homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Ship's Locker   » Limbo   » Purgatory: Pope announces plans for Anglicans to convert in groups (Page 7)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  ...  20  21  22 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Purgatory: Pope announces plans for Anglicans to convert in groups
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320

 - Posted      Profile for PaulTH*   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete173:
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, you are right to feel this way, but it isn't so simple for some FiF people. Many support the long term aim of ARCIC which was to bring the two worshipping communities together under Petrine provision. They will almost certainly go. But there are others, who are Church of England to the core, who just want to be able to worship in the faith they once knew before the goal posts were moved so far. They would be keen to stay and see what Synod can offer them, in the knowledge that they can always go later if adequate provision isn't made.

From your POV, busting your gut to make stautory provision for them will always be a thankless task. Statutory transfer of jurisdiction is discriminatory and quite likely illegal. The mantra " a code of practice will not do" still holds, and you are getting it in the neck from the majority proponents of women bishops for being too generous to FiF. You can't agree to a Third Province which is the only workable solution for FiF. Ultimately you will have to go with the majority, which will be much easier with this proposal from the Vatican on the table.

--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul

Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Olaf
Shipmate
# 11804

 - Posted      Profile for Olaf     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
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.

I'd agree, and I apologize, for my post ended up much more blunt than I intended. Hopefully there will not be a mass exodus.
Posts: 8953 | From: Ad Midwestem | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged
Edward Green
Review Editor
# 46

 - Posted      Profile for Edward Green   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:

It'd be quite good to know the tactics sooner rather than later; .. ..If they want to stay, they need to say so clearly and commit.

and ...

quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
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.

I think that many Anglo-Catholics who are in favour of the ordination of women will agree with both these points. It will mean the end of years of heartache and an opportunity to 'get on with it'. Especially if it means they lose the tag 'liberal' which really doesn't work for those who are 'credally orthodox and missional' in the popular imagination.

One question I do have is what will happen to parish's who have signed resolutions for reasons that are not tied to Catholic ecclesiology. I know a few that really would rather have a man to lead matins. The PEV's have (generously) offered pastoral care for a number of 'central and prayerbook' parishes and I do wonder what will happen to them if an exodus occurs.

--------------------
blog//twitter//
linkedin

Posts: 4893 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
FreeJack
Shipmate
# 10612

 - Posted      Profile for FreeJack   Email FreeJack   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Edward Green:

One question I do have is what will happen to parish's who have signed resolutions for reasons that are not tied to Catholic ecclesiology. I know a few that really would rather have a man to lead matins. The PEV's have (generously) offered pastoral care for a number of 'central and prayerbook' parishes and I do wonder what will happen to them if an exodus occurs.

I don't think there is any future in their position. They might survive a few turns with a favourable patron and churchwardens, but ultimately they will die out.
Posts: 3588 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
Sir Pellinore
Quester Emeritus
# 12163

 - Posted      Profile for Sir Pellinore   Email Sir Pellinore   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by FreeJack:
...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.

It's not merely about tactics.

It is possible that some have reservations about all options. Not surprising, being human. Leaving for Rome is a big step and the structures into which they will be received have not been set up as yet.

I think ++ Williams, having really been out of the loop almost until he appeared on stage with ++ Nichols, is trying to do the Christian thing and let those who wish to leave do so without bitterness or rancour.

There seems to be some desire to punish those some people, like you, have judged guilty. I think that would be counterproductive in every way.

I think keeping cool heads may be best. Who knows how things will pan out?

--------------------
Well...

Posts: 5108 | From: The Deep North, Oz | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged
Loveheart

Blue-scarved menace
# 12249

 - Posted      Profile for Loveheart   Email Loveheart   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by FreeJack:
I think that ++Canterbury should suspend +Ebbsfleet now. I don't see how he can give the requisite oaths of allegiance any longer.

Trouble is, that'll just force their hand, and may cause even more to jump ship. But I agree, its been obvious his allegiance has been elsewhere for some time.

--------------------
You must not lose faith in humanity. Humanity is an ocean; if a few drops of the ocean are dirty, the ocean does not become dirty. Mahatma Gandhi

Posts: 3638 | From: UK | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815

 - Posted      Profile for Gee D     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
CJS, as pointed out, the parish referred to is a TAC one, not part of the Anglican Communion. I was wrong when I said it was the only one in NSW - there's also one at Inverell, of all places. I've no idea of its size. The largest element of the TAC would probably be the Church of the Torres Strait.

