Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Pope announces plans for Anglicans to convert in groups
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
A few minutes ago I started listening to the audio transcripts of the first three addresses of the FiF National Assembly online. I cancelled the connection after hearing this opener from the Bishop of Beverley ...
"We are Catholics of the Latin rite separated from Rome by an Act of State some 500 years ago ...."
Who is "we"? Even if "we" could be a collective entity might it not be objected that this separation was submitted to and hanging around for 500 years developing a rationale for being Catholics without the Pope is being a tad too self serving ... as is now this remarkable conversion of mind. Of course we haven't got a persecuting monarch now. The fact that most FiF'ers haven't moved to Rome over the last 17 years suggests that comfort has always been preferred to sacrifice. The Pope has been too generous. Let them use Novus Ordo. [ 23. October 2009, 16:12: Message edited by: Father Gregory ]
-------------------- Yours in Christ Fr. Gregory Find Your Way Around the Plot TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Thurible
Shipmate
# 3206
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Father Gregory: A few minutes ago I started listening to the audio transcripts of the first three addresses of the FiF National Assembly online. I cancelled the connection after hearing this opener from the Bishop of Beverley ...
"We are Catholics of the Latin rite separated from Rome by an Act of State some 500 years ago ...."
I've just listened to that bit - it's Bishop Andrew (of Ebbsfleet).
Thurible
-------------------- "I've been baptised not lobotomised."
Posts: 8049 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
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?
As I understand it, TAC clergy has already signed off on the Catholic Catechism. However, as most of us know from experience, the theology of a priest (especially an Anglo-Catholic one) is often significantly higher than many who attend his parish. The Continuing Churches contain not only fussy Anglo-Catholics, but also Prayer Book Catholics, Old High Churchmen, people whose theology is essentially Reformed but who like liturgical worship, and the ever-present cranks who like to be anywhere there is a potential for drama. Often, the PBCs, OHCs, and Reformed folk will attach themselves to a church that doesn't exactly fit their outlook simply because there's no other game nearby. We had one man at our place (recently left for a teaching position overseas) whose Eucharistic theology was essentially memorialist, and who would grouse every once in a while about the "Roman stuff" in the Missal; this didn't prevent him from regularly attending at our place, though.
I suspect the TAC is similar. Some of the laity will be gung-ho for Rome, some might be able to be convinced, and some will resist it staunchly. A couple of former TAC parishes joined up with our outfit recently because of this very issue.
-------------------- "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
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
Nothing to stop them disregarding that 'Act of State' and crossing the Tiber - why don't they?
-------------------- "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
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
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.
Me too. My parish church is split 51/49 re the OOW but passed the resolutions to keep their priests and to stay together. A few might join the RCC but the rest will probably be without priests, get subsumed into a wider united benefice and gradually lost its distinctive flavour. (Or, if they take their building with them, the majority will be homeless.)
-------------------- 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
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Thurible: quote: Originally posted by leo: quote: Originally posted by Thurible: quote: Originally posted by leo: How many of them work in gin and lace middle-class, eclectic parishes and will they want to be sent where they are needed, amongst the poorest communities rather than middle class suburbs.
You what? I can think of one or two but where all these middle-class ABC parishes?
Thurible
I live in one!
I know - and yours is one of three that I can think of in the whole of the Ebbsfleet area (Clifton, Stony Stratford and Sarum S, Martin) off the top of my head!
Thurible
I hope you're right because I like the myth of mission to the slums - but I don't know enough about FiF.
However, some FiF churches may be in working class areas but cater almost exclusively for middle class churchgoers - S. Matthew's Sheffiend springs to mind.
I'll wait until the next FiF newspaper and look at the adverts.
-------------------- 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
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
When I hear the FiF leadership articulating a fully fledged Roman ecclesiological and dogmatic position both to their own constituency and to the media then I will be more likely to respect their integrity. "Hanging around to pray about it, not being too hasty" 'n all sounds to me a bit too much like an admission of weakness OR some watching their own backs .... even now, or perhaps especially now. Let's have some decisiveness for a change. "Will ye stay or will ye go?"
-------------------- Yours in Christ Fr. Gregory Find Your Way Around the Plot TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Organ Builder
Shipmate
# 12478
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by ken: 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.
According to that Font of All Knowledge Wikipedia their US branch claims 5200 members. It was my understanding the bulk of the 400,000 members claimed by the group is in Australia.
