holy Orders (to which most of them -- including many Anglicans -- would say, "damn right, ordination isn't a sacrament"). So, yes, there is a recognition of their ministry, just not of their priesthood.
--------------------
Agent of the Inquisition since 1982.
Posts: 2928 | From: that city in "The Wire" | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by caercybi06:
... but there are RCs who are being disciplined for thinking out loud about a married clergy or worse female priests.
That's not really fair. RCs are at least allowed to talk about married priests!
Sometimes they even get to talk to them. There are a few married priests in the Roman rite of the RCs and always have been (though once upon a time they might have been elderly and vowed celibacy in marriage - it has happened). They've got their by various means, and conversion from Anglicanism is one of them. Also the RCs have always been in communion with Eastern rite churches that have married priests.
If I was being a cynical conspiracy theorist I would say this works to the mutual advantage of the hierarchies of both Rome and the Church of England. Rome, because they get to introduce married priests through the back door without having to publically back down on anything. CofE because they can now draw up their rules for objectors to women bishops knowing that some of the pressure is off.
I assume & hope that the people making the new rules stick to their guns and allow as much space as possible for objectors (short of the almost impossible Third Province or complete independency for the parishes) It would be a shame if anyone takes this as a cue to try to push the objectors out of the CofE entirely by deliberatly making a system to exclude them.
quote:
And I doubt that too many of the right wing of the Anglican family will want to bend the knee to the Pope.
I'm not sure that the phrase "right wing" is very helpful here. In England (it might be different in the USA) a lot of theologically orthodox Anglicans are politically left-wing - both Anglo-Catholics and Evangelicals. And at least some of the theological liberals are politically right-wing.
Also its confusing to the fevered brains of those few of us who have read histories of the 16th and 17th century, because the more extreme Protestants are often called the "left wing of the Reformation" ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
quote:
As to retaining buildings here in Canada the diocese thus the Bishop owns all buildings not the congregation.
In the Church of England, the freehold of most parish churches is held by the incumbent acting as a corporation in trust for the whole parish. And they are inalienable. The legal situation is, to put it mildly, complex. They can be sold off when redundant but there are Dickensian hoops to jump through and it involves the Diocese and the inhabitants of the parish - not just the members of the church.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
Indications are that the rite will be the Book of Divine Worship. The Mass is basically the 1979 BCP rite (in traditional and contemporary-language flavors), with the BCP canon removed and the Gregorian canon substituted. I've seen some wild fantasizing online about the Knott Missal being authorized and what-not, but I'll believe that when I see it.
That would be pretty irrelevant to the vast majority of English FiF types (who are, I am assuming, the main target audience of this move). In their current practice many of them are effectively using the modern Roman rite anyway, and most of the rest are, I suspect, using the CofE's Common Worship pretty straight (it allows for huge local variation). Some will be using modifications of older Roman rites, but I think (with very little evidence) that they will be very small in number.
Only a minority use the Prayer Book any more, probably an even smaller minority than the minority of Evangelicals who do. Some will be attached to the Morning and Evening Prayer BCP services in 1662 (or 1927/28 for a few). As private devotions they are probably used by some RC ex-Anglicans already. I bet it wouldn't take much for them to be authorised in RC churches - is there anything in the Office liturgy in 1927/28 that Roman Catholics ought not to believe or say?
I suspect that most of them would be happy with the words of Novus Ordo and a little latitude in their interpretation of the GIRM. (Like the latitude they used to find in their interpretation of the BCP rubrics) And perhaps a modern-language, or more likely 1928ish cod-language version of the Office. Maybe with a nice little pseudo-Cranmerian Compline added.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
A few C of E priests might take a small remnant of laity with them, and submit as a group. But there aren't going to be any parishes as such that take up the offer.
I wouldn't be too sure, only time will tell. The thing about this is that it is new. There has been no such provision before in England. In fact the RC hierarchy was somewhat wary of Anglican converts after women's ordination. But it's not just the provision that is new, it is the entire situation.
Whereas in 1992 it was clear that the CoE was going to bend over backwards to accommodate Anglo-catholics, there is a considerable hardening of attitudes now. We're also in a bigger mess than ever in Anglican circles. We are so badly divided that the Roman Catholic Church no longer believes that the only way of talking to Anglicans is to do so officially via the ABC, or ARCIC. Lastly, hopes of full,visible unity have receded entirely and the ARCIC process has been downgraded. I think this initiative will be taken very seriously around the Communion among many Anglicans who believe in the provisionality of our Church, and deplore the ossification of Anglicanism in an effete liberal-catholicism.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
uncletoby
hobbyhorsical
# 13067
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
It would be a shame if anyone takes this as a cue to try to push the objectors out of the CofE entirely by deliberatly making a system to exclude them.