Pancho , within 5 km of here, there are large RCC parishes at Wahroonga, St Ives and Pymble. The Cathedral is little further (at least geographically). If they follow the usual Australian pattern, very, very few parishioners would be unhappy with the present liturgy, normal grumblings aside. Each of the 3 is associated with a primary school. It would be strange if more than a dozen overall left to go to the Anglican Rite.

And Sir Pellinore (Retired) , you've been in the lists a lot lately. A bit late now to drop the (Retired), but good to see you back jousting.

--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican

Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235

 - Posted      Profile for Trisagion   Email Trisagion   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Pete 173, I thought your contribution on BBC Radio 4's Sunday programme was spot on. What I found most interesting was your statement about the ecumenical journey thus far. Many Catholics have long suspected that the Anglican representatives in that dialogue were unrepresentative of the real situation within your communion and were presenting a face of Anglicanism that was designed to suggest that the end point desired by the Anglican Communion was the same as that desired by the Catholic Church, i.e. full corporate union in communion with Rome. As you said so clearly, that is not the end point that many (most?) Anglicans desire. It is as well to be clear about that and, I suspect, will mean that ecumenical efforts will look and feel different on this Lungotevere. In itself, I think that a good thing but there are a lot with much invested in the approach heretofore who will find it all very uncomfortable.

--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse

Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
IngoB

Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700

 - Posted      Profile for IngoB   Email IngoB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I'm not sure that this has all that much to do with Anglicanism as Church, other than that the TAC provided a convenient pivot point. I think this has more to do with Anglican liturgy, since BXVI really considers liturgy as the core business of the Church. Basically, BXVI is killing off Trent on liturgy. Yes, not supporting it, killing it. Because what was really important about Trent was not the now so-called "Extraordinary Form" of the Latin rite as such, but that it was imposed on the whole Church in 1570 by Pius V.

Now, BXVI faces a severe practical problem. He has to deal urgently with that "liturgy by committee", which disrupted Catholic traditions worldwide in the 60s and which remains in dire need of a "reform of the reform" before it becomes the swan song of the Church. But unlike most people pushing for a "reform of the reform", he knows that it cannot be reformed by a committee imposing wholesale change on the Church again - because on one hand that would be a reductio ad absurdum of the main critique of the ordinary liturgy, and on the other hand the obedient Catholics of the 50s, which would have swallowed such change, have largely disappeared. So I think BXVI is killing Trent: he is re-introducing liturgical diversity - traditional diversity, not the clown mass side of things - in order to generate a sizable "liturgical gene pool" from which a future unified liturgy of the Church can organically grow again. This is a project of centuries, most likely, but he's making as much of a start as he can.

It's very ironic that his first, and major, strike against Trent was the freeing the "Tridentine mass". There must be a bit of a smile on his face when he considers the celebrations of the SSPX. This is now a second strike, making a third Latin rite widely available. I'm not enough of a liturgy expert to know what other moves he can viably make to increase traditional diversity in liturgy. Perhaps we will see something next concerning the special rites of religious orders, like the Dominicans. Perhaps he can even find some way of bringing Orthodox worship into the Latin world. That would require some genius machinations, but I think the man is a bit of a genius, and I'm sure that he would love to do it...

--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear

Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274

 - Posted      Profile for Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras   Email Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
IngoB, some 20+ years ago when I briefly attended a pastoral provision Anglican Use RC parish in Austin, Texas the pastor there told me that RC liturgical scholars were very desirous to have the American 1979 BCP materials for themselves and to introduce these into the RCC; hence, the liturgy of the Pro-Diocese of St Augustine that was based on the 1549-American 1928 BCP wasn't allowed when the group submitted to the Holy See, not just because the group's revised Eucharistic Prayer was still out of step with RC standards, but because RCC liturgists didn't want what they viewed as an archaic liturgical resource coming into the Church; rather, they specifically wanted to get use of and promulgate the resources in the 1979 book. So your notion would seem to have a fairly long history, even though it may only be in the incumbency of the present Holy Father that the notion assumes any real legs.

[ 25. October 2009, 12:01: Message edited by: Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras ]

Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290

 - Posted      Profile for Horseman Bree   Email Horseman Bree   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
This just in from today's New York Times. Unsurprisingly, there is a church that might make the long-jump over the Tiber.

But I am somewhat intrigued by this statement:

quote:
Even the parish priest’s title and status are a sign of the conflict. Bishop Moyer is not a bishop in the Episcopal Church, but he uses that title because he was made a bishop in the Traditional Anglican Communion, a conservative splinter group that played a crucial role in persuading the Vatican to welcome the Anglicans.