Of course, it wouldn't be the first time Wikipedia was all wet. Shadowhund could probably give us more info--he seems to have that trainspotter's sort of interest in the various continuing Anglican groups
-------------------- 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
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Organ Builder: According to that Font of All Knowledge Wikipedia their US branch claims 5200 members. It was my understanding the bulk of the 400,000 members claimed by the group is in Australia.
Of course, it wouldn't be the first time Wikipedia was all wet. Shadowhund could probably give us more info--he seems to have that trainspotter's sort of interest in the various continuing Anglican groups
I don't know if Wikipedia can be blamed for that; it sounds as though they're going by the TAC's own figures. I confess to being somewhat skeptical about 400,000, but maybe someone in Australia who's familiar with their organization there can offer a more informed opinion.
-------------------- "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
|
|
Fuzzipeg
Shipmate
# 10107
|
Posted
I looked at The Tablet today, on line so I couldn't read the whole article by Victoria Comb who had phoned FiF under the headline "The Big Deal is about leaving behind the beauty of the church, the robed choir and the lovely old organ - it's not about Petrine Authority".
The Feature Article "New Path to Rome" tends to be opposed to it from an ecumenical point of view.
-------------------- http://foodybooze.blogspot.co.za
Posts: 929 | From: Johannesburg, South Africa | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sarasa
Shipmate
# 12271
|
Posted
I enjoyed This contribution to the debate. Pretty much sums up what I think about it from a liberal (Roman) Catholic point of view.
-------------------- 'I guess things didn't go so well tonight, but I'm trying. Lord, I'm trying.' Charlie (Harvey Keitel) in Mean Streets.
Posts: 2035 | From: London | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alt Wally
Cardinal Ximinez
# 3245
|
Posted
quote: In an interview with the Chilean daily, “El Mercurio,” the Superior General of the Society of St. Pius X, Bernard Fellay, acknowledged that the Vatican is considering the possibility of converting the Lefebvrist group into a personal prelature as part of the discussions aimed at bringing about reconciliation.
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=17463
Posts: 3684 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hooker's Trick
Admin Emeritus and Guardian of the Gin
# 89
|
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?
I think it goes more like this.
Anglo-Catholic priest says to self: 'I have been ordained in the Anglican Church, which is a part of Christ's Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. My ordination and the scaraments I celebrate are valid. (I acknowledge that the Vatican takes a different view of this, but that is down to the unfortunate events of the C16 which are not my fault). Now, the Anglican Church has taken actions which have effectively separated itself from Christ's Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. So my ordination and sacraments which have been valid catholic sacraments (as I understand it) will be no longer. Therefore I will need to move over to the only Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church left. Hello, Pope! That I need to be re-ordained is a bit of bureaucratic detail which is understandable from the Pope's perspective, and needn't impact my previous validity as I understand it.'
Posts: 6735 | From: Gin Lane | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Hooker's Trick: I think it goes more like this.
Anglo-Catholic priest says to self: 'I have been ordained in the Anglican Church, which is a part of Christ's Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. My ordination and the scaraments I celebrate are valid. (I acknowledge that the Vatican takes a different view of this, but that is down to the unfortunate events of the C16 which are not my fault). Now, the Anglican Church has taken actions which have effectively separated itself from Christ's Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. So my ordination and sacraments which have been valid catholic sacraments (as I understand it) will be no longer. Therefore I will need to move over to the only Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church left. Hello, Pope! That I need to be re-ordained is a bit of bureaucratic detail which is understandable from the Pope's perspective, and needn't impact my previous validity as I understand it.'
In the case of the FiF clergy, that's mostly accurate. As far as the TAC is concerned, not so much.
I would dispute that FiF considers its sacraments invalidated by the fact that female clergy exist. As far as I can see, the problem is ecclesiological; whether a person can remain in communion with people he considers heretics. And of course, if that's the reason, then why did it take so long to decide to leave?
Tangentially : I can't help but feel that the American Anglo-Catholics who are just now leaving, or attempting to secede from, TEC are really just high-church congregationalists. Everything was fine as long as *they* didn't have a woman bishop, or an openly gay bishop; but as soon as it looked like they might have to submit to a female bishop's authority, out they go. If they really had the ecclesiology their theology implies, they would have left with the rest of the Continuers thirty years ago.
