|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Pope announces plans for Anglicans to convert in groups
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
I think that goes back to the point (I'm pretty sure somebody made) that if the potential converts really believed the underlying precepts of the RCC, they would live with a hideous Pauline mass now or a while ago instead of holding out for their own liturgy. I would imagine the argument goes something like that.
I would think that if they really believed the underlying precepts of the RCC they'd have simply acknowledged the primacy of the Pope and that their own non-RC orders were invalid all this time -- and, therefore, they'd not be waiting for a bunch of their fellow parishioners to switch over before joining the "one true" Catholic Church. That aspect of all of this baffles me -- if they put themselves under Papal authority, doesn't that include assenting to the idea that they've been in a Sacramentally invalid church all the way up till that moment? ![[Confused]](confused.gif) When someone converts to RC, how have priestly orders been transferred over up till now?
[ 22. October 2009, 21:08: Message edited by: ChastMastr ]
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Man with a Stick
Shipmate
# 12664
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Organ Builder:
quote:
Originally posted by The Man with a Stick:
Combine two parishes into one (mother/daughter church arrangement), make daughter church redundant, sell/give church to the swimmers. Simples.
That sounds pretty easy here on the computer screen--would it create unholy screeching on the ground?
Oh yes - in some places certainly. But one would hope that those FiF-type parishes who already have a mother/daughter church arrangement would be able to sort something. Those who wish to swim take the small/less valuable/falling down church with them, and the parish keeps its main parish church.
The one thing that I'm struggling to get my head around in legal terms is the Charity Commission. Unless the transfers were at market value, the CC might stick their oar in by saying the disposal is not in the best interest of the PCC/DBF and so forth.
I just hope some good old fashioned christian charity can be shown in all this. On both sides.
[Edited for shocking grammar...]
[ 22. October 2009, 21:09: Message edited by: The Man with a Stick ]
Posts: 335 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anthropax
Shipmate
# 11234
|
Posted
I think an LEP building-sharing scheme would be useful in certain parishes - particularly one where the current RC congregation is small, and not attached to their building. They could move in as equal partners, having sold the land of the pevious building. Anglican Church building gets any repairs/new loos etc, the RC's get a nice building, converts, who have found it far easier to go across, and still keep the community feel. The CofE groups together a couple of other Churches, staffed by SSMs/House for Duty, saving a lot of ŁŁ, and has the upkeep on a building halved.
That's how I'd do it at least...
--------------------
Be joyful and keep the faith! St David
Posts: 142 | From: Yorkshire | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eddy
Shipmate
# 3583
|
Posted
I was surprised to read in the paper that there are actually so few Forward in faith members in England, but it seems that its more from Australia the request for unity with Rome has come.
Posts: 3237 | From: London, UK | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
ChastMastr wrote quote:
I would think that if they really believed the underlying precepts of the RCC they'd have simply acknowledged the primacy of the Pope and that their own non-RC orders were invalid all this time -- and, therefore, they'd not be waiting for a bunch of their fellow parishioners to switch over before joining the "one true" Catholic Church. That aspect of all of this baffles me -- if they put themselves under Papal authority, doesn't that include assenting to the idea that they've been in a Sacramentally invalid church all the way up till that moment? [Confused] When someone converts to RC, how have priestly orders been transferred over up till now?
That's a rather pass/fail sort of way of looking at it. I'm not sure that those likely to head off would necessarily see it that way. They would probably agree that the sacraments were not sacraments of the Catholic church, but nobody is claiming (these days at least) that they were devoid of efficacy - that is in God's hands. Presumably they would think the opposite, and they have been led to seek the fullness of the church. Or at least something along those lines.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
The issue of divorce raised earlier in this thread is interesting -- well, actually, it seems kind of vexed to me. Will the RCC allow divorced and remarried former Anglicans to take communion on the grounds that they weren't properly married in the RCC in the first place? What would that say about the status of those second marriages? Will they ordain divorced priests?
I'm doubtful that they will allow any of that without decrees of nullity.
A marriage doesn't have to be within the RCC in order to be considered valid. If two Anglicans marry, their marriage is just as real as if one were RC and the other Anglican.