If he is self-appointed as a bishop (which puts him in the same boat as some of the Pentecostalist independents), can he actually accept the discipline of a system that clearly has a boss? If he really believes in apostolic succession, how could he accept the nomination of bishop without that laying on of the hands?
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274

 - Posted      Profile for Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras   Email Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
He's had episcopal consecration but not by bishops of TEC or those in communion with Canterbury. He's been consecrated by others in TAC. Of course, from the official RC POV it would be pretensed episcopacy either way.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
Pokrov
Shipmate
# 11515

 - Posted      Profile for Pokrov   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
I'm not sure that this has all that much to do with Anglicanism as Church, other than that the TAC provided a convenient pivot point. I think this has more to do with Anglican liturgy, since BXVI really considers liturgy as the core business of the Church. Basically, BXVI is killing off Trent on liturgy. Yes, not supporting it, killing it. Because what was really important about Trent was not the now so-called "Extraordinary Form" of the Latin rite as such, but that it was imposed on the whole Church in 1570 by Pius V.

Now, BXVI faces a severe practical problem. He has to deal urgently with that "liturgy by committee", which disrupted Catholic traditions worldwide in the 60s and which remains in dire need of a "reform of the reform" before it becomes the swan song of the Church. But unlike most people pushing for a "reform of the reform", he knows that it cannot be reformed by a committee imposing wholesale change on the Church again - because on one hand that would be a reductio ad absurdum of the main critique of the ordinary liturgy, and on the other hand the obedient Catholics of the 50s, which would have swallowed such change, have largely disappeared. So I think BXVI is killing Trent: he is re-introducing liturgical diversity - traditional diversity, not the clown mass side of things - in order to generate a sizable "liturgical gene pool" from which a future unified liturgy of the Church can organically grow again. This is a project of centuries, most likely, but he's making as much of a start as he can.

It's very ironic that his first, and major, strike against Trent was the freeing the "Tridentine mass". There must be a bit of a smile on his face when he considers the celebrations of the SSPX. This is now a second strike, making a third Latin rite widely available. I'm not enough of a liturgy expert to know what other moves he can viably make to increase traditional diversity in liturgy. Perhaps we will see something next concerning the special rites of religious orders, like the Dominicans. Perhaps he can even find some way of bringing Orthodox worship into the Latin world. That would require some genius machinations, but I think the man is a bit of a genius, and I'm sure that he would love to do it...

Ingo. I agree 100% with this. The RCC, liturgically speaking, sold the family silver long ago and now BXVI is investing in some new antiques. FWIW I think the eastern rite presents the most 'living' of the ancient liturgies and so would be interested to see more import from this.

What this then says about the fact the Western Church sold the heritage down the river whilst the Eastern Church preserved the Faith is ironic indeed... [Biased]

As the RCC must realise, not all that's new is good.

--------------------
Most Holy Theotokos pray for us!

Posts: 1469 | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Badger Lady
Shipmate
# 13453

 - Posted      Profile for Badger Lady   Email Badger Lady   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Out of interest, would a married priest who crossed from Cantebury to Rome be able to become a bishop of the Roman Catholic church? Would he be able to become a cardinal or any other higher rank in the RC cardinal?
Posts: 340 | From: London | Registered: Feb 2008  |  IP: Logged
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376

 - Posted      Profile for Forthview   Email Forthview   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I think that there is no provision for married men to become bishops,as there is no tradition in either the Western (mainly rc) church nor in the Eastern (mainly orthodox) of married bishops.

Cardinals technically do not have to be bishops and some were not (even) priests. However a recent pope,(I think Paul VI) decreed that all cardinals should have the rank of archbishop.

Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007  |  IP: Logged
the coiled spring
Shipmate
# 2872

 - Posted      Profile for the coiled spring   Author's homepage   Email the coiled spring   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
There has been an unpleasant story doing the rounds that the 600 Anglican clergy were hoping to charter flights from Ryan Air to go to Rome. Seems that has fall threw as Michael O'Leary want to deal on the baggage. The problem is that the Anglican deserters carry so much baggage that the cost so they are going to have to hitchhike for Le Harve. Their leaders have said Calais is a bit dangerous because of all the illegal immigrant camps.
The warmth from the lighted candles will keep them comfortable at night on the journey to Rome

--------------------
give back to God what He gives so it is used for His glory not ours.

Posts: 2359 | From: mountain top retreat lodge overlooking skegness | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
rosamundi

Ship's lacemaker
# 2495

 - Posted      Profile for rosamundi   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Badger Lady:
Out of interest, would a married priest who crossed from Cantebury to Rome be able to become a bishop of the Roman Catholic church? Would he be able to become a cardinal or any other higher rank in the RC cardinal?

One of the things I read about this (sorry, I can't remember where) said quite clearly that any married Bishops who joined the RCC would not be ordained Bishop in the Catholic Church, although they may be ordained as a priest.