-------------------- "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
|
|
Fuzzipeg
Shipmate
# 10107
|
Posted
Yes Gussie, excellent piece. What astonished me, and I am not in England, is the virulent and often mindless hatred of religion in general and Catholicism in particular that comes through the comments following. It must be very difficult to follow a religion without ridicule there. Here's The Tablet link www.thetablet.co.uk
-------------------- http://foodybooze.blogspot.co.za
Posts: 929 | From: Johannesburg, South Africa | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eddy
Shipmate
# 3583
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Matt Black: Nothing to stop them disregarding that 'Act of State' and crossing the Tiber - why don't they?
Because some of them like being grumpy seperatists!
Because some of them couldn't because they are divorced and remarried.
Because some of them have live in boyfriends.
Because some like being big fishes but in RC church would be small ones.
Because some couldnt cope with the style of Rome and want choral music and old churches.
and so on
Posts: 3237 | From: London, UK | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alt Wally
Cardinal Ximinez
# 3245
|
Posted
quote: If they really had the ecclesiology their theology implies, they would have left with the rest of the Continuers thirty years ago.
Or allowing the ministration of clergy who have no episcopacy as is the case with the Lutherans in this country (and the MOTR parish near me had an interim Lutheran pastor for a while). What does that say about your ecclesiology?
Posts: 3684 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Hooker's Trick: So my ordination and sacraments which have been valid catholic sacraments (as I understand it) will be no longer. Therefore I will need to move over to the only Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church left. Hello, Pope! That I need to be re-ordained is a bit of bureaucratic detail which is understandable from the Pope's perspective, and needn't impact my previous validity as I understand it.'
I haven't encountered that position so far, myself -- and certainly not the idea, among Anglo-Catholics, that one's own ordination can ever be rendered invalid, particularly by the actions of others after one's ordination. I've certainly never heard anyone suggest that their own priesthood is imperiled by the events in the Episcopal church over the last few years.
And even if they believed that, the latter bit -- that their orders have been valid up till now -- sounds utterly counter to Rome's position.
I welcome correction on all of these things if I am mistaken, of course. I may be encountering deeply confused writers on these matters, and the few people I knew in person who have left the Episcopal church over the last few years' developments are not people I'm personally in touch with anymore.
-------------------- My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Shadowhund
Shipmate
# 9175
|
Posted
I agree that HT's logic would be rather illogical for a former Anglican priest ready to undergo a Catholic ordination. If one is convinced in conscience that one's Orders are valid, than to repeat the sacrament would be a sacrilege. It would be different if the convert ordinand, even if he has difficulties understanding why the Church teaches that Anglican Orders are invalid, but nevertheless trusts the Church's judgment in favor of what he, on his own would come to. If he has this trust, then he is not violating his conscience by seeking Catholic ordination, IMO.
The thought process by which one works through these issues are unique to the individual.
At the time I entered the Catholic Church, I thought that Apostolicae Curae was mistakenly decided and that, eventually, higher authority would take a second look. As I was a layman planning to stay a layman, I was not in the same boat as an Anglican convert-minister. Nevertheless, there was the issue of my Anglican confirmation. I was able to honestly receive Confirmation because I thought that my Anglican confirmation was sacramentally invalid for reasons apart from Anglican Orders. (Turns out the reasons why I thought my Anglican confirmation was invalid were somewhat half-baked, ignorance being in this case, a providential grace.)
It took me another 6-7 years subsequent to my reception into full communion with the Church before I, with heavy heart and some consternation, after re-reading the history of the English Reformation, came to the conclusion that Leo XIII was right all along, and the entire Anglo-Catholic apologetic, which I had assumed all along was true, was at best wishful thinking and at worst complete and total horseshit. [ 23. October 2009, 20:54: 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
|
|
Eddy
Shipmate
# 3583
|
Posted
Fr Gregory quotes the Bishop of Beverley saying to a Forward in Faith congress
""We are Catholics of the Latin rite separated from Rome by an Act of State some 500 years ago ...."
I bet they all dont believe that, I mean some strong evangelicals are F in F as well - I bet they'd not say they were Catholics of the Latin rite!
Posts: 3237 | From: London, UK | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
As I was corrected ... Ebbsfleet, sorry. Although Bp. Nazir Ali was at the Assembly FiF isn't about the Conevo agenda.