The hitch is that if one of the spouses is RC, then the marriage must be according to the Roman Rite. Dispensations are possible, but if a Roman Catholic disobeys the church and is married by a Protestant clergyman, then that marriage is regarded as invalid until the defect is remedied (by a marriage ceremony conducted by RC clergy according to the RC rite). The reason? Non-RCs aren't under the Church's jurisdiction and are given a break for not knowing better; RCs are supposed to know the score.
Archbishop Hepworth's status is interesting. He is a Roman Catholic priest who left the RC Church and became an Anglican. Since leaving the RCs he has been married at least twice, divorced at least once. According to the RC doctrine of Holy Orders, he doesn't stop being a priest, but I would be surprised if they allow him to function as one until the irregularities in his personal life are dealt with.
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alt Wally
Cardinal Ximinez
# 3245
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
I would think that if they really believed the underlying precepts of the RCC they'd have simply acknowledged the primacy of the Pope and that their own non-RC orders were invalid all this time -- and, therefore, they'd not be waiting for a bunch of their fellow parishioners to switch over before joining the "one true" Catholic Church. That aspect of all of this baffles me -- if they put themselves under Papal authority, doesn't that include assenting to the idea that they've been in a Sacramentally invalid church all the way up till that moment?
Yes, and that's probably the principle issue for people like Bishop Iker. It's like all you did was a big pantomime. It's not an issue for others who come to believe they have lived in some sort of imagination church and find relief in being ordained.
quote:
When someone converts to RC, how have priestly orders been transferred over up till now?
Outright ordination for just about everybody I presume, at least from the Anglican world.
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Why? Lots of people already in the club don't.
I guess for those in the club; they have the excuse of habit, family, tradition, ethnicity, familiarity, etc. But honestly, why would you become a RCC if you didn't assent to doctrine considered non negotiable? Would it be wise to become a convert dissenter? Does that make sense? I'm not talking about becoming a raving fundy either by simply accepting the basic teachings as a convert.
Posts: 3684 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eddy:
I was surprised to read in the paper that there are actually so few Forward in faith members in England, but it seems that its more from Australia the request for unity with Rome has come.
![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
Are you confusing two things here? The TAC (a continuing Anglican communion not in communion with Canterbury) has petitioned Rome for union. FiF is the traditionalist catholic pressure group. Uk membership is "around 10,000" (quoted from Church Times). It is the second largest membership body within the CofE after the Mothers Union, though it is not restricted to the CofE and is active in other Anglican communions.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Cuthbert
Shipmate
# 3953
|
Posted
Forward in Faith have a few problems I guess. Some ought to move to Rome asap. For others they like being different and going to Rome means they become small fish in a very big pond. Some wont like that.
Then some of the priests will have problems:
so many "irregular" marriages, or gay partners, or they have doubts about papal infalllibility or dislike of Roman discipline...
Posts: 160 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
But honestly, why would you become a RCC if you didn't assent to doctrine considered non negotiable? Would it be wise to become a convert dissenter? Does that make sense? I'm not talking about becoming a raving fundy either by simply accepting the basic teachings as a convert.
Resurgam's post, which sparked this exchange, mentioned artificial birth control. I wouldn't have thought that constituted "basic doctrine".
As I understand Catholicism, you are "allowed" to dissent, it's just that the burden of proof is on you to justify your dissent. A convert is probably in a good position to do that, on the assumption that anyone who goes to the trouble of converting will probably have a pretty thorough understanding of Catholic theology and, consequently, where it can be bent.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Organ Builder
Shipmate
# 12478
|
Posted
Since this is what the TAC has been asking for, I think they will probably be subsumed as soon as the details are worked out. Their presence in the US is miniscule, however, and I gather from this thread they aren't very large in the UK either.
In spite of all our bloviating on this thread (and we've been a lot more restrained than the blogosphere) most Anglicans/Episcopalians/Whatever are Anglican/Episcopalian/Whatever because they want to be. If they wanted to be Catholic, they would be. If they wanted to stay at home on Sunday morning, they would.
Aside from the TAC, I'm skeptical that this new arrangement will gather anyone to Rome who wouldn't have gone there anyway.
--------------------
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
Altough Ricardus I will admit dissenting converts would be better than a know-it-all ready to go back and let their former confessional cohorts know how wrong they are and have been about everything.
Posts: 3684 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
As I understand Catholicism, you are "allowed" to dissent, it's just that the burden of proof is on you to justify your dissent.