This pretty much sums up my feelings. I am not an objector myself, but most of my fellow-parishoners are. I would hate to see parish communities fractured over this.
--------------------
`` L--d! I cannot look at it ----
Posts: 1150 | From: Cambridge | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Choirboy
Shipmate
# 9659
|
Posted
I'm somewhat bemused by comments here, mostly but not entirely, I think, from the far side of the pond, worrying about introducing a bunch of ex-Anglicans of a fractious authority-challenged 'nature' into the Catholic Church. As if the Catholic Church had any shortage of that sort as it is.
Perhaps things are smoother over there, but hearing of Damien Thompson and his fans makes me think it is perhaps otherwise. And a glance at websites of similar groups in the U.S. shows Thompson's followers are the tip of the iceberg. I'm thinking here of what I've seen of Una Voca Orange County's website etc.
Such folks will always quote you chapter and verse from some set of rules or the other justifying their statements or actions, but, of course, this sets themselves up as the interpreters of those rules rather than leaving such things to the bishops or Rome.
The 'nature' of these soon to be ex-Anglicans doesn't seem to me to be any different than any number of folks on the other side of the Tiber. The chief difference appears to be that the group of Anglicans is more noticeable because they are larger with respect to Anglicanism or the C of E than the corresponding groups within the Catholic Church are to the larger body. That, and they seem to be a whole lot nicer than many of the 'authentically' Catholic crazies I've come across.
So what is worse - acknowledging all the doctrine but realizing issues of ecclesiastical culture need addressing, or being thoroughly in the fold by brand but insisting the rules mean exactly what you think they mean, railing on about this bishop or that, running around 'spying' on liturgy at places and threatening reports to Rome?
On the other hand, if the latter is all perfectly normal, then you have nothing to worry about from the ex-Anglicans. They will be rather tame by comparison.
Posts: 2994 | From: Minneapolis, Minnesota USA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
angelicum
Shipmate
# 13515
|
Posted
I'm not entirely sure I understand what exactly is so wrong with charges of proselytism in this instance. I would say this was an accurate statement. After all the Pope believes that the church of Christ subsists in the Catholic church and that there is a deficiency in the Anglican communion.
If by allowing those who already subscribe to the truths of the faith including the Petrine role, but wish to preserve some corporate expression of their former religious identities which do not in themselves contradict Catholic doctrine, encourages more people to join the Catholic church then from the RC perspective this has to be a good thing.
This is not about setting up pseudo-Anglicans (and in a sense all Anglicans are former Catholics), but rather a corporate re-union with particular communities in the Anglican tradition who have come to a shared understanding of issues which may formerly have been divisive. That has always been the goal of ecumenism from the RC perspective.
Posts: 364 | From: Full in the panting heart | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
I think this initiative will be taken very seriously around the Communion among many Anglicans who believe in the provisionality of our Church, and deplore the ossification of Anglicanism in an effete liberal-catholicism.
This Anglo-catholic believes very strongly in the provisionality of (any) church, but especially the C of E, would love to see unity with the RCC, but not at the cost of disowning his ordained sisters nor of sweeping yet further under the carpet the issues of gender and sexuality. If that makes me an 'effete liberal-catholic', well, so be it. But I think we might well be a stronger voice in the C of E than that dismissive epithet suggests.
As for my comment about 'parishes' not 'converting': this would only be a feasible concept if you accepted the sectarian view of the C of E and saw 'parish' as meaning the worshipping community rather than a wider geographical community for whom the Church has a responsibility.
--------------------
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
|
|
Shadowhund
Shipmate
# 9175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jon G:
[qb] I like what Bishop Alan wrote about all this.
I hope I'm not infringing his copyright by quoting this bit: quote:
you’ll get two sorts of “convert”:
2. people who aren’t terribly good at living in any tradition on anything but their own terms.
The second sort of convert will carry on inexorably being as they are, because it’s personaity based and they can’t help it. This may not be good news for your own people. Where, for example, does it leave genuine Roman Catholic clergy who have faithfully and heroicially struggled and somehow managed to live within their Church’s discipline, because they sincerely believed it was necessary, to know that Auntie in Rome is now doing a PostModern family promotion for married Anglicans, but you’re not invited?