What is it that these guys want to preserve from Anglicanism ? ... the modern rites between the churches are much the same, the theology isn't the issue. Perhaps it's simply the sleight of hand (from Rome's point of view) that the constituency can have its own distinct but not separate life. In the end after all it's simply an issue of whether one is or is not in communion with the Holy See and buckle down. From the Anglican side though, it's the sleight of hand that not too much has changed other than that we don't have to worry about those pesky liberals and the keys look quite nice on our letterheads. What is far more important from Rome's point of view is the sea change in ecumenical affairs to the effect that "we are open for business." Nonetheless, not much will happen in the UK I suspect for all the reasons that have already been mentioned. If I was Rowan Cantuar I wouldn't worry too much.
-------------------- Yours in Christ Fr. Gregory Find Your Way Around the Plot TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eddy
Shipmate
# 3583
|
Posted
Whereabouts online is the F in F assembly?
I was wondering if the Greek Orthodox or similar churches take in Anglican groups like the Holy Father is saying he will.
Posts: 3237 | From: London, UK | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
We've been doing it in the UK for nearly 15 years Eddy. The decision was made right at the beginning that we would be planting new Orthodox parishes (using English of course) and that groups (duly prepared) would often be involved, served usually (but not always) by their former pastors. The Assembly sound transcripts are on the FiF web site. [ 23. October 2009, 22:09: Message edited by: Father Gregory ]
-------------------- Yours in Christ Fr. Gregory Find Your Way Around the Plot TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sir Pellinore
Quester Emeritus
# 12163
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Chesterbelloc: ... 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 Œcumenical already, as far as Catholic teaching is concerned.
I both understand and disagree with this teaching.
The return of however many Anglicans to Rome, given that England was once fully part of the Western Church, is quite diferent to the possible reunion between East and West.
The understanding of what are valid Ecumenical Councils differs between East and West.
I shall be watching, with considerable interest, what does, or does not, eventuate between Rome and Moscow. Any reunion here will dwarf what is happening now between disaffected Anglicans and Rome.
-------------------- Well...
Posts: 5108 | From: The Deep North, Oz | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Fr Weber said: quote: I don't know if Wikipedia can be blamed for that; it sounds as though they're going by the TAC's own figures. I confess to being somewhat skeptical about 400,000, but maybe someone in Australia who's familiar with their organization there can offer a more informed opinion.
I don't know of any accurate census, but I suspect that 4,000 would be much closer to the mark, and the real figure is likely to be below that. The one church in Sydney - only a couple of kilometres from where I am sitting - has a regular congregation of 15; and I know of no other TAC church in NSW. There are a few in South Australia and Queensland, but very few.
The major opposition in Australia to ordination of women, and the other contentious ecclesiological issues raised by GAFCON, comes from the Jensenite group in Sydney. Members of that are very unlikely to want to join with Rome. There are exceptions, of course, but there would be little support here for the Forward in Faith stance. Evangelicanism generally outside the Jensenites is quite happy with OOW etc.
-------------------- Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sir Pellinore
Quester Emeritus
# 12163
|
Posted
Religious statistics are often inflated, Gee D.
From what I perceive, those who wish to go across to Rome would be from the 'Conservative Anglo-Catholic' side. Evangelicals and liberals wouldn't, so prospective bunfights would in future be between these remnant wings. Nothing new as Conservative A-Cs feel they have been effectively sidelined.
The TAC Primate is based very close to the Bishop of the Murray's HQ and there is a wellknown commonality of interest between them and Conservative A-C bishops, both within and without the Communion, worldwide. The TAC and FIF can be seen as overlapping organisations.
-------------------- Well...
Posts: 5108 | From: The Deep North, Oz | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pancho
Shipmate
# 13533
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Gee D: I suspect that 4,000 would be much closer to the mark, and the real figure is likely to be below that. The one church in Sydney - only a couple of kilometres from where I am sitting - has a regular congregation of 15
In that respect reception by Rome might be a benefit to the TAC in that regular Catholics would be able to receive communion at their parishes and join them. Once the smoke clears I can see people drifting into former TAC churches especially if the local Latin Rite parishes are disatisfying in some way. In that situation a church with a regular attendance of 15 could see that number begin to grow.
-------------------- “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
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd): I shall be watching, with considerable interest, what does, or does not, eventuate between Rome and Moscow. Any reunion here will dwarf what is happening now between disaffected Anglicans and Rome.
Are you sitting comfortably? Not likely any time soon. It's a three way tug-of-war, Old Rome, New Rome and Third Rome.
Old and New Rome have a common ground against the Third, they think the way forward is to carve the Christian Churches up between them and to this end the first doesn't object and the second pushes the idea that New is the first among equals for the Orthodox and both push for a return to a mythical first millennium of unity, when the Third didn't exist. (Kiev, however, did exist and so the interest from Moscow to take over control of the Church there).
Old and New continue to piss of the Third by allowing such statements as the New is first among equals among the Orthodox to be included as acknowledged by the participants in the reports of these ecumenical meetings, such as Belgrade 2006.
Hilarion of the MP external relations gets very angsty about all this, and the New's ongoing grab for territory accompanying it (such as Estonia and Ukraine), he said: "Orthodoxy does not have a hierarch, or religious leader, analogous to the Pope. One should not create the illusion that such a hierarch exists."
Meanwhile, Old and New Rome dispute primacy of this mythical first millennium unity, Old claiming that it retains it over the New and New claiming it was given equal status with Old. (Fourth ecumenical possibly, don't recall).
Old pisses off New and Third with its continuing claim to primacy of jurisdiction over the other two at these gatherings.
Hilarion again, gearing himself up for Ravenna (2007). "Historically, the primacy of the Roman bishop in the Christian Church was, from our point of view, a primacy of honour, and not jurisdiction. That is to say, the jurisdiction of the Pope of Rome was never applied to all the churches." "There can be no compromises whatsoever in this matter"
(Re Kiev, there's a reasonable argument to be made that it was given equality of patriarchate by Constantinople at its inception, and this never moved into the Russian hinterland. I haven't seen any of the Ukrainian Churches arguing from this, yet.)
Myrrh
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
CJS
Shipmate
# 3503
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Gee D: I don't know of any accurate census, but I suspect that 4,000 would be much closer to the mark, and the real figure is likely to be below that. The one church in Sydney - only a couple of kilometres from where I am sitting - has a regular congregation of 15;
I am dying to know which parish in Sydney represents this (by local standards) very exotic breed.
quote: Evangelicanism generally outside the Jensenites is quite happy with OOW etc.
I presume you mean 'within Australian Anglicanism'; I'm not sure the presbyterians would be entirely happy being labelled Jensenite (him being a bishop and all).
Posts: 665 | From: Sydney | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alex Cockell
Ship’s penguin
# 7487
|
Posted
Hmmm..
OK - I'm completely outside this and unaffected as I'm Baptist, so as far as my denom history is concerned, we were outside this whole bunfight from the outset, even before Constantine rolled formed the RC denom in the first place. (have a look here )
Would I be right in thinking that what Rome is offering is some kind of ecclesiastical TUPE process for incoming A-C close-to-RC pastors, along with the congos they're responsible for?
Over church buildings etc- it sounds as though there might have to be a Facilities Management structure put in, so buildings etc can transition independently of the congos...
What happens to RA licences, Calamus/CCLI/PRS subs...
Posts: 2146 | From: Reading, Berkshire UK | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
cor ad cor loquitur
Shipmate
# 11816
|
Posted
Some interesting comments from Fr Dwight Longenecker in The Times quote: ...there are over 125 independent ‘Anglican’ churches. A neat list can be found here with a fascinating selection of names and abbreviations... These churches include some that can be taken seriously: their bishops and clergy are learned and their congregations are growing and their structure is sound. Then there are those that cannot be taken seriously: their clergy are educated online. They have one or two congregations meeting in someone’s basement or garage. Some of the schism churches have been around for over 100 years, others were founded yesterday. Some reacted against Anglicanism because it was too liberal, others because it was not liberal enough.
Amazingly, the Vatican has decided to take the breakaway groups seriously. This does not mean they are going to accept the Right Reverend Phineas D. Snakeoil with his online degree, his mail order miter and crozier and his group of ‘faithful’ old women who meet in his attic in Podunck Tennessee for Solemn High Mass. It does mean, however, that they are willing to talk to the Bishops of the Traditional Anglican Communion ... Even closer to Canterbury, they are willing to talk to the ‘flying bishops’ who have carefully and gently led the traditionalist Anglicans in the Church of England over the last 20 years. ...