Not exactly; you're allowed to dissent from points of doctrine (though not dogma), but you are not allowed to act on that dissent. In other words, you can hold the opinion that there's nothing wrong with artificial birth control, and even make arguments against it in public, but you can't disobey the Church's directives regarding its use.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Olaf
Shipmate
# 11804
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
Dear Martin L
You have been dealing with too many "Greeks" .... OR I'll just assume that was an analogy to an ecumenist ecclesiology which is being severely challenged in Orthodoxy right now. Orthodoxy's position that "the Church is the Church" is identical to Rome's view in ones important respect. It is the whole package. This is not inconsistent with a certain diversity. Don't forget that Orthodoxy has western rites (pretty lousy ones admittedly).
Yes, I wasn't referring to the official "party line" or to the priests, but rather to the plain old pew people. We have Orthodox of all varieties in my city, which was populated by Eastern Europeans.
Posts: 8953 | From: Ad Midwestem | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Why? Lots of people already in the club don't.
I guess for those in the club; they have the excuse of habit, family, tradition, ethnicity, familiarity, etc. But honestly, why would you become a RCC if you didn't assent to doctrine considered non negotiable? Would it be wise to become a convert dissenter? Does that make sense? I'm not talking about becoming a raving fundy either by simply accepting the basic teachings as a convert.
Depends on what you think "basic teachings" are. Suppose someone is basically on board with the majority of Catholic doctrines and believes that the RCC is the only full and true expression of the faith delivered to the apostles, that the only valid sacraments are those of the RCC, but has no intention of leaving family planning up to the rhythm method -- would it be right for that person to convert? Especially in light of the real practice of most of the Catholics that person knows?
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
As I understand Catholicism, you are "allowed" to dissent, it's just that the burden of proof is on you to justify your dissent.
Not exactly; you're allowed to dissent from points of doctrine (though not dogma), but you are not allowed to act on that dissent. In other words, you can hold the opinion that there's nothing wrong with artificial birth control, and even make arguments against it in public, but you can't disobey the Church's directives regarding its use.
But you can disobey the church's directives on birth control -- millions of Catholics do every day, with no perceivable consequences.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
But you can disobey the church's directives on birth control -- millions of Catholics do every day, with no perceivable consequences.
All right, substitute "are not supposed to" for "can't". Sheesh.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
Not exactly; you're allowed to dissent from points of doctrine (though not dogma), but you are not allowed to act on that dissent. In other words, you can hold the opinion that there's nothing wrong with artificial birth control, and even make arguments against it in public, but you can't disobey the Church's directives regarding its use.
This book - published by the Benedictines - disagrees: quote:
It may well happen that some people, having conscientiously concluded to the possibility of responsible dissent on a particular moral issue, will nonetheless remain hesitatnt as to the prospect of acting on this possibility, and thus they opt for continued observance of the magisterium's authoritative fallible teaching. Such a decision is understandable and to be respected, but it does not present itself as the only moral course of action available to responsible members of the Catholic community.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
That said, does anyone else observe a certain irony in the stated denominational affiliations of the posters arguing on this particular tangent?
Alt Wally - Orthodox
Fr Weber - Anglican
RuthW - Anglican
Ricardus - Anglican (OK, I'm as guilty as everyone else in pontificating on what other people's churches teach ...)
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
Not exactly; you're allowed to dissent from points of doctrine (though not dogma), but you are not allowed to act on that dissent. In other words, you can hold the opinion that there's nothing wrong with artificial birth control, and even make arguments against it in public, but you can't disobey the Church's directives regarding its use.
This book - published by the Benedictines - disagrees: quote:
It may well happen that some people, having conscientiously concluded to the possibility of responsible dissent on a particular moral issue, will nonetheless remain hesitatnt as to the prospect of acting on this possibility, and thus they opt for continued observance of the magisterium's authoritative fallible teaching. Such a decision is understandable and to be respected, but it does not present itself as the only moral course of action available to responsible members of the Catholic community.
I'm not sure that really signifies. Charles Curran published plenty of books (and most of them were published by RC houses, IIRC); it didn't prevent him from being told to shut up and sit down.
I didn't see an imprimatur on the book, but that might just have been because it was a Google preview and the page was left out.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Sir Pellinore
Quester Emeritus
# 12163
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mother Julian:
... 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.