The Catholic Church can deal just fine with convert number 2, if he is a layman. We are a hospital for sinners after all....we welcome all assholes....so long as you don't bug the confessional or hire PIs to look for moral dirt that one can publicize about the clergy. (Those assholes are usually cradle Catholics, not converts, a certain ex-convert that writes for a Texas newspaper being an exception.) It is the clergy where assholeism is a problem. The Church can refuse to ordain those men, and I hope that our bishops will not lay hands suddenly on any man, as the Bible says.
I'm more and more pleased 24 hours after the annoucement, but I do not think the outcome will be earthshattering. I do not expect a single Anglican Use parish anywhere near my home. There is an active continuing parish near me easily accesible by bus, but it is highly unlikely to come over to Rome however desirable that would be.
[ 21. October 2009, 13:51: Message edited by: Shadowhund ]
--------------------
"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
|
|
Alt Wally
Cardinal Ximinez
# 3245
|
Posted
quote:
Full circle in what way
That there are now Anglicans who believe the only way to preserve the distinctive of their liturgical patrimony and piety is to go under the authority of the Pope. That is deeply ironic, and I'm sure that would not be lost on Cranmer or Campion.
Posts: 3684 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
Has there been any discussion about the needs of the congregations which such priests as would want to swim the Tiber presumably presently represent and give cure of souls to?
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
If that makes me an 'effete liberal-catholic', well, so be it. But I think we might well be a stronger voice in the C of E than that dismissive epithet suggests.
That's my point, liberal catholicism has a very strong voice for better or worse. Increasingly many liberal catholics reject any concept of provisionality, and have turned their backs on the Anglo-Catholic-driven quest for full, visible unity with the Holy See. (Strictly speaking, that probably makes them liberals who like tat.)
I take your point about parishes.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
Choirboy wrote quote:
I'm somewhat bemused by comments here, mostly but not entirely, I think, from the far side of the pond, worrying about introducing a bunch of ex-Anglicans of a fractious authority-challenged 'nature' into the Catholic Church. As if the Catholic Church had any shortage of that sort as it is.
Well - I agree with this, I think. However, what comes after this in your analysis is more problematic. As about half a dozen of us have pointed out in different ways, your thumbnail sketch only describes part of the constituency. The remainder are not really problematic at all. At least in this way. They are simply parishioners who feel increasingly marginalized. As I pointed out earlier, if the results of the last exodus are anything to go by, there is every chance that after a season, the troublemakers will return to the fold of whatever flavour of Anglicanism they had left.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
Mildly interesting suggestion in today's New York Times (scroll down to John Allen's piece)
Try this quote: quote:
By the way, there’s also nothing preventing the Anglican Communion from creating similar structures to welcome aggrieved Catholics who support all the measures these disaffected Anglicans oppose. Certainly, after today, the Vatican would have no basis to condemn such a move as an ecumenical low blow.
What chance of an opposite flow?
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Methodists, or Presbyterians or whoever). Is the Vatican really promising to bypass or short-circuit or fast-track that process for Anglicans? If they are, then this is de facto recognition of the Anglican processes of discernment and formation, which looks a lot like de facto recognition of Anglican orders.
Perhaps it only recognizes Anglican orders in the past tense: orders that were once valid but today increasingly dubious.
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alt Wally
Cardinal Ximinez
# 3245
|
Posted
quote:
What chance of an opposite flow?
In the U.S., they have an existing flow now. Does the ECUSA need a prelature for support of the Pauline mass? I doubt it.
[ 21. October 2009, 15:29: Message edited by: Alt Wally ]
Posts: 3684 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Organ Builder
Shipmate
# 12478
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
What chance of an opposite flow?
I'm not sure anyone has any firm numbers, but every TEC church I've ever been part of has a sizable group of ex-Romans.
Given the relative sizes of the two churches in the US, I think it likely that numerically there are more leaving Rome than joining her. I would hesitate to suggest it was a larger percentage of the total, however.
--------------------
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
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
I have read surveys that suggest that in the U.S. Roman Catholics become Episcopalians at a 5 to 1 ratio than in the other direction.
I reckon it's lower in Canada because Catholicism has an even greater ethnic dimension.
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
What chance of an opposite flow?
quote:
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
In the U.S., they have an existing flow now. Does the ECUSA need a prelature for support of the Pauline mass? I doubt it.
quote:
Originally posted by Organ Builder:
I'm not sure anyone has any firm numbers, but every TEC church I've ever been part of has a sizable group of ex-Romans.
Given the relative sizes of the two churches in the US, I think it likely that numerically there are more leaving Rome than joining her. I would hesitate to suggest it was a larger percentage of the total, however.