--------------------
Website.
Ship of Fools flickr group

Posts: 2382 | From: here or there | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
IngoB

Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700

 - Posted      Profile for IngoB   Email IngoB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pokrov:
The RCC, liturgically speaking, sold the family silver long ago and now BXVI is investing in some new antiques. FWIW I think the eastern rite presents the most 'living' of the ancient liturgies and so would be interested to see more import from this.

Orthodox liturgy underwent substantial changes from the 8th to the 14th century, see for example "The Orthodox liturgy: The development of the Eucharistic liturgy in the Byzantine rite" by Hugh Wybrew, it continued changing afterwards, and it has rather familiar problems in the West.

quote:
Originally posted by Pokrov:
What this then says about the fact the Western Church sold the heritage down the river whilst the Eastern Church preserved the Faith is ironic indeed... [Biased] As the RCC must realise, not all that's new is good.

The RCC turned a good reform ideal into a liturgical construction site, underestimating the forces then at work in the world and Church. Major corrections are on the way 50 years later, a mere eye blink in the life of the Church. It took over 300 years for Russian Orthodoxy to lift the anathemas against the Old Believers, who schismed over Russian liturgical reform, but arguably there's been little progress since. Incidentally, I had a laugh about this literature note from Wikipedia: "[Patriarch] Nikon’s correctors made such a lot mistakes in the new editions, which were so absurd and awkward, that it gave ground to maintain that Nikon had said to the head corrector: 'Revise, Arseny, just anyway, if only it doesn’t look as before.'" Now what does that remind me of?!

--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear

Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472

 - Posted      Profile for Fr Weber   Email Fr Weber   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
If he is self-appointed as a bishop (which puts him in the same boat as some of the Pentecostalist independents), can he actually accept the discipline of a system that clearly has a boss? If he really believes in apostolic succession, how could he accept the nomination of bishop without that laying on of the hands?

As this story makes clear, +Moyer was consecrated by nine bishops in the succession of the apostles. He is not self-appointed, and neither is any TAC prelate.

It took me all of 10 seconds on Google to find this out, by the way.

--------------------
"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      Profile for Olaf     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by rosamundi:
quote:
Originally posted by Badger Lady:
Out of interest, would a married priest who crossed from Cantebury to Rome be able to become a bishop of the Roman Catholic church? Would he be able to become a cardinal or any other higher rank in the RC cardinal?

One of the things I read about this (sorry, I can't remember where) said quite clearly that any married Bishops who joined the RCC would not be ordained Bishop in the Catholic Church, although they may be ordained as a priest.
This is currently what happens in the US. Any clergy who become Roman Catholic priests only have a chance of becoming a bishop if they are unmarried. RC bishops cannot be married, per Catholic preference, not scripture. Perhaps one day that will change.
Posts: 8953 | From: Ad Midwestem | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
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.

I want to echo the comments made by others, thanking you for your comments on Radio 4's 'Sunday' this morning, especially about the balance in the C of E and the wish not to lose it.

One of my FiF friends said, 'When we go, they'll be gunning for you (AffCathers) next.' That reflects paranoia, I suspect but other catholically-minded Anglicans do feel out on a limb sometimes.

--------------------
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      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by the coiled spring:
There has been an unpleasant story doing the rounds that the 600 Anglican clergy were hoping to charter flights from Ryan Air to go to Rome. Seems that has fall threw as Michael O'Leary want to deal on the baggage. The problem is that the Anglican deserters carry so much baggage that the cost so they are going to have to hitchhike for Le Harve. Their leaders have said Calais is a bit dangerous because of all the illegal immigrant camps.
The warmth from the lighted candles will keep them comfortable at night on the journey to Rome

Silly man - you're talking about some principled and holy people, many of whom are my friends.

--------------------
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
rosamundi

Ship's lacemaker
# 2495

 - Posted      Profile for rosamundi   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin L:
This is currently what happens in the US. Any clergy who become Roman Catholic priests only have a chance of becoming a bishop if they are unmarried. RC bishops cannot be married, per Catholic preference, not scripture. Perhaps one day that will change.

And the Orthodox are even stricter - their bishops may only be ordained from within the ranks of vowed monks. Celibacy for Bishops is the norm. Is "for the sake of the Kingdom" not scriptural?