There are those who would see that only a General Council of the Whole Church (that means a reunion of East and West and a legitimately called and universally ratified Ecumenical Council) could do this, difficult or 'impossible' as this may seem.
Otherwise the whole Church will still remain divided and in effective schism.
--------------------
Well...
Posts: 5108 | From: The Deep North, Oz | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596
|
Posted
AIUI, TAC already doesn't permit the communion of divorced and remarried persons. However, I will be quite saddened no longer to be able to communicate in ACCC parishes once they are bound by Roman rules of closed communion.
Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
They would probably agree that the sacraments were not sacraments of the Catholic church, but nobody is claiming (these days at least) that they were devoid of efficacy
Actually, at least some are claiming precisely that.
Link...
quote:
...as Catholics, we have access to the very sacraments instituted by Christ and ministered through His one holy priesthood. For this reason, it is never permissible for us to receive Holy Communion or absolution from an Anglican clergyman. Because of the invalidity of the Anglican priesthood, these sacraments are not valid.
That's my understanding of Rome's current position in a nutshell.
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alt Wally
Cardinal Ximinez
# 3245
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Depends on what you think "basic teachings" are.
Yeah, my statement about the basic teachings would certainly be open to a lot of interpretations. In this case I would say maybe what one would find within the catechism would comprise the basic teachings on which there is not room for disagreement or denial.
quote:
Suppose someone is basically on board with the majority of Catholic doctrines and believes that the RCC is the only full and true expression of the faith delivered to the apostles, that the only valid sacraments are those of the RCC, but has no intention of leaving family planning up to the rhythm method -- would it be right for that person to convert? Especially in light of the real practice of most of the Catholics that person knows?
Hopefully any Catholic shipmates will correct me if I misspeak, but IIRC, artificial contraception is considered intrinsically evil in Catholic moral theology; even if the vast majority of the laity essentially ignore the churches teaching. So would it be right to convert when the church says something is evil that you consider benign? That doesn't seem quite right to me. Divorce, which has been brought up in this thread, is another area where there is not room for negotiation and where the church has drawn a clear stance, even if many simply ignore the teachings of their own church.
Posts: 3684 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alt Wally
Cardinal Ximinez
# 3245
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
That said, does anyone else observe a certain irony in the stated denominational affiliations of the posters arguing on this particular tangent?
Alt Wally - Orthodox
Fr Weber - Anglican
RuthW - Anglican
Ricardus - Anglican (OK, I'm as guilty as everyone else in pontificating on what other people's churches teach ...)
What do you make of it? I'm actually not certain of the irony.
Posts: 3684 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sir Pellinore
Quester Emeritus
# 12163
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LQ:
AIUI, TAC already doesn't permit the communion of divorced and remarried persons. However, I will be quite saddened no longer to be able to communicate in ACCC parishes once they are bound by Roman rules of closed communion.
Really, because the Primate,++ John Hepworth, is twice divorced, as well as being a former Latin Rite priest.
--------------------
Well...
Posts: 5108 | From: The Deep North, Oz | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
I'm not sure that really signifies. Charles Curran published plenty of books (and most of them were published by RC houses, IIRC); it didn't prevent him from being told to shut up and sit down.
Fair enough - I confess I'd never heard of Charles Curran, and was going by the copyright data on the second page.
What I was actually looking for, though, was Newman's letter to the Duke of Norfolk: quote:
I have already quoted the words which Cardinal Gousset has adduced from the Fourth Lateran; that "He who acts against his conscience loses his soul." This dictum is brought out with singular fulness and force in the moral treatises of theologians. The celebrated school, known as the Salmanticenses, or Carmelites of Salamanca, lays down the broad proposition, that conscience is ever to be obeyed whether it tells truly or erroneously, and that, whether the error is the fault of the person thus erring or not [Note]. They say that this opinion is certain, and refer, as agreeing with them, to St. Thomas, St. Bonaventura, Caietan, Vasquez, Durandus, Navarrus, Corduba, Layman, Escobar, and fourteen others. Two of them even say this opinion is de fide. Of course, if a man is culpable in being in error, which he might have escaped, had he been more in earnest, for that error he is answerable to God, but still he must act according to that error, while he is in it, because he in full sincerity thinks the error to be truth.
quote:
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
What do you make of it? I'm actually not certain of the irony.