My experience in the American Episcopal Church is the same as Organ Builder's. I teach the newcomers and the adult confirmation classes in my parish, and in general about half the people who come to us as adults are former Roman Catholics. It's a sizable number from our point of view, but I doubt the folks in charge of the local Catholic congregations are losing any sleep over the number of alienated Catholics who join Episcopal churches; larger numbers are joining charismatic churches and probably even more are simply dropping out of church attendance entirely.
I don't think there's any point in TEC creating a structure for welcoming former Catholics en masse, for a couple of reasons. First, Catholics don't come to us in groups. They come to us as individuals. We don't have groups of Catholics petitioning us for acceptance of their rites. Second, we've got too much of our identity tied up in our forms of worship. When you become an Episcopalian, you're not submitting to a magisterium -- you're primarily agreeing that you want to worship with us the way we worship.
While of course there are caveats and qualifications to be made to the following statement, overall, I see Anglicanism as being more about practice than about doctrine -- we have no unique primary beliefs, no core tenets that are ours alone, that no other group of Christians doesn't also believe -- whereas Catholicism seems to be very much about doctrine.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
I think there is much more to this than meets the eye.
The Holy Father, some time back (and I don't have a link to prove it - I just remember it), pleased with the C of E to remain intact, while other RC bishops said that a merely negative view about the OOW was not sufficient reason to embrace the RCC.
Howabout if the Pope has made this gesture in an attempt to scare Synod into making proper provision for conscientious objectors to women bishops?
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
aumbry
Shipmate
# 436
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
I have read surveys that suggest that in the U.S. Roman Catholics become Episcopalians at a 5 to 1 ratio than in the other direction.
Surely that would be what you would expect if there were five times as many RCs as Episcopalians and the movement was balanced. I suspect there are more than 5 times the number of RCs in the USA than episcopalians so if anything it shows that the Episcopal Church is not much of a draw to disenchanted RCs.
Posts: 3869 | From: Quedlinburg | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Organ Builder
Shipmate
# 12478
|
Posted
I suppose, leo, that is within the realm of possibility. I'm skeptical, however, because I don't think the Pope thinks about Anglicans as much as Anglicans think about the Pope.
It also seems to me that if that were his motivation there would have been little or no need to keep the ABC out of the loop.
I'm more inclined to think (though not yet completely convinced) that this was in response to the TAC, and the implications for the C of E may never have crossed his mind. I certainly doubt he understood or thought about its implications for the balance of power in Synod for the C of E.
--------------------
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
|
|
aumbry
Shipmate
# 436
|
Posted
Apparently there are 66.4 million Roman Catholics in the USA and 2.3 million Episcopalians.
So based on your 1:5 ratio a far higher proportion of Episcopalians are becoming RC that RCs are becoming Episcopalian.
Posts: 3869 | From: Quedlinburg | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
It doesn't change my point that numerically, Episcopalians get the better end of the deal (including priests and bishops who want to marry.)
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
Now that Rome is officially taking married Anglican priests, will it be taking Father Cutie back?
Zach
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Organ Builder
Shipmate
# 12478
|
Posted
The two churches keep membership records (and therefore numbers of members) in completely different manners. I'm not sure, therefore, that they are directly comparable. I suspect most of those converts to TEC are still on the Roman count.
That said, there is no question the Roman presence in the US far outweighs the Episcopalian presence. In recent years, though, the only thing which kept Roman numbers increasing was the influx of Catholic immigrants--mostly hispanic.
Episcopalians are really no threat to the RCs, and to be honest the RCs aren't really a threat for us. The RCs are losing many more members to various charismatic and pentecostal groups--especially from the hispanic groups which were the backbone of the Catholic church in the Southwest where I grew up.
Given that this option has long been available in the US anyway, I would be surprised if it is ever anything more than a story for a slow news day--as mentioned earlier, Anglo-Papalists are extremely rare in the US.
--------------------
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
|
|
cor ad cor loquitur
Shipmate
# 11816
|
Posted
A few questions come to mind.
As I understand things, Anglican clergy who assent to Catholic doctrine and to the authority of the Pope and the magisterium can be ‘fast-tracked’ into Catholic ordination. But what qualifies a clergyman as ‘Anglican’? The Anglican communion, even before the schisms of the last decade, had multiple branches and sub-branches. If you include the entire ‘continuing Anglican’ movement, the tree gets very bushy indeed. Will any cleric who calls himself Anglican be treated as such? The actual Anglican ordination seems largely irrelevant, since the Church doesn't accept it. So if I sign up with the International Traditional Continuing Orthodox Anglican Communion and get myself ordained by a wandering bishop, can I apply as a married priest and get fast-tracked to Catholic ordination?