--------------------
Website.
Ship of Fools flickr group

Posts: 2382 | From: here or there | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
New Yorker
Shipmate
# 9898

 - Posted      Profile for New Yorker   Email New Yorker   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Could a married priest who is widowed become a bishop?

quote:
some 20+ years ago when I briefly attended a pastoral provision Anglican Use RC parish in Austin, Texas the pastor there told me that RC liturgical scholars were very desirous to have the American 1979 BCP materials for themselves
What about the 79 BCP would the RC liturgical scholars want? I mean what did that BCP have that we Romans did not already have?


quote:
hence, the liturgy of the Pro-Diocese of St Augustine that was based on the 1549-American 1928 BCP wasn't allowed when the group submitted to the Holy See, not just because the group's revised Eucharistic Prayer was still out of step with RC standards
What is/was the liturgy of the Pro-Diocese of St Augustine? How was its Eucharistic Prayer revised? And why was it still out of step with RC standards?

[NOTE to the Hosts: I know these questions stray from the topic; if I should start a new thread, let me know.]

Posts: 3193 | From: New York City | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
rosamundi

Ship's lacemaker
# 2495

 - Posted      Profile for rosamundi   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
Could a married priest who is widowed become a bishop?

I'm not sure. I know they wouldn't be able to marry again, so I'd have thought there was then no bar to them becoming a Bishop, but I don't know.

--------------------
Website.
Ship of Fools flickr group

Posts: 2382 | From: here or there | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235

 - Posted      Profile for Trisagion   Email Trisagion   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
There is no problem with a celibate widower being ordained to the episcopate.

--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse

Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
the coiled spring
Shipmate
# 2872

 - Posted      Profile for the coiled spring   Author's homepage   Email the coiled spring   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Silly man - you're talking about some principled and holy people, many of whom are my friends.
You have holy friends, shock!!!horror!

Would very much like to know if all this nonsense is Scriptual as are really supposed to be so splintered and right all the time.

Just because one is a priest does not make one holy.

--------------------
give back to God what He gives so it is used for His glory not ours.

Posts: 2359 | From: mountain top retreat lodge overlooking skegness | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
Olaf
Shipmate
# 11804

 - Posted      Profile for Olaf     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
What about the 79 BCP would the RC liturgical scholars want? I mean what did that BCP have that we Romans did not already have?

I suspect it is more about linguistic style than availability of materials. The type of language found in BCP79 sounds more majestic and more traditional than the simplified clauses of the Sacramentary. It is also closer to the original Latin, but that problem will soon be eliminated.
Posts: 8953 | From: Ad Midwestem | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged
Edward Green
Review Editor
# 46

 - Posted      Profile for Edward Green   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by the coiled spring:
Would very much like to know if all this nonsense is Scriptural as are really supposed to be so splintered and right all the time.

Clearly you have not read the New Testament.

quote:
Originally posted by the coiled spring:
Just because one is a priest does not make one holy.

I am painfully aware of this reality. But I am sure that the friends in question are not just priests.

--------------------
blog//twitter//
linkedin

Posts: 4893 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716

 - Posted      Profile for ChastMastr   Author's homepage   Email ChastMastr   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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... they will need to be re-ordained, and officially consider their previous ordinations wholly invalid or at least dubious, then? [Confused] If they already believed this, why didn't they convert then, and if they didn't believe this before, have they really decided en masse to change their beliefs about their own ordinations and the Apostolic Succession -- or lack thereof -- of the Anglican churches for the last several hundred years?

Seriously, am I missing something here? [Confused] Because unless the Pope has suddenly declared the Anglican Communion (but only up till the last few years or so) to have truly been sacramentally valid all this time, that seems like the only alternative, and not one which I can see as being acceptable from the position that one's holy orders, sacraments, etc. as an Anglican/Episcopal priest or bishop have been valid all this time. (Which, given some of the issues involved -- such as whether or not ordaining women to the priesthood and especially as bishops will damage future Anglican apostolic succession -- seems kind of weirdly ironic to me. If there was no real apostolic succession all this time in the Anglican Communion to preserve and all...)

--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity

Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322

 - Posted      Profile for Enoch   Email Enoch   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
There is no problem with a celibate widower being ordained to the episcopate.

Cardinal Manning was a widower.


I haven't really got involved in this particular thread. As I'm a Protestant rather than Catholic member of the CofE, I don't see it as such a big issue. In some other ways, I'm perhaps a bit old fashioned, but one feature of that is that I tend to resent hearing the Oxford Movement and its successors described as traditionalists. To me, it is they that were the innovators.


Obviously Rome would like to reverse the events of 1530-60, but this isn't really going to happen without a change in the Roman understanding of what I believe is called the magisterium. Those of us outside 'the Roman obedience' would like there to be ecumenical unity throughout Christendom, but don't believe the phrase 'Roman obedience' or that understanding of the nature of authority is either biblical or patristic.