Maybe irony was the wrong word. It just struck me as odd that none of the people discussing what Catholics can and can't do are actually Catholic. Of course the same applies to myself, so it's not an attack on anyone.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
The title to this thread is: quote:
Thread: Pope announces plans for Anglicans to convert in groups
.
Now I haven't read each and every post, but think I'm the first to suggest that the last 2 words should be en masse.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
quote:
Originally posted by Mother Julian:
... 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.
There are those who would see that only a General Council of the Whole Church (that means a reunion of East and West and a legitimately called and universally ratified Ecumenical Council) could do this, difficult or 'impossible' as this may seem.
Otherwise the whole Church will still remain divided and in effective schism.
Actually, the Catholic Church has definitively declared that it does not have the authority to ordain women.
But, also, the Catholic Church does not acknowlegde that any other body of Christians has a greater authority - because the Church "subsists in" the Catholic Church. The Councils of the Catholic Church are properly Ścumenical already, as far as Catholic teaching is concerned.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
They would probably agree that the sacraments were not sacraments of the Catholic church, but nobody is claiming (these days at least) that they were devoid of efficacy
Actually, at least some are claiming precisely that.
Link...
quote:
...as Catholics, we have access to the very sacraments instituted by Christ and ministered through His one holy priesthood. For this reason, it is never permissible for us to receive Holy Communion or absolution from an Anglican clergyman. Because of the invalidity of the Anglican priesthood, these sacraments are not valid.
That's my understanding of Rome's current position in a nutshell.
That's right, ChastMastr - but this does not preclude God's using Anglican sacramental acts as means of efficacious grace. As far as I'm concerned, anyone who says that we can know for sure that God's grace does not operate on Anglicans as they go about their sincere wroship of Him are just crazy people. There is no authentic Catholic teaching to that effect.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
Is it ever a good idea to switch denominational allegiance for negative as opposed to positive reasons?
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
Matt - I don't think so. If negative reasons are becoming so pressing they are getting to you, then - other things duly considered - that may well be a reason to consider leaving an organization. But joining requires a commitment which is positive.
[ 23. October 2009, 10:21: Message edited by: Honest Ron Bacardi ]
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
Alrithgt, I'll rephrase - switching for purely negative reasons? That's what seems to be the case here and I can only envisage it ending in tears...
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
Well - if that's what they are planning to do then yes, there will be trouble. I'm not sure they are planning to do that though - has the TAC not been petitioning Rome for some time?
Or do you mean more FiF types?
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
FiF, yes; I'm not necessarily convinced about the TAC either - will they all be prepared to swallow the Assumption, the Immaculate Conception, transubstantiation etc all in one gulp?
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
I don't know how homogeneous the TAC is. I've only ever visited one of their churches in my life, and they were already on board with all those things. I've no idea about other parts though so it's difficult to venture an opinion. Perhaps others more in the know could, though.
re FiF - it varies. Some are determinedly Anglican and probably have no immediate interest in departure. Others we already know are itching to go. Which rather suggests that the immediate effect in the CofE will be limited. What this move by Rome will do - or so it seems to me - is to rack up the pressure on the next general synod. If it seems to be a triumphalist "you lot can bugger off now" session, then I would imagine that discontent will spread, and more will start looking at their options. If it is seen as conciliatory by them, then they likely won't. As to what they might interpret as being conciliatory, you'll have to ask them directly I'm afraid!
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
aumbry
Shipmate
# 436
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
FiF, yes; I'm not necessarily convinced about the TAC either - will they all be prepared to swallow the Assumption, the Immaculate Conception, transubstantiation etc all in one gulp?
I've seen this sort of question so many times. Surely if you can believe in Christ's divinity then none of the above can be that difficult to believe?
Posts: 3869 | From: Quedlinburg | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
FiF, yes; I'm not necessarily convinced about the TAC either - will they all be prepared to swallow the Assumption, the Immaculate Conception, transubstantiation etc all in one gulp?
I've seen this sort of question so many times. Surely if you can believe in Christ's divinity then none of the above can be that difficult to believe?
Quite possibly you could believe in these things, in the sense of not writing them off as impossible. The question is, whether you see any grounds for believing them. That may differ from believer to believer and from belief to belief.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
FCB
Hillbilly Thomist
# 1495
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Is it ever a good idea to switch denominational allegiance for negative as opposed to positive reasons?