What will the Vatican do with all the other eccentric ecclesiastics in the many different ‘continuing Churches’? … The trickiest of all will be the members of the established Anglican Churches who seek to ‘come home to Rome’. The Vatican’s skills will need to be exercised with delicacy and tact for the good of each person and group, but also with a view to the unity of Christ’s whole church.
I think this is a real issue. Will there in fact be 'fast tracking' or will each candidate priest have to go through seminary, exams and scrutiny?
If so, how will the new arrangements be different from the pastoral provision?
Incidentally, to an earlier post, this is why I framed the OP as 'in groups' rather than 'en masse'. [ 24. October 2009, 13:19: Message edited by: cor ad cor loquitur ]
-------------------- 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
|
|
|
Alt Wally
Cardinal Ximinez
# 3245
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Matt Black: Is it ever a good idea to switch denominational allegiance for negative as opposed to positive reasons?
I was thinking about this question and I don't think it's possible that in some way a convert is not going to be rejecting something in the tradition they're leaving behind; even if it's just one thing. I do think the positive reasons for moving to something should outweigh negative for leaving something behind; but I don't think it can be all for the positive. I suppose it could be all for the negative though. [ 24. October 2009, 15:45: Message edited by: Alt Wally ]
Posts: 3684 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Clavus
Shipmate
# 9427
|
Posted
Abp Hepworth of the TAC has just spoken to the Forward in Faith (UK) National Assembly about the plans for the Ordinariate, and says:
'There will be no limit on the ordination of married men.'
If he is right, and if he means (I'm not sure if he does) that married men will be accepted for ordination even if they have not previously been ordained as Anglican priests, then this really is significant.
Posts: 389 | From: The Indian Summer of the C of E | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Alex Cockell
Ship’s penguin
# 7487
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by leo: According to yesterday's Church Times, each priest will have to undergo a period of scrutiny and extra training before being ordained.
So a bit like being qualified - but needs to be rated to practice? A bit like an air traffic controller?
Posts: 2146 | From: Reading, Berkshire UK | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
cor ad cor loquitur
Shipmate
# 11816
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by leo: No that's wrong. I have listened to the FiF speeches and read other stuff. Existing married priests can be re-ordained, new candidates will have to be celibate.
Commentators like Damian Thompson assert -- confidently -- that new "Anglican use" candidates, seminarians for instance, will be able to convert, then marry and subsequently be ordained, or that the new personal ordinariates will continue to have married priests after the first generation of converts, just as the Eastern Catholics do. The Apostolic Constitution should clarify this, but it hasn't yet appeared.
-------------------- 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
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by CJS: quote: Originally posted by Gee D: I don't know of any accurate census, but I suspect that 4,000 would be much closer to the mark, and the real figure is likely to be below that. The one church in Sydney - only a couple of kilometres from where I am sitting - has a regular congregation of 15;
I am dying to know which parish in Sydney represents this (by local standards) very exotic breed.
The TAC isn't in communion with Canterbury. The parish referred to is that of St Mary the Virgin, which appears to meet in the chapel of the Lady Davidson Hospital on Sunday mornings.
-------------------- "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
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Eddy: quote: Originally posted by Matt Black: Nothing to stop them disregarding that 'Act of State' and crossing the Tiber - why don't they?
Because some of them like being grumpy seperatists!
Because some of them couldn't because they are divorced and remarried.
Because some of them have live in boyfriends.
Because some like being big fishes but in RC church would be small ones.
Because some couldnt cope with the style of Rome and want choral music and old churches.
and so on
And because some of them would find it hard to cope with a church that actually expects its clergy to obey their ecclesiastical superiors?
-------------------- My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Albertus: And because some of them would find it hard to cope with a church that actually expects its clergy to obey their ecclesiastical superiors?
Well, in theory, anyway. The bishops of the USCCB aren't exactly tripping over themselves to follow the recent directives regarding altar girls, ex tempore changes to the liturgical texts, the routine use of extraordinary ministers to distribute Communion, etc. So it appears to me that within the RCC there is quite a bit of precedent for disregarding authority and doing what you please because you're "right".
-------------------- "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
|
|
FreeJack
Shipmate
# 10612
|
Posted
Doesn't this mean that the organisation of Forward in Faith splits?
Surely you have to resign once you are received into the Roman Catholic Church? If many of its key leaders have said they will go now/soon, then FiF will need new leaders who are staying in the CofE.
Posts: 3588 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
Ultimately yes - the PEVs were cautiously saying that we/they should accept the Holy Father's invitation. The Synod members were saying that we/they should wait to see what Synod comes up with in February or July.
I have just spoken to someone fairly high up in FiF who said that the debate and general mood was to go with the PEVs.
That leaves the rest of us Catholics somewhat more isolated than we already feel. [ 24. October 2009, 19:12: Message edited by: leo ]
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
FreeJack
Shipmate
# 10612
|
Posted
So we also need new PEVs next year who are committed to the CofE for a five year period or so. Perhaps Reform will finally get a cons.evo. flying bishop to replace one of Ebbsfleet or Richborough? Would only seem fair based on respective strength and might be their price of support in Synod?
Posts: 3588 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
pete173
Shipmate
# 4622
|
Posted
Listening to the FiF debates, it's clear that they need to make up their minds. Lots of pleas from their lay members for clergy to give leadership. And to take the Synodical task seriously. But I think that the hope of structural provision for catholics against the ordination of women bishops fades minute by minute as more of them get excited by the exit strategy. Can't personally see any attraction whatsoever in being part of the RC church, but very happy for them. If you're offered a gift horse, stop examining the dentistry...
It'd be quite good to know the tactics sooner rather than later; I have a Revision Committee that is taking up rather a lot of my waking moments. If they're off to Rome, I'm not going to continue to bust a gut seeking to make statutory provision for them. If they want to stay, they need to say so clearly and commit.
-------------------- Pete
Posts: 1653 | From: Kilburn, London NW6 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
There will inevitably be a split in FiF, with the PEV's suggesting that people should be deciding by February 22nd next whether to take the Pope's offer seriously, and other members urging to stay put and see what concessions can be got from Synod in February or July. The latter have nothing to lose because they could always take up the offer later.
Given that, by no means all members of Resolution C parishes will want to swim, and those who do are not likely to be numerically significant enough to form a worshipping community, conversion to Rome will most likely remain an individual thing as it is now.
-------------------- Yours in Christ Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Resurgam
Shipmate
# 14891
|
Posted
(Good gentles, may I ask what a PEV is? I've checked Acronym Finder.com, but their top six choices don't seem to apply: Politique Européenne de Voisinage, Partido Ecologista os Verdes, Potenciales Evocados Visuales (Spanish: Visual Evoked Potentials; brain activity), Prediction Error Variance, Peta Electron Volt, Positive Effect Variegation. )
Posts: 54 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
pete173
Shipmate
# 4622
|
Posted
Provincial Episcopal Visitors (aka Flying Bishops) who give pastoral care to parishes who are opposed to the ordination of women.
-------------------- Pete
Posts: 1653 | From: Kilburn, London NW6 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Olaf
Shipmate
# 11804
|
Posted
Pete, would the departure of many FiF (and related) to Rome help the cause of those who support the elevation of women to the episcopacy?
Would it need to be a large number who swim the Tiber, or would even a small number tip the scale in favor?
Posts: 8953 | From: Ad Midwestem | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
pete173
Shipmate
# 4622
|
Posted
I don't want to think about that. I want to carry on working at keeping traditionalist catholic Anglicans in the CofE if they want to stay. But if they want to go, we'll be the poorer for it, but I'll wish them God speed.
The CofE without them will of course give a much clearer run to the full and equal ministry of women as priests and bishops - something I also long for. We wouldn't have to legislate for what everyone recognises is discriminatory. But the CofE without them will also be poorer for the loss of part of its catholic heritage, and for the loss of credally orthodox and missional people.
-------------------- Pete
Posts: 1653 | From: Kilburn, London NW6 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
FreeJack
Shipmate
# 10612
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by PaulTH*: There will inevitably be a split in FiF, with the PEV's suggesting that people should be deciding by February 22nd next whether to take the Pope's offer seriously, and other members urging to stay put and see what concessions can be got from Synod in February or July. The latter have nothing to lose because they could always take up the offer later.
They lose credibility if it just becomes about tactics.
If Father Kirk and +Ebbsfleet really believe that the Holy Father is the Holy Father then what are they waiting for?
How can a priest or bishop who believe in the Roman Catholic Church as they now claim to do so continue to celebrate the sacraments of the heretical church outside?
I think that ++Canterbury should suspend +Ebbsfleet now. I don't see how he can give the requisite oaths of allegiance any longer.
Posts: 3588 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|