Indeed, I'd go further and say that we would all have to give up at least one thing we dearly love and feel strongly about to achieve that unity, and for Rome, that seems to me a surrender it would have to make.


Also though, this doesn't seem to have been handled in a very ecumenical way. One gets the impression that it was not just Canterbury but also Westminster that only heard about it at the last minute. By analogy, it would be as though Rowan had suddenly announced without telling the Piskies or the CofS that he was setting up a CofE Presbytery with a flying bishop based in Edinburgh for Church of Scotland ministers who wanted episcopacy but to retain a kirk session at the same time.

--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson

Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
otyetsfoma
Shipmate
# 12898

 - Posted      Profile for otyetsfoma   Email otyetsfoma   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The "Anglicans" that appealed for this were not CofE but Continuing Anglicans. I met with some of them in Canada last year and expressed doubts whether it was a good idea. I was assured that no one expected it to happen soon! I think their bishops are keener on the idea than their laity- I certainly hope so.
Posts: 842 | From: Edgware UK | Registered: Aug 2007  |  IP: Logged
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349

 - Posted      Profile for Anglican_Brat   Email Anglican_Brat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Let's all sing together

And no, this Anglo-catholic is certainly not doing the Vatican Rag.

--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.

Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007  |  IP: Logged
Badger Lady
Shipmate
# 13453

 - Posted      Profile for Badger Lady   Email Badger Lady   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by rosamundi:
quote:
Originally posted by Badger Lady:
Out of interest, would a married priest who crossed from Cantebury to Rome be able to become a bishop of the Roman Catholic church? Would he be able to become a cardinal or any other higher rank in the RC church?

One of the things I read about this (sorry, I can't remember where) said quite clearly that any married Bishops who joined the RCC would not be ordained Bishop in the Catholic Church, although they may be ordained as a priest.
Thanks Rosamundi (and others). I must say, as an outsider to all this, and not meaning to derogate the issues involved, it does strike me as deeply ironic that the traditionalists who cross the Tiber will be in the same position as women vicars have been in the Anglican church up to now. They can be ordained but cannot aim to any 'higher' things. Perhaps proof, if it were needed, that God has a very nuanced sense of humour... [Two face]
Posts: 340 | From: London | Registered: Feb 2008  |  IP: Logged
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290

 - Posted      Profile for Horseman Bree   Email Horseman Bree   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Fr. Weber tells me that 9 bishops laid hands on Bishop Moyer, so that makes it all OK. But if the raising to the episcopate is done by people who who are on the outs with their own church, and the gentleman in question is not accepting the discipline of his church, what is he bishop OF?

Come to that, why are all those bishoply people still bishops in the church they dislike so much? Adolescent rebellion isn't much of an excuse, and it certainly doesn't look good on supposed adults.

ISTM that this proposal by the Holy Father makes life much easier for the Anglicans, who can now say
quote:
“you have been sat to long here for any good you have been doing. Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!.”


Funny how a good Puritan line can be applicable even now!

--------------------
It's Not That Simple

Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38

 - Posted      Profile for Honest Ron Bacardi   Email Honest Ron Bacardi   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Horseman Bree asks
quote:
Fr. Weber tells me that 9 bishops laid hands on Bishop Moyer, so that makes it all OK. But if the raising to the episcopate is done by people who who are on the outs with their own church, and the gentleman in question is not accepting the discipline of his church, what is he bishop OF?
To the best of my knowledge they were bishops in good standing with the TAC, so I'm a bit unsure what you mean here. But if you are referring to his earlier fall-out with Bp.Bennison, then why frame the question in this restricted sense? Change the framing again, so that we ask the same question of all our Anglican bishops. What exactly ARE they bishops of? Whatever the answer to that is, then surely that is the answer to your original question.

--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic

Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
angelicum
Shipmate
# 13515

 - Posted      Profile for angelicum   Email angelicum   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Re. the validity of orders and re-ordination, one FiF member put it this way: many of them have been meticulously "proving" their sacramental validity already, ensuring as far as possible that their orders and their sacraments are valid. Some even have the papers tracing the lineage to prove it. What Holy See is asking of them is nothing more than what they are asking of themselves - that they are absolutely certain that their orders are indeed valid, and what Rome suggests is that it may well be best to err on the side of caution and put yourself forward for conditional ordination or in those instances where no lineage can be ascertained, re-ordination. They understand that this will be very much on a case-by-case basis, but hope that the provisions and considerations in this respect will be as generous as the outlined provisions have been so far.
Posts: 364 | From: Full in the panting heart | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
angelicum
Shipmate
# 13515