No. I've dealt with a number of people converting to Catholicism and, particularly if they are coming from Churches that they are unhappy with, I always stress that a negative repulsion from one's current situation is not the same as a positive attraction to Catholicism.
As to the question of the validity of Anglican sacraments: as others have pointed out, lack of validity does not mean the same thing as "worthless." For example, with regard to the Eucharist Catholic theology distinguishes "sacramental" eating from "spiritual" eating of Christ. You need a valid sacrament for sacramental eating. But sacramental eating is simply a means to the end of spiritual eating of Christ (i.e. being united to him in love), and the latter can be had without the former (as in cases of "spiritual communion"), though not, we think, so easily. E. Schillebeeckx, back in the 50s, applied this distinction in his book Christ the Sacrament of the Encounter With God as a way for Catholics to think about the genuine spiritual value of protestant celebrations of the Lord's Supper.
Of course for an Anglican who believes that he has, through the sacrament of Holy Orders, been ordained into the priesthood of the Catholic Church, this is not much help. But for an Anglican who is doubting the validity of his orders, it is a way of seeing that his ministry has not been "fake" or without value. Undoubtedly people have received grace and been united to Christ in love through his ministrations.
[ 23. October 2009, 11:58: Message edited by: FCB ]
--------------------
Agent of the Inquisition since 1982.
Posts: 2928 | From: that city in "The Wire" | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
FiF, yes; I'm not necessarily convinced about the TAC either - will they all be prepared to swallow the Assumption, the Immaculate Conception, transubstantiation etc all in one gulp?
I've seen this sort of question so many times. Surely if you can believe in Christ's divinity then none of the above can be that difficult to believe?
Oh, it's quite possible for a Christian to believe such things, if s/he believes in the divinity of Christ. But that's very different from wanting to believe them or easily accepting them as dogma, which may involve a wholesale reassessment of one's theology, particularly soteriology.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Organ Builder
Shipmate
# 12478
|
Posted
It was my understanding (possibly erroneous) that TAC had been talking with the Vatican since the early '90s. Under the circumstances, I would expect both clergy and laity have had plenty of time to adjust to the idea of embracing RC dogma. I would guess that most of those unable to do so have already left the TAC.
Will they lose a few more when push comes to shove? Probably. But a large percentage will probably go over, especially if it doesn't make much difference in the services they've been attending.
--------------------
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:
Is it ever a good idea to switch denominational allegiance for negative as opposed to positive reasons?
Probably not, I would think things would boomerang at some point.
I've found, being a convert, that I can only handle my existence by staying away from other converts (aside from the ones I'm related to that is).
Posts: 3684 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by FCB:
Of course for an Anglican who believes that he has, through the sacrament of Holy Orders, been ordained into the priesthood of the Catholic Church, this is not much help. But for an Anglican who is doubting the validity of his orders, it is a way of seeing that his ministry has not been "fake" or without value.
I think that's the thing -- I don't have the sense that those who have left the Episcopal Church over recent developments are in doubt about their own orders at all, and it seems to me that if things had gone differently, they'd still be staying. So if they're not really doubting their own orders, won't they basically be paying lip service to the idea that they've been invalid all this time?
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
That's right, ChastMastr - but this does not preclude God's using Anglican sacramental acts as means of efficacious grace. As far as I'm concerned, anyone who says that we can know for sure that God's grace does not operate on Anglicans as they go about their sincere wroship of Him are just crazy people. There is no authentic Catholic teaching to that effect.
That's my understanding as well, albeit as regards not only the Roman Catholic Church but also the Anglican and Eastern Orthodox churches, in terms of definitively valid sacraments vs. God's grace.
The issue of the sacraments, though, is still an issue there. If I believed that I wasn't getting valid Communion except at an RC church, I'd have to go right back (I started out RC) and sadly wave goodbye to the Anglican ones right away. I don't get the sense that this is what these potential Anglican converts think at all -- it seems to me to be more, "Hey, these folks don't have the things we were unhappy with in the Anglican churches, therefore let's go there" rather than a genuine belief that they've been missing something all these years.
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
That would be my concern likewise.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pancho
Shipmate
# 13533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
FiF, yes; I'm not necessarily convinced about the TAC either - will they all be prepared to swallow the Assumption, the Immaculate Conception, transubstantiation etc all in one gulp?