Setting property issues aside, when Anglican parishes come over to Rome, how will they adapt to a very different model of parish governance and church polity? Parochial church councils (UK) and vestries (USA) are executive bodies, with power to raise funds and a major role in selecting the parish clergy. Parish councils in the Catholic Church are purely advisory. I don’t think there is anything in canon law that requires their existence. A parish priest (pastor) who wants to close down his parish council can do so in an instant; indeed, for traditionalist priests it has become something of a point of honour to dissolve the parish council.
How will the new Anglican-Catholics cope with the liturgical chaos they will find on this side of the Tiber? The Catholic Church has everything from ‘make it up as you go along’ to ‘strictly by the book’, with, in some circles, a ritual mutaween ready to file a video report with Rome if anyone breaks the rules. It is truly ‘here comes everybody’. And this chaos (healthy diversity?) often works within a single parish – the 8 am Mass may be guitars and tambourines, the 10:30 Latin and chant. Maybe this is also the case in Anglican parishes, but given that some of these migrating Anglicans seem to be from the ‘high churc’ faction, I wonder how they will get on.
Finally, it seems to me that both the traditionalist Anglicans and the SSPX – and some tradbloggers have suggested that the SSPXers will be next to be given personal ordinariates – have defined themselves primarily in opposition to other movements. The ‘Affirmation of St Louis’, for example, claims early on that ‘the Anglican Church of Canada and the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America, by their unlawful attempts to alter Faith, Order and Morality … have departed from Christ's One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.’
Once these oppositional, enclavist groups come into the wider space of the Catholic Church, what will they have to fight against? If their identities are defined primarily by what they oppose, what happens when there is no longer much to oppose?
At some level I guess all of these are empirical questions and that they will be resolved both by details of the Apostolic Constitution and by events over the next few years.
--------------------
Quam vos veritatem interpretationis, hanc eruditi κακοζηλίαν nuncupant … si ad verbum interpretor, absurde resonant. (St Jerome, Ep. 57 to Pammachius)
Posts: 1332 | From: London | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
Howabout if the Pope has made this gesture in an attempt to scare Synod into making proper provision for conscientious objectors to women bishops? [/QUOTE]
If by "proper provision" you mean what they are demanding of the rest if us, I think it works the other way round. This makes that less likely, not more. And I suspect it means women bishops sooner, rather than later.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Organ Builder:
The two churches keep membership records (and therefore numbers of members) in completely different manners. I'm not sure, therefore, that they are directly comparable. I suspect most of those converts to TEC are still on the Roman count...
...Episcopalians are really no threat to the RCs, and to be honest the RCs aren't really a threat for us. The RCs are losing many more members to various charismatic and pentecostal groups--especially from the hispanic groups which were the backbone of the Catholic church in the Southwest where I grew up.
The RC's biggest loss is really the same as the Episcopalians - the bucket of "no religion". Even in the midst of Hispanic migration the number of baptized Catholics who attend mass has nosedived from 42% in 1987 to 33% by 2005. (Source: USA Today) If they used the same method of counting members as the Episcopal Church their membership loss would equal ours and exceed many of the mainline Protestant denominations.
Granted, RCs seem to keep their religious identification longer after they cease to practise, but even with call after call from RC bishops to come back, you don't see French, Québecois, Spanish, Italian, Swiss or South Americans streaming back into the church in great numbers. And the same is true for North Americans outside of first and second generation immigrants.
That's why it strikes me as a case of wankery to go after disaffected Anglicans instead of focusing on what is leading many to leave. The church, whether it is liberal or conservative, isn't speaking to increasing numbers people anymore.
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cor ad cor loquitur:
How will the new Anglican-Catholics cope with the liturgical chaos they will find on this side of the Tiber? The Catholic Church has everything from ‘make it up as you go along’ to ‘strictly by the book’, with, in some circles, a ritual mutaween ready to file a video report with Rome if anyone breaks the rules. It is truly ‘here comes everybody’. And this chaos (healthy diversity?) often works within a single parish – the 8 am Mass may be guitars and tambourines, the 10:30 Latin and chant. Maybe this is also the case in Anglican parishes, but given that some of these migrating Anglicans seem to be from the ‘high churc’ faction, I wonder how they will get on.