 - Posted      Profile for angelicum   Email angelicum   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Also, for those who are worried regarding how much of this will affect the RC church as a whole - even if all the ACs were to take up the Tiber, the numbers globally would not add up to that of a major RC archdiocese. It may have small effects on part of the RC church in the UK, given the dimunitive size of the UK RC population, but for the rest of the English speaking RC world, it will pretty much be business as normal.
Posts: 364 | From: Full in the panting heart | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
Father Gregory

Orthodoxy
# 310

 - Posted      Profile for Father Gregory   Author's homepage   Email Father Gregory   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Dear Rosamundi

Although Orthodox bishops are USUALLY taken from the monastic ranks this is not NECESSARILY the case. Being unmarried doesn't make one a monk. There are some Orthodox bishops who link to THINK that they are monks for this reason but reality lies elsewhere. Canonically you just have to be celibate - ab initio or after widowhood.

--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™

Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349

 - Posted      Profile for Anglican_Brat   Email Anglican_Brat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
But isn't it Rome's perspective that the break from the Church under Henry VIII forever and irrevocably tainted the line of Apostolic succession of England's priests?

That is the basis for Rome's rejection of the legitimacy of Anglican priests. The CofE has always maintained continuity via Apostolic succession. Rome has rebuffed this claim by stating that the legitimacy of apostolic succession is dependent on submission to the Bishop of Rome.

--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.

Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007  |  IP: Logged
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472

 - Posted      Profile for Augustine the Aleut     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Shipmates will doubtless be pleased (or perplexed) that the announcement quite caught the attention of the Spanish and, as I type, I have a full two-page spread in the Voz de Galicia (a provincial paper serving the NW of Spain) in front of me, with a potted history of Anglicanism, a straightforward analysis of the presentation by the two archbishops, a column describing the various former Anglican groupings likely addressed by the measure, a discussion of the long-term impact of the move on the future of compulsory celibacy among Latin clerics, and an interview with a progressive theologian in Madrid (Juan José Tamayo) who discussed the longer term and strategic impact it would likely have on Anglicanism.

Idle in Madrid on Friday morning (as one so often is there, given the natives' proclivity to lie abed until 10ish) and waiting for a friend to turn up for morning coffee outside Comillas University (a Jesuit institution), I fell into discussion with two of the priests who looked upon the initiative with enthusiasm-- some of this was (I think) unrealistic, but they talked to me of the importance of bringing in other theological perspectives and bases into the Latin Church's discourse. Most priests had been through a fairly uniform theological and philosophical training, and another way of looking at things would help bring in some balance. Priests with experience of married life would be welcomed by many lay people. I indicated that this was not an automatic solution to all pastoral problems, but they let me know that my credibility was greatly eroded by the presence of a striking young Andalusian writer who was taking me off for hot chocolate.

Mind you, I don't think that any positive reaction in the Spanish church will have much impact on things.

One or two of the more demented shipmates might recall that about two years ago I posted that I had been shown a draft document by a sashed- & piped acquaintance, much of which seems to have appeared in the substance of the announcement. It has been cooking for some while and was designed to: a) deal with the TAC gang in response to their approach to the Scarlet Lady, and b) broaden and solidify the application of the US-only Pastoral Provision. In terms of TAC & other groups, coming into a broader fold with more structure will likely be very good for them, if not an agreeable experience every day. The practical shocks they will experience have been pointed out by shipmates, but working in cooperation with regular Latin rite priests and getting involved in chaplaincy and other fields will draw many of them out of the teapot fights they have been living in for many years. And I think that many of them will end up liking this very much.

It is also clear from the joint glumness exhibited by the Abps of Canterbury and Westminster that they have been left out of the decision-making. But this has been in the oven for so long, I do not know why anybody is surprised about it.

Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
angelicum
Shipmate
# 13515

 - Posted      Profile for angelicum   Email angelicum   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
the legitimacy of apostolic succession is dependent on submission to the Bishop of Rome.

Not true. The SSPX are considered to have valid orders and they do not formally submit to the Pope. As does the Orthodox Churches.
Posts: 364 | From: Full in the panting heart | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483

 - Posted      Profile for Myrrh         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by rosamundi:
And the Orthodox are even stricter - their bishops may only be ordained from within the ranks of vowed monks. Celibacy for Bishops is the norm. Is "for the sake of the Kingdom" not scriptural?

As Priest Gregory says in reply to you, plus, since the expansion of the monastics in the 4-6th centuries they began to be seen as dedicated choices to the office of bishop. From the 6th they gained so much momentum that they instituted a celibate bishopric by default, and, they continue to perpetuate the myth that this is Orthodox, because, of those who know the history, like the control it gives them and don't want to give it up.