From the Primate of the TAC, on their website: quote:
My fellow bishops have indeed signed the Catechism of the Catholic Church and made a statement about the ministry of the Bishop of Rome, reflecting the words of Pope John Paul II in his letter “Ut Unum Sint”.
They submitted their petition to Rome about 2 years ago. From the above statement it seems they're more than satisfied with the Vatican announcement.
I can see why people are surprised at the announcement but I don't know why they're that surprised. There've been rumblings and rumours about this for a few years. I seem to remember a thread about these rumours on the Ship a while back.
--------------------
“But to what shall I compare this generation? It is like children sitting in the market places and calling to their playmates, ‘We piped to you, and you did not dance;
we wailed, and you did not mourn.’"
Posts: 1988 | From: Alta California | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Resurgam
Shipmate
# 14891
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
FiF, yes; I'm not necessarily convinced about the TAC either - will they all be prepared to swallow the Assumption, the Immaculate Conception, transubstantiation etc all in one gulp?
I've seen this sort of question so many times. Surely if you can believe in Christ's divinity then none of the above can be that difficult to believe?
Oh, it's quite possible for a Christian to believe such things, if s/he believes in the divinity of Christ. But that's very different from wanting to believe them or easily accepting them as dogma, which may involve a wholesale reassessment of one's theology, particularly soteriology.
I'm thinking of the people who have left our parish, which is the Southern US Bible belt. Many of them were Baptists before they became Episcopalian, and because the Assumption is an assumption and not explicitly stated in the Bible, I suspect that deep down some of them will feel uneasy about it, the Immaculate Conception, and possibly transubstantiation as well. The atmosphere of fundamentalism is so pervasive here...
Though I just remembered one former member who is now an ex-Baptist-ex-Episcopalian-very happy Roman Catholic. So there's no telling.
Posts: 54 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Organ Builder:
Since this is what the TAC has been asking for, I think they will probably be subsumed as soon as the details are worked out. Their presence in the US is miniscule, however, and I gather from this thread they aren't very large in the UK either.
Its an almost purely US organisation. They don't really exist here at all - if there are any at all they will probably be a few US expats and a perhaps a handful of tat-loving Tory trainspotters. ["tatoraks"?] Whatever they look like in America, over here they have less impact than Jonty Blake and his friends.
In worldwide Anglican church politics, never mind Roman Catholic church politics, TAC is a complete irrelevance. Most people don't know they exist. Well, they hardly do exist, there really aren't that many of them. If we can believe Wikipedia, the entire TAC has about five times as many communicants as our nearest local Roman Catholic parish church does. (Though about fifty times as many priests, which might say something.)
quote:
Aside from the TAC, I'm skeptical that this new arrangement will gather anyone to Rome who wouldn't have gone there anyway.
This thread is basically a response to the claims in the Daily Telegraph that this move was aimed not just at TAC but at current members of the Anglican Communion who object to women bishops. Many of these are members of Forward in Faith - a much larger organisation than TAC, and a much more widely respected one, which is of some significance in Anglican church politics in many dioceses and provinces. The Archbishop's letter seemed to imply that this is the case, as did the responses from some of the English Flying Bishops, and of course FiF's own website.
Now, if its not the case that this is aimed more widely than TAC, if it really is just meant to regularise the position of a few hundred Americans who have one foot in the RCC anyway, then nearly everything that nearly everyone has said on this thread, and on the various blogs we've mentioned, is completely irrelevant to the Vatican announcement.
On the other hand (and this is my inner conspiracy theorist talking) if it was just meant for TAC, why not just handle it locally in the USA? And why involve the Pope personally, other than to rubber-stamp things? And why did Damian Thompson, and some FiF people, hear what turned out to be rather accurate rumours about this over a year ago? And why did English Dominicans ask for people to pray about this as a "secret intention" back before Easter?
And what does the Roman Catholic hierarchy in England do when a few dozen Anglican priests, probably including at least a couple of Bishops, come knocking at their door saying "Oy you! This Apostolate thingy! We want one too!"? Its hard to imagine that someone in the Vatican hasn't already thought of that - especially the Vatican under the current Pope who is probably more knowledgeable about mainstream Protestantism than any Pope since the Reformation.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
That's kind of the sort of thing I had in mind.
[cp with ken]
[ 23. October 2009, 15:57: Message edited by: Matt Black ]
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