My impression is that the establishment of this Ordinariate will allow those under it to form their own communities of the Anglican Use within the Roman Rite. It won't be just a matter of absorbing them into the nearest RC parish, but bringing their parish (and, where possible, its property) into the Ordinary's jurisdiction. I would guess that if the parish rector or other clergy were received, even without a building they would at least rate their own service in the parish schedule.
quote:
Finally, it seems to me that both the traditionalist Anglicans and the SSPX – and some tradbloggers have suggested that the SSPXers will be next to be given personal ordinariates – have defined themselves primarily in opposition to other movements. The ‘Affirmation of St Louis’, for example, claims early on that ‘the Anglican Church of Canada and the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America, by their unlawful attempts to alter Faith, Order and Morality … have departed from Christ's One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.’
Once these oppositional, enclavist groups come into the wider space of the Catholic Church, what will they have to fight against? If their identities are defined primarily by what they oppose, what happens when there is no longer much to oppose?
I think you misinterpret the Affirmation's preamble. Very few of us in the Continuing Churches are concerned with "fighting against" the Episcopal Church or the ACCanada. That paragraph you quoted is an explanation of what led to the circumstance of the Fellowship of Concerned Churchmen meeting in St Louis, and what motivated their decision. It's not a declaration of eternal vendetta against the Episcopalians, and most of us have very little time for anyone who wants to carry on such a vendetta. We left TEC, and their problems aren't our concern except insofar as they inspire some tsking over the morning paper.
That being said, there are those within the Continuing Churches (and, unaccountably, within the Anglican Communion) who are professional malcontents. But these people aren't happy anywhere; nothing lives up to their expectations, and though they might hop to the Anglican Ordinariate when it becomes available, a year later they'll leave for the LCMS or WRO, or some other group that seems like it will offer the blissfully perfect church experience they will never have, because that's what they're like.
--------------------
"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
|
|
fisher
Shipmate
# 9080
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cor ad cor loquitur:
...Once these oppositional, enclavist groups come into the wider space of the Catholic Church, what will they have to fight against? If their identities are defined primarily by what they oppose, what happens when there is no longer much to oppose?...
This may be what you're implying, but presumably from a C/catholic perspective that is one of the ways this could work out quite well.
--------------------
"Down, down, presumptuous human reason!" But somehow they found out I was not a real bishop at all G. K. Chesterton
Posts: 1327 | From: London | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
sonata3
Shipmate
# 13653
|
Posted
I'm surprised that the issue of divorce has not been more often mentioned in this thread. The last time I was member of an Episcopal parish, I would guess that half of the membership (including the priest) were former Catholics (incidentally, I have read that the second largest Christian denomination in the US is "formerly Catholic"). And the primary reason that led many of these former Catholics to convert was divorce, and a reluctance to go through the annullment process. (On the "New Liturgical Movement" blog, one poster suggested blanket annullments for all Anglicans converting, with the rationale that their Anglican understanding of marriage was defective, and therefore the marriage could not have been valid).
But it seems to me that divorce is going to be an issue that will have to be dealt with, if there is to be a wholesale movement to Rome. (Aren't there TAC bishops with divorce in their backgrounds, and hasn't that been a part of the sticking point in their discussions with Rome, or no?)
And, I found the following quote from Bishop Iker (in this morning's WSJ) interesting: "Not all Anglo-Catholics can accept certain teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, nor do they believe that they must first convert to Rome in order to be truly catholic Christians."
--------------------
"I prefer neurotic people; I like to hear rumblings beneath the surface." Stephen Sondheim
Posts: 386 | From: Between two big lakes | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Organ Builder
Shipmate
# 12478
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sonata3:
And, I found the following quote from Bishop Iker (in this morning's WSJ) interesting: "Not all Anglo-Catholics can accept certain teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, nor do they believe that they must first convert to Rome in order to be truly catholic Christians."
It isn't very often that Bishop Iker will say something with which I can agree 100%.
Now, I think I need to go lie down...
--------------------
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
quote:
I'm surprised that the issue of divorce has not been more often mentioned in this thread.
It will be interesting to see. Eastern Catholics had to abandon ecclesiastical divorce and adopt annulments.
Similar to others, and ECUSA parish I attended had a priest (divorced & re-married) who was a former Catholic. There were several others of similar background.
[ 21. October 2009, 19:31: Message edited by: Alt Wally ]
Posts: 3684 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fuzzipeg
Shipmate
# 10107
|
Posted
There is a cultural difference between the RCC & Anglicanism, even Anglo-papalism and that difference is not papered over by allowing some sort of Anglican rite. The RCC is very different from the inside as opposed to the outside looking in.
Somebody much earlier on in the thread commented on noticing that the priest didn't hold his hands correctly during Mass shortly after his reception into the RCC and realising that it wasn't an issue.
In AC circles what priests and people do liturgically and that includes where when and how often a member of the congregation or a priest makes or doesn't make, the Sign of the Cross, is important because in an Anglican context it makes them classifiable. In an RCC context it is irrelevant.
Anglicans seem to be obsessed with what people do rather than their spiritual health and the Ship seems to reflect that. It's surely a spiritual journey that brings people to the RCC, not the negatives that keep coming up, women clergy, homosexuality etc. If it is not spiritual it won't last...no matter what the TAC's motivation may be.
--------------------
http://foodybooze.blogspot.co.za
Posts: 929 | From: Johannesburg, South Africa | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mother Julian
Ship's librarian
# 11978
|
Posted
Father Tim Finigan, the well-known English Catholic blogger has posted an interesting article today that seems to draw on well-informed sources:
The hermeneutic of continuity
for example: quote:
This was not an initiative of the Holy See but of over 50 Anglican Bishops, of whom about half are still in the Anglican Communion
He comments towards the end that this is a matter of authority, not the ordination of women or gays. How glad I am to hear a respected writer emphasising this - it's happens to be my view as well. In response to Max. yesterday, if I should swim the Tiber and twenty years later the Catholic Church decides to ordain women priests, I would be very happy, as the Catholic Church has the authority to do this.
--------------------
The corn was orient and immortal wheat which never should be reaped, nor was ever sown.
Posts: 359 | From: the banks of the mighty River Mersey | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Organ Builder
Shipmate
# 12478
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fuzzipeg:
Anglicans seem to be obsessed with what people do rather than their spiritual health and the Ship seems to reflect that.
My italics. I'll let the first part of the generalization pass, but I do wonder how you think an internet bulletin board would be set up to cater to people's spiritual health. My guess would be that it might bear a passing resemblance to the All Saints board, but it certainly wouldn't look anything like Purgatory.
At the moment, this looks like a really cheap shot. I hope that wasn't your intent.
--------------------
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
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Looking at this from outside both churches, I am not sure I see the problem. The Times front page claims amximum of 2000 priest might cross - though they guess a thousand or less - out of 14,000. This being 1000-2000 who are already disaffected, and (like everybody else pretty much) have always professed a desire for the ultimate reunification of the church.
If you keep them, what are you keeping them for ? It would be different if they would be 'abandoned' if they left.
It also seems as if it will make it easier for the church to procede with the direction the majority of members are comfortbale with.
There is one report stating it is wierd that the ABC would do a joint press conference with someone who is effectively declaring him a heretic. But that has always been the position of the RCs toward the Anglicans hasn't it ? Also the 'offically notified' only two days ago suggests to me - unofficially notified quite a while back but to be kept under one's mitre so as not to derail a fait accompli.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
The Bishop of Fulham and Fr Geoffrey Kirk of Forward in Faith began their rsponse to these plans with the following words:
quote:
It has been the frequently expressed hope and fervent desire of Anglican Catholics to be enabled by some means to enter into full communion with the See of Peter whilst retaining in its integrity every aspect of their Anglican inheritance which is not at variance with the teaching of the Catholic Church.
It seems to me that this ecumenical gesture by Pope Benedict XVI will cater for this expressed hope and fervent desire. So where does this leave the General Synod in its struggle to provide for those who can't, in good faith, accept the priesthood of women? I would say its a "get out of jail" card! I was once a strong supporter of the FiF proposal for a Third Province. I have now come to realise that, if the C of E has decided, which it has, by constitutional means to ordain women bishops, it is entitled to say, "this is what the Church of England does. If you can't accept it you will need to find a spiritual home elsewhere."
This Apostolic Constitution answers the needs of both groups, and must radically change the way the Synod deals with this issue. What FiF couldn't get from the C of E it can get from Rome, ie an independent structure, which also answers the long term goals as set out in + Fulham's statement. The C of E has no further need to make any structural provision, even that recently proposed of statutory transfer of jurisdiction. It can safely install a weak code of practice for dissenters in the knowledge that, if they dissent strongly enough, their structural provision lies over the Tiber.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Man with a Stick
Shipmate
# 12664
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
The Bishop of Fulham and Fr Geoffrey Kirk of Forward in Faith began their rsponse to these plans with the following words:
quote:
It has been the frequently expressed hope and fervent desire of Anglican Catholics to be enabled by some means to enter into full communion with the See of Peter whilst retaining in its integrity every aspect of their Anglican inheritance which is not at variance with the teaching of the Catholic Church.
It seems to me that this ecumenical gesture by Pope Benedict XVI will cater for this expressed hope and fervent desire. So where does this leave the General Synod in its struggle to provide for those who can't, in good faith, accept the priesthood of women? I would say its a "get out of jail" card! I was once a strong supporter of the FiF proposal for a Third Province. I have now come to realise that, if the C of E has decided, which it has, by constitutional means to ordain women bishops, it is entitled to say, "this is what the Church of England does. If you can't accept it you will need to find a spiritual home elsewhere."
This Apostolic Constitution answers the needs of both groups, and must radically change the way the Synod deals with this issue. What FiF couldn't get from the C of E it can get from Rome, ie an independent structure, which also answers the long term goals as set out in + Fulham's statement. The C of E has no further need to make any structural provision, even that recently proposed of statutory transfer of jurisdiction. It can safely install a weak code of practice for dissenters in the knowledge that, if they dissent strongly enough, their structural provision lies over the Tiber.
...which will leave a lot of conservative evangelicals very annoyed, and falling into the arms of FOCA.
Posts: 335 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Edward Green
Review Editor
# 46
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
Increasingly many liberal catholics reject any concept of provisionality, and have turned their backs on the Anglo-Catholic-driven quest for full, visible unity with the Holy See. (Strictly speaking, that probably makes them liberals who like tat.)
Except that Liberals are not that Liberal in that Radical Orthodoxy has converted even the most difficult of us, and the Sacramentalists see the value of tat in the way they may also see the value in singing or manual actions, but don't see it as essential.
Sitting in a New Monasticism Symposium the other week the most striking thing about the gathered crowd was the diversity as far as 'traditional' tribalism's are concerned. The old tribalism's are over.
And this is reflected in parish ministry, where many of us have to deal with BCP, Sung Eucharists, Folk All Age, and Charismatic forms of liturgy on a weekly basis. I love them all. If Paul could handle Jerusalem and Antioch then I have to follow his example.
I deeply respect traditionalist Reformed and Catholic friends. I am saddened that many cannot accept Women's orders/ministry. I can understand people heading towards 'Geneva' or Rome. But the cutting edge is this, the Church of England is rediscovering its Reformed Catholic identity.
I am truly sorry if this distances us from Rome. I am saddened that many of my more Evangelical friends find themselves distanced from non-conformists by a deepening understanding of the sacramentalism that is as intrinsic to the historic Christian faith as the Trinity.
But I am delighted that through all these birthing pains the CofE (and Anglicanism perhaps) is rediscovering who God called us to be.
--------------------
blog//twitter//
linkedin
Posts: 4893 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Reality check ....
Many AC clergy live in denial about the resolve of the people to support them and follow out of the CofE in ANY direction. Many AC clergy are also in denial to THEMSELVES about their own resolve especially when the following "hard" facts strike home ....
(1) No buildings
(2) Fewer pilgrims
(3) Insufficient money to be full time stipendiary
(4) Not everyone in middle age with little other marketable skills in a recession are cut out to be teachers or social workers
In short, sacrifice. Not theoretical sacrifice based in impassioned ideals ... but REAL sacrifice, financial hardship, upset wives, loss of status, uncertain landings elsewhere etc. etc.
The Times today ..... 400,000?! Don't make me larf.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Think˛:
The Times front page claims amximum of 2000 priest might cross - though they guess a thousand or less - out of 14,000.
A thousand? That seems vastly overstated to me. I'd be astonished. One or two hundred is much more likely. Maybe even less.
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
The C of E has no further need to make any structural provision, even that recently proposed of statutory transfer of jurisdiction.
Complete disagreement here. In charity we should do what we can. The Third Province idea was asking us to do something we can't.
quote:
Originally posted by The Man with a Stick:
...which will leave a lot of conservative evangelicals very annoyed, and falling into the arms of FOCA.
But the whole thing is less important for them. Us evangelicals (whether conservative or otherwise) are used to living with bishops who barely seem Christian to us. Also we tend not to have issues about sacramental validity or taint.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
shameless
Apprentice
# 9918
|
Posted
It just amazes me all the fear from so many detractors. The paint isn't even dry and all that can be seen are the defects.
Yes, this will take time and effort and the expense of a lot of energy to make the transition. But the RCC has always felt that both the Anglican and Lutheran Churches should be brought back into communion.
I find it very strange in my study of the history of the church that each sovereign power, or country had its' own version of the catholic church. Yes there was and is an English Catholic Church. Don't forget that catholic means universal and universal means encompasing the many variations. We are all one body though many parts.
Shameless
--------------------
shameless
Posts: 26 | From: somewhere over the rainbow | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