There were huge arguments about celibacy in the early centuries, the Orthodox at first managed to keep hold of married states for bishops and priests while in the West celibacy gradually became the norm for both, by the 12th I think. At the moment in the Orthodox Church, a man can marry before ordination, not after.

Myrrh

Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Just Me
Shipmate
# 14937

 - Posted      Profile for Just Me     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Edward Green:

One question I do have is what will happen to parish's who have signed resolutions for reasons that are not tied to Catholic ecclesiology. I know a few that really would rather have a man to lead matins. The PEV's have (generously) offered pastoral care for a number of 'central and prayerbook' parishes and I do wonder what will happen to them if an exodus occurs.

Er... what's generous about it? It's their job isn't it? (ie to provide episcopal oversight to a parish that has petitioned the diocesan bishop for such provision). The Act of Synod says they are commissioned to "carry out, or cause to be carried out, for any parish in the province such episcopal duties, in addition to his other duties, as the diocesan bishop concerned may request"

J

Posts: 104 | From: UK | Registered: Jul 2009  |  IP: Logged
IngoB

Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700

 - Posted      Profile for IngoB   Email IngoB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by angelicum:
given the dimunitive size of the UK RC population

About 4.2 million RCs officially, likely quite a bit more (lots of "irregular migrants" in the UK are RC). Sunday mass attendance was even between Catholics and Anglican at about 1 million in 2005, but Catholics growing. (source)

--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear

Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Pancho
Shipmate
# 13533

 - Posted      Profile for Pancho   Author's homepage   Email Pancho   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:

Pancho , within 5 km of here, there are large RCC parishes at Wahroonga, St Ives and Pymble. The Cathedral is little further (at least geographically). If they follow the usual Australian pattern, very, very few parishioners would be unhappy with the present liturgy, normal grumblings aside. Each of the 3 is associated with a primary school. It would be strange if more than a dozen overall left to go to the Anglican Rite.

Gee D , even if people are currently satisfied with their parishes liturgy-wise, a former TAC, now Anglican Use church could attract Catholics simply because it would be an additional Catholic parish in the area where they can attend Mass on Sundays and receive communion. Catholics without an Anglican background may not have a reason to travel out of their way to an ex-TAC parish but if that ex-TAC parish is closer than the others to where they live or work then those Catholics wouldn't have to travel any farther to attend Mass and receive communion. The ex-TAC parish could easily attract Catholics in their surrounding neighborhood simply because they would now be in communion with Rome.

[ 25. October 2009, 23:34: Message edited by: Pancho ]

--------------------
“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
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by rosamundi:
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
Could a married priest who is widowed become a bishop?

I'm not sure. I know they wouldn't be able to marry again, so I'd have thought there was then no bar to them becoming a Bishop, but I don't know.
Cardinal Manning was widowed IIRC.

And if St Peter was the first Pope, then we've had at least one married Pope [Smile]

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Father Gregory

Orthodoxy
# 310

 - Posted      Profile for Father Gregory   Author's homepage   Email Father Gregory   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
It's not relevant to the OP but personally I believe that Orthodox bishops should be taken from the married clergy as well. As with Rome and priestly celibacy it's a discipline thing not a faith and order issue.

--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™

Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483

 - Posted      Profile for Myrrh         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
It's not relevant to the OP but personally I believe that Orthodox bishops should be taken from the married clergy as well. As with Rome and priestly celibacy it's a discipline thing not a faith and order issue.

Yes, sorry to continue with the tangent, last post on it.

Discipline is a euphemism for don't rock our elite standing. The Clergy and Laity in Greek US organised a conference on reintroduction of married bishops, Demetrios attended. Since then they've been subjected to a constistent drip of antagonism from Constantinople, finally coming to a head with Bartholomew who simply ripped up their constitution and when they tried taking him to court the US judges couldn't understand Orthodox anarchos and believed Bartholomew was an actual head of the Church and they were subject to him and his rules. I can't think of any other group of Orthodox as organised, and educated in orthodoxy, as these, and they failed to stop the neo-papism of the EP.

And I can't see the other Orthodox patriarchates giving up their control either. Whatever next? We'd be back to choosing our own bishops..


Myrrh

--------------------
and thanks for all the fish

Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Sir Pellinore
Quester Emeritus
# 12163

 - Posted      Profile for Sir Pellinore   Email Sir Pellinore   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Perhaps this article from the National Catholic Reporter's might clarify the matter supposedly under discussion on this thread?

http://ncronline.org/news/what-vaticans-welcome-anglicans-means

--------------------
Well...

Posts: 5108 | From: The Deep North, Oz | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  ...  20  21  22 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools