|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Ordinariate Blues
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
Having read Comper's Child's link, that is entirely unaccepable behavious by the US Ordinariate leaders. I hope someone challenges them on it, because they too must be required to offer Mass in line with the requirements of Summorum Pontificum .
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
I would say it is the venom and hatred expressed in that blog and the numerous comments to it that are truly beyond the pale and utterly unacceptable.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
It makes exactly the same amount of sense as him having used the old translation before he converted.
As Angloid has poined out, when we were all using the ELLC texts, it was easier to fudge the boundries. But I agree with you, and I never felt particularly comfortable with it even then. When I first joined the Church of England, I loved the Prayer Book, but I came to realise that it was the language of it that I loved, its theology I found quite offensive.
Common Worship could use various combinations which made it more theologically acceptable to me than the BCP, but didn't go far enough and was in banal noddy language. The Roman Rite used the same noddy language of the ELLC, and I always felt uncomfortable about using it in a C of E setting, even where its theology was much closer to what I believe. Joining the Catholic Church just in time for the introduction of the vastly improved English translation has solved all those problems for me
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
I would say it is the venom and hatred expressed in that blog and the numerous comments to it that are truly beyond the pale and utterly unacceptable.
Pretty extraordinary stuff, isn't it...
I particularly like this aside:
quote:
The Holy Father is not a traditionalist
stated as though this were a truism nobody could doubt.
As to whether Ordinariate clergy are or are not allowed to use the Extraordinary Form of the Latin rite - is it forbidden, given that they don't use the Ordinary Form? Or is it allowed because their Anglican Use acts as an equivalent of the Ordinary Form within the Latin rite?
Puzzled.
--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...
Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
[QUOTE]Though the change seems little to us now, 1662 banished two appalling protestantisms of 1552 ....
Some of us would consider these to be wholly appropriate and the changes to be "appalling catholic."
It all depends on one's own POV which one does, of course, have the inalienable right to hold.
The bottom line for me is how much of all these arguments - about liturgy, dressing, books, protocol, missals, rites - is helpful in the gospel of justice and grace we are supposed to be demonstrating?
For those (few) outside our churches who have any interest al all, it simply demonstrates the fact that the church isn't very Christian at all and that, actually, it isn't worth joining anyway.
We aren't much good with a gun in churches, except when it comes to pointing at our own feet. If you want to do it fine: please don't mess it up for others who are trying to be missional on the ground.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
CL
Shipmate
# 16145
|
Posted
Rorate Coeli is a well know ultra-Trad blog that permanently sits just this side of the canonical boundaries of the Church. And that's just the blog admins themselves. The comments section is inhabited for the most part by SSPXers or their sympathisers, crypto-sedevacantists and outright sedevacantists. While a useful source for news, such news tends to be slanted or jaundiced to say the least and the admins have a habit of running vendettas against particular bishops they don't like (most of their targets deserve at least some criticism but often it goes far beyond what could be considered reasonable).
In some respects they can be viewed in the same light as combat junkies, those soldiers who just can't let go even though the war is won. The cultural, liturgical and theological war that has raged in the Catholic Church since the 1960s is over bar the shouting; the liberals lost decisively and irrevocably when Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger was elected Pope. Unfortunately the like of the Rorate Coeli crowd are still refighting old battles.
--------------------
"Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ." - Athanasius of Alexandria
Posts: 647 | From: Ireland | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Comper's Child
Shipmate
# 10580
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
I would say it is the venom and hatred expressed in that blog and the numerous comments to it that are truly beyond the pale and utterly unacceptable.
Pretty extraordinary stuff, isn't it...
I particularly like this aside:
quote:
The Holy Father is not a traditionalist
stated as though this were a truism nobody could doubt.
As to whether Ordinariate clergy are or are not allowed to use the Extraordinary Form of the Latin rite - is it forbidden, given that they don't use the Ordinary Form? Or is it allowed because their Anglican Use acts as an equivalent of the Ordinary Form within the Latin rite?
Puzzled.
I read it as ecclesiastical porn - that line about the Holy Father is delicious. But to answer your question - it's perfectly permissible to say the mass according to EF but not in an Ordinariate church.
edited for spelling
[ 25. September 2012, 20:58: Message edited by: Comper's Child ]
Posts: 2509 | From: Penn's Greene Countrie Towne | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
.... A certain blogger has repeatedly moaned about those within the CofE using the new translation of the missal. Whether or not I agree with using ‘foreign liturgy’ (and, for the record, I don’t really), I just don’t get his point. It makes exactly the same amount of sense as him having used the old translation before he converted.
I agree. I also agree with + London that CofE clergy who owe obedience to CofE bishops should use CofE authorised liturgies, and not RC ones. That IMHO is a matter for the CofE.
What right though does any grouch in the RC church, either the Ordinariate or the 'ordinary' one, to complain about non-Catholics using their books or bits of them, when the whole idea behind the Ordinariate is that its members should submit to Rome but go on using most of ours?
Surely from that side of the fence, he should be glad that others admire his liturgy so much that they want to emulate it, even if they aren't allowed to.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
If we all put as much effort into evangelising the nation as we do arguing about this kind of thing then expect something to happen.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Intrepid Thurifer
Shipmate
# 77
|
Posted
Four SSC priests were ordained into the Ordinariate here in Melbourne on September 8th. All were from the Anglican Church but no great loss to the anglican communion. Very few parishioners went with them.
Posts: 142 | From: Melbourne Australia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
rugbyplayingpriest
Shipmate
# 9809
|
Posted
It is being claimed that 'nothing has changed' for Anglo Catholics. I would point to this very thread as refutation of that point! I would also point to incoming clergy to ordinariate stripped parishes wearing hood and scarf and I would also note the massive shift between 'a code of practice will not do' to a slogan that says 'we are better together'
These things may be positive and reflect a re-engagement with the church of England. But it is change nonetheless and even those who have stayed privately state 'I am hanging in but the game is up'.
Furthermore the very reality of the Ordinariate is a game changer. It might suit people to downplay its significance. It might suit to claim it is not the real deal. We all adopt positions to defend our decisions. But the fact remains that the Ordinariate called bluffs and the unity Anglo Catholics once cried for- yes including those now staying put- is offered. To say no- given the clear direction of the C of E- is to make a Protestant statement. Why better together with bishop Rita and not Peter?
Decisions have consequences and I guarantee that the Ordinariate will transform Anglocatholicism. It already has.
What I don't understand is why those offered all they claim to want in the Ordinariate think they have a right to refuse it but stay in Canerbury and ignore synod too. Not much integrity there from where I stand. As to using Roman Rite post Ordinariate that is just insane...
I look to Rome for liturgy but not for this. That is just playing God for yourself and inventing your own religion
Posts: 130 | From: Kent | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Organ Builder
Shipmate
# 12478
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by rugbyplayingpriest:
It is being claimed that 'nothing has changed' for Anglo Catholics. I would point to this very thread as refutation of that point!
I'm sure you're speaking from a much broader viewpoint than just this thread, but I've followed this thread fairly closely, and haven't really seen anyone here claim that "nothing has changed". In fact, Pyx-e's elegant post would seem to indicate a lot has changed for the good. Mileages may vary, of course, but it seems that at the very least the rhetoric has been dialed back a bit.
Besides, it wouldn't be the first time Anglo-Catholicism changed. The Anglo-Catholicism of the 1950s and 1960s was a far cry from the Anglo-Catholic mission-oriented work in the slums of London in the 19th century--and the ordination of women was a total non-issue at that time. It also changed every time it crossed an ocean--there have always been very distinct differences between American and English Anglo-Catholicism.
quote:
Originally posted by rugbyplayingpriest:
Furthermore the very reality of the Ordinariate is a game changer. It might suit people to downplay its significance. It might suit to claim it is not the real deal. We all adopt positions to defend our decisions. But the fact remains that the Ordinariate called bluffs and the unity Anglo Catholics once cried for- yes including those now staying put- is offered. To say no- given the clear direction of the C of E- is to make a Protestant statement. Why better together with bishop Rita and not Peter?
Decisions have consequences and I guarantee that the Ordinariate will transform Anglocatholicism. It already has.
I'll leave it to the English shipmates to comment on this for their own country, but in the US this is simply an impossibly over-inflated claim. Most US Anglo-Catholicism has never been the ultra-montaine Anglo-Papalism that seems to have been more common in England. The number of parishes interested in the Ordinariate is quite small, and doesn't include mst of the flagship historically A-C parished . The Ordinariate will have transforming consequences for those parishes which join it, of course, but there are whole states and regions which will be basically untouched by any Ordinariate presence.
quote:
Originally posted by rugbyplayingpriest:
What I don't understand is why those offered all they claim to want in the Ordinariate think they have a right to refuse it but stay in Canerbury and ignore synod too. Not much integrity there from where I stand. As to using Roman Rite post Ordinariate that is just insane...
I look to Rome for liturgy but not for this. That is just playing God for yourself and inventing your own religion
It may be you have no real desire to understand the viewpoint of those who have not followed you into the Ordinariate, but if you
do wish to understand them, suggesting they have no integrity and are behaving insanely is no more helpful than the suggestion that we should all stop worrying about vestments on an internet bulletin board and go out to win the nation back to any given poster's version of Christianity.
--------------------
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
|
|
Solly
Shipmate
# 11919
|
Posted
RugbyPlayingPriest quote:
It is being claimed that 'nothing has changed' for Anglo Catholics. I would point to this very thread as refutation of that point! I would also point to incoming clergy to ordinariate stripped parishes wearing hood and scarf and I would also note the massive shift between 'a code of practice will not do' to a slogan that says 'we are better together'
Dare I suggest that most of us who are left can probably tolerate the sight of the odd hood and scarf. Perhaps with the departure of the more ultramontaine elements of Anglocatholicism,we are indeed 'better together' and are ready to take a more relaxed view of our place within the Church of England.
quote:
What I don't understand is why those offered all they claim to want in the Ordinariate think they have a right to refuse it but stay in Canerbury and ignore synod too. Not much integrity there from where I stand. As to using Roman Rite post Ordinariate that is just insane...
I look to Rome for liturgy but not for this. That is just playing God for yourself and inventing your own religion
If RPP continues to reduce his argument to a childish tantrum, he will not persuade anyone to join his gang.
Posts: 70 | From: Sussex UK | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
rugbyplayingpriest
Shipmate
# 9809
|
Posted
I see no tantrum nor do I have a gang. Just stating an opinion- which only ever seems to result in mid flinging so it must be quite strong
Posts: 130 | From: Kent | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Organ Builder
Shipmate
# 12478
|
Posted
I'd be very interested in knowing just what part of my response to your previous post was, in your strong opinion, "mud flinging".
[ 26. September 2012, 15:40: Message edited by: Organ Builder ]
--------------------
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
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Organ Builder:
quote:
Originally posted by rugbyplayingpriest:
Furthermore the very reality of the Ordinariate is a game changer. It might suit people to downplay its significance. It might suit to claim it is not the real deal. We all adopt positions to defend our decisions. But the fact remains that the Ordinariate called bluffs and the unity Anglo Catholics once cried for- yes including those now staying put- is offered. To say no- given the clear direction of the C of E- is to make a Protestant statement. Why better together with bishop Rita and not Peter?
Decisions have consequences and I guarantee that the Ordinariate will transform Anglocatholicism. It already has.
I'll leave it to the English shipmates to comment on this for their own country, but in the US this is simply an impossibly over-inflated claim. Most US Anglo-Catholicism has never been the ultra-montaine Anglo-Papalism that seems to have been more common in England. The number of parishes interested in the Ordinariate is quite small, and doesn't include mst of the flagship historically A-C parished . The Ordinariate will have transforming consequences for those parishes which join it, of course, but there are whole states and regions which will be basically untouched by any Ordinariate presence.
Indeed. I can't imagine the ordinariate has made any difference at all at St. Thomas Hollywood -- way too many gay parishioners in committed relationships for that.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by rugbyplayingpriest:
... I would also point to incoming clergy to ordinariate stripped parishes wearing hood and scarf ...
If the ordinariate claims to be preserving the Anglican patrimony within the Roman obedience, shouldn't ordinariate clergy also be wearing these for the offices that they are still presumably dutifully saying?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
You mean Fr Stephenson's 'tropical rig' ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Solly
Shipmate
# 11919
|
Posted
You mean like a bum-freezer?
Posts: 70 | From: Sussex UK | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643
|
Posted
I'm amazed at the assertion that clergy are wearing hoods and scarves - is this referring to the Eucharist ? That would be an extremely rare phenomenon, and one that parishes searching for such a thing are hard-pressed to find!
(If it is referring to Evensnog, I don't see what the problem is, OTOH!)
--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...
Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fifi
Shipmate
# 8151
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
I'm amazed at the assertion that clergy are wearing hoods and scarves - is this referring to the Eucharist ? That would be an extremely rare phenomenon, and one that parishes searching for such a thing are hard-pressed to find!
(If it is referring to Evensnog, I don't see what the problem is, OTOH!)
Fr RPP is no doubt referring to the licensing of his successor a few weeks ago. Numbers of clergy did indeed wear very Anglican Choir Dress on that occasion, as indeed did significant numbers appear dripping in lace, clutching their birettas. The SSC priest being licensed was no doubt wearing what the Diocesan Bishop required him to wear!
But the implication in Fr RPP's post is that vestments have been permanently ditched there in favour of surplice, scarf and hood. In this, he is mistaken. But don't hold your breath, waiting for him to pop up here and admit his error, because the truth simply does not accord with his warped world view.
Posts: 591 | From: Here | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fifi:
Fr RPP is no doubt referring to the licensing of his successor a few weeks ago. Numbers of clergy did indeed wear very Anglican Choir Dress on that occasion, as indeed did significant numbers appear dripping in lace, clutching their birettas. The SSC priest being licensed was no doubt wearing what the Diocesan Bishop required him to wear!
How does RPP know? Was he there, like Banquo's ghost, wearing a false beard or disguised as a Franciscan with a hood low over his face?
More seriously though, and revealing my ignorance of these arcane heights, do extreme Anglo-Papalists disapprove of choir dress for non-Eucharistic services? If so, why, and what do they wear in stead?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Thurible
Shipmate
# 3206
|
Posted
There was a photo on facebook.
They don't but, in some/most A-C circles, cotta has become normative with surplice and scarf left to the more Protty types. More recently, more and more trad A-Cs have begun to embrace the eucharistic vestments of dear John Henry when not at the altar themselves.
Thurible
--------------------
"I've been baptised not lobotomised."
Posts: 8049 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Anglo-Papalists are all but unknown outside the UK, and those against OoW tend to be at the other end of the churchmanship spectrum. A-Cs here, and I suspect in RSA, USA, NZ and Canada would prefer to be in communion with Rome (and Constantinople for that matter) as we are with Canterbury, rather than in submission. There will be precious few from the Anglican Church here, either of laity or clergy, who follow the 3 the other day into the Ordinariate.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
There was a photo on facebook.
They don't but, in some/most A-C circles, cotta has become normative with surplice and scarf left to the more Protty types. More recently, more and more trad A-Cs have begun to embrace the eucharistic vestments of dear John Henry when not at the altar themselves.
Thurible
Ah. So, I was assuming that the objection was
(a) an Ordinariate-bound incumbent was replaced with an incumbent who wore surplice and scarf for Offices - not exceptional but perhaps not wholly sensitive to the tradition of the parish; or
(b) said incumbent was replaced with a rare example of a cleric so Protestant that they wore surplice and scarf for Holy Communion - which would be a clear attempt to alter the tradition of the parish.
It turns out that RPP's complaint is in fact:
(c) that visiting clergy from elsewhere in the diocese who were wearing surplices were permitted to enter the building for an occasional service.
Do I have this sad tale of martyrdom incorrect?
--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...
Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Thurible
Shipmate
# 3206
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
Do I have this sad tale of martyrdom incorrect?
Yep. Staggers-trained visitors wearing the garments of Geneva.
Thurible
--------------------
"I've been baptised not lobotomised."
Posts: 8049 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Organ Builder
Shipmate
# 12478
|
Posted
Thank you, Thurible. That certainly puts it all into a very strange perspective.
How bizarre to get worked up about what priests are wearing in a CofE church after you have very publicly shaken the dust from your feet...
--------------------
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
|
|
Fifi
Shipmate
# 8151
|
Posted
Of course, it might be that their wearing the surplice, scarf & hood was in fact an oblique piss-take, aimed at the previous Parish Priest and at the fact that he probably wouldn't know 'Anglican Patrimony' if it bit him on the bum.
Or, there again, it might not.
Posts: 591 | From: Here | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pyx_e
Quixotic Tilter
# 57
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fifi:
Of course, it might be that their wearing the surplice, scarf & hood was in fact an oblique piss-take, aimed at the previous Parish Priest and at the fact that he probably wouldn't know 'Anglican Patrimony' if it bit him on the bum.
Or, there again, it might not.
Oh please say it is true, please. LOL. Finally the C of E Anglo Catholics have re-discovered their sense of humour? Signs and Omens, signs and Omens .........
Fly Safe, Pyx_e
--------------------
It is better to be Kind than right.
Posts: 9778 | From: The Dark Tower | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Comper's Child
Shipmate
# 10580
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
Do I have this sad tale of martyrdom incorrect?
Yep. Staggers-trained visitors wearing the garments of Geneva.
Thurible
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Posts: 2509 | From: Penn's Greene Countrie Towne | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
rugbyplayingpriest
Shipmate
# 9809
|
Posted
How funny. Rather than answer my original points and explain how one can refuse the Ordinariate offer, stick with the C of E and yet claim to be Catholic.... many just resort to petty pulling apart of my demonstration of where things have changed. It is certainly more comfortable ground I guess!
I only mentioned the hood and scarf because someone in the thread claimed nothing had changed. Clearly it has because I never used to see Res C clergy attend a Eucharist wearing Anglican choir dress- joke or none! As I said earlier this may be good. Who knows? And for the record I always wore mine for Evensong in my curacy and would happily wear them in the Ordinariate if asked to. That is all beside the point I was making... that things HAVE changed. That was one small example and there are others.
So come on, lets get back to the point.
1) How can you claim to be Catholic having made the clear Protestant choice of saying no to this offer of unity?
2) How can you continue to deny the authority and desire of Synod having refused? where is the integrity there?
3) By what authority do you use Roman Catholic material? Do not point out that the ordinariate uses Anglican stuff as the crucial difference is that it has been given the green light by our bishops
4) Why is it better together within a liberalising body than in communion with 1.4 billion truly Catholic souls?
5) Why do you anticipate that having offered the ordinariate that the path of unity lies with Arcic and that something different will be offered to the whole C of E? How can you prove that isnt just convenient pie in the sky?
6) What DID happen to a Code of Practice will not do?
I could keep going but wont. The point being that, as stated, bluffs have been called. So why not simply accept that you WANT to remain Protestant and take all that goes with it. I am sure AFFCATH would be only too happy to make room for you and that living in harmony within the Church of England will bring a LOT more happiness than sticking heads in the sand and pretending that both the Ordinariate and Women Bishops dont exist. The danger with that is that you now fall between two stalls....
Posts: 130 | From: Kent | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
Honestly rpp you need to stop. For two reasons, both from St Francis de Sales.
1. "It is always necessary to speak the truth - it is not always necessary to speak". What you say may well all be true, but do you honestly think it will affect anyone?
2. "You attract more flies with a teaspoon of honey than with a barrel of vinegar". Nobody will be converted because you pour scorn on them - honest. People are like that.
The reasons people stay Anglican and don't become Catholics are myriad. Telling them they have no integrity won't win them over. Play the ball, not the man is a good rule of thumb in rugby, isn't it?
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
rugbyplayingpriest
Shipmate
# 9809
|
Posted
Actually in rugby you are always better to play the man- but I take your point- sort of.
Yet only today I had a message from an Ordinariate bound person thanking me for speaking up and making things clear. So whilst some wont and others can't - there are still others who benefit from the challenge. Certainly nobody else is giving them the full facts and allowing the choice...it is all well and good clergy staying becuase of X, Y and Z...but what of the people they hold back?
Posts: 130 | From: Kent | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by rugbyplayingpriest:
Certainly nobody else is giving them the full facts and allowing the choice...
Pray tell us how it is that you alone are called to this mission.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
mmmmmmm I'm not convinced. Hasn't it been more a case, on the whole, that clergy have come but the laity largely haven't budged? Even you left behind a sizeable rump. I don't think the clergy stand in the way of people becoming Catholics - the truth is more that the laity are by and large not interested in becoming Catholics. Your exchange with the Church Army Captain at the FiF Assembly (I listened to it online) demonstrates this. She said she was like a stick of rock with "Church of England" running through her middle. I'm sure she was speaking for most of the laity actually.
I'm all for promoting the Ordinariate, but that's not the same as pouring scorn on those who don't come. Leave them be. Mitt Romney made a terrible mistake with his 47% remark!
If you play the man and he's not holding the ball you have a penalty awarded against you and might even find yourself sent off the field, no?
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Organ Builder
Shipmate
# 12478
|
Posted
TT, you are making a lot of sense. I'll be very surprised if it makes any difference, but perhaps I'll be proven wrong...
--------------------
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
|
|
The Man with a Stick
Shipmate
# 12664
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
Your exchange with the Church Army Captain at the FiF Assembly (I listened to it online) demonstrates this. She said she was like a stick of rock with "Church of England" running through her middle. I'm sure she was speaking for most of the laity actually.
A priest in the audience later stated he was like a stick of rock with the words "Indian Takeaway" running through his middle, which was one of my favourite lines from that year.
Posts: 335 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Maureen Lash
Apprentice
# 17192
|
Posted
I agree entirely with what Triple Tiara has written.
Posts: 32 | From: Moseley | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
chive
Ship's nude
# 208
|
Posted
Personally I think it's incumbent on those of us in the Ordinariate to look forward and not backwards. I don't know whose words of wisdom it was that said that when you leave a church you shouldn't discuss it for a number of years.
We have an exciting future being part of the Catholic church. For many of us the journey has been difficult and getting used to the culture of a new faith community has been hard but that is what we have been called to do and that is what we should be concentrating our energies from.
I admit it might be easier for me as I had absolutely bugger all interest in church politics when I was an Anglican and was never a member of FiF or any of the other groups, nor was I bothered about any of the big issues surrounding these groups. But moving forward means that and as long as we look backwards and lick our wounds we are not pouring the fullness of ourselves into the Catholic church and are therefore selling ourselves short.
--------------------
'Edward was the kind of man who thought there was no such thing as a lesbian, just a woman who hadn't done one-to-one Bible study with him.' Catherine Fox, Love to the Lost
Posts: 3542 | From: the cupboard under the stairs | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
While I don't think it's helpful to question the integrity of Anglo-Catholics who've chosen to remain in the Church of England, it's definately the case that they've made a Protestant statement. In 2003, I attended a talk given by Fr Geoffrey Kirk, then of FiF, at a time when they were seriously proposing the idea of a free province within the Church of England . Fr Kirk envisaged that almost all members of Resolution C parishes would petition to join the province. Notwithstanding that it never had a snowball in hell's chance of getting through Synod, even less through parliament in an Erastian church, one of its sina qua non requirements was freedom of ecumenical manoeuvre.
To me that made it obvious from the start that the FiF leadership wanted to seek to re-establish communion with Rome, and allow the rest of the C of E to pursue ts ecumenism in the direction of the Methodists and URC. Fr Kirk said as much when I questioned him on it. So this hypothetical free province would have ended up being more of less what the Ordinariate is: ot of communion with Canterbury. The only difference being that Pope Benedict XVI took the initiative upon himself when it was impossible to achive from within the C of E. Where the Monsignori and supporters like Fr Kirk were wrong, was in believing that their constituency would follow them en masse . I agree with RPP in that I can't see why anyone who was involved in this project a decade ago, would row for the shore when the opportunity was given to them to fulfill what they always claimed to want. But as TT has said, there are many members who have C of E through them like a stick of rock. They love their "catholic enclave" but they are totally Anglican at heart.
As pyx_e and others have said, these people now have both the opportunity and the need to re-engage with the rest of their church. But they should own up to the fact that they are Protestants.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
sebby
Shipmate
# 15147
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Man with a Stick:
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
Your exchange with the Church Army Captain at the FiF Assembly (I listened to it online) demonstrates this. She said she was like a stick of rock with "Church of England" running through her middle. I'm sure she was speaking for most of the laity actually.
A priest in the audience later stated he was like a stick of rock with the words "Indian Takeaway" running through his middle, which was one of my favourite lines from that year.
'Indian Takeway' has an addtional meaning in certain gay circles, of course. Perhaps it was such a reference?
--------------------
sebhyatt
Posts: 1340 | From: yorks | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chive:
I don't know whose words of wisdom it was that said that when you leave a church you shouldn't discuss it for a number of years.
I believe that was Triple Tiara, some years ago on these boards.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Solly
Shipmate
# 11919
|
Posted
quote:
I could keep going but wont.
But RPP, you can't stop - you go on and on and on and on for ever and ever Amen. You are like a dog who returns to his bone for a gnaw long after every shred of gristle has gone and any attempt to take it away is met with hostility.
Posts: 70 | From: Sussex UK | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by rugbyplayingpriest:
1) How can you claim to be Catholic having made the clear Protestant choice of saying no to this offer of unity? ....
3) By what authority do you use Roman Catholic material?
You weren't directing that question specifically at me - but it's one I thought about a lot.
I used to be a member of The Catholic league - like other anglo-papalists, it always said that our 'two isolated provinces' should 'go over' together rather than encourage individuals to go it alone.
I challenge the claim of the RCC to be the only catholic church - The catholic church is shattered into denominational fragments and there will only bed one catholic church when the whole comes together again. Meanwhile, i suspect the Orthodoxen have a more justifiable claim to be the 'true' church.
Although the RCC is prepared to reordain many former Anglican priests, it has no role for me and my Reader colleagues. I have a strong sense of calling to the work i do so I believe that God wants me to stay put. My sense that this is right was strong;y reinforced when a friend of mine (a proper RC not an ordinariate one) told me that I was in a state of mortal sin and would go to hell unless I submitted to Peter. (Unless I could claim invincible ignorance). There is no way i would join an outfit that has such arrogance.
I have used Roman material and participated in Roman Rite liturgies in urban priority areas where few in the congregation understand the verbosity of C of E rites.
--------------------
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 Pyx_e:
quote:
Originally posted by Fifi:
Of course, it might be that their wearing the surplice, scarf & hood was in fact an oblique piss-take, aimed at the previous Parish Priest and at the fact that he probably wouldn't know 'Anglican Patrimony' if it bit him on the bum.
Or, there again, it might not.
Oh please say it is true, please. LOL. Finally the C of E Anglo Catholics have re-discovered their sense of humour? Signs and Omens, signs and Omens .........
Fly Safe, Pyx_e
Some of us never lost it. (But I still loathe cottas, whether lacey or not).
--------------------
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
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
I think I agree with Leo only more so.
At the core of the Ordinariate seems to be, 'see how we are being incredibly generous giving you a few liturgical concessions, but you must submit to the chair of St Peter as it sails its ever unchanging and authoritative ( authoritarian? ) way through history'. Re-unification must be on our terms or you remain consigned to outer darkness where so far as we are concerned, you always were.
I've said before, on other threads, and still think, that the papal self-understanding of its own authority is at least as great an obstacle to achieving the earthly unification of the body of Christ as all the others.
If you believe that self-understanding is right and an essential part of the faith as once delivered to the saints, then obviously there can be no review of it. You should be either an ordinary Roman Catholic or and Ordinariate one. You have no excuse not to be.
If you don't, if you believe that there should be one great church but that it is little more likely that it would be on the Roman as the Constantinople, Canterbury, Geneva, Azousa Street or whatever pattern, how spiritually honest would it be to accept Pope Benedict's offer just for the sake of a quiet life and to solve one or two other immediate problems of conscience?
There is all the difference in the world between being a member of the RCC because you were brought up in it, happened to have been first converted from unbelief to it, or married into it, and choosing to join it when you already are an active member of another ecclesial community. In the latter case, it seems to me you have to be convinced that the papal self-understanding of its own authority is right, not even just defensible from scripture and tradition, but the only position that can be.
After all, there are quite a number of other RCC positions that could only be persuasive if one takes the line, 'the magisterium has said this, and therefore it must be right'.
I suspect I'm proddier than Leo. So in some ways, it might be more important to listen to what he says than what I say. However, although I speak with a proddy tongue, is what I'm saying that different from other non-RCC ecclesial communities might think but express differently?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I challenge the claim of the RCC to be the only catholic church - The catholic church is shattered into denominational fragments and there will only bed one catholic church when the whole comes together again. Meanwhile, i suspect the Orthodoxen have a more justifiable claim to be the 'true' church.
It's a good thing the RCC doesn't claim to be the "only Catholic Church" then. You are jousting at windmills. Meanwhile curtseying to the Orthodox puts you nowhere nearer your claim to catholicity - if anything they think Anglicans are even further from a true manifestation of the Church than the Catholic Church does.
Engaging in a discussion of the core issues is important. As it happens I think Anglican claims are very flimsy indeed, as I have often argued. There is usually a lot of bluster about "papal claims" which is rarely close to the mark. But if you really have an objection to the Petrine ministry then obviously the Ordinariate will never be for you. Though I think that Anglicans tend to hunt with the foxes and run with the hounds when it comes to claiming episcopacy and Apostolic Succession while arguing against the Papacy and the Petrine succession. That's where we differ. Please don't feel any sympathy for those of us who are in the Pope's Church - we rather like his ministry and don't regard him as some terrible oppressor.
That being said, those Anglicans who hang the Pope's portrait in their buildings and pretend to be in his Church in all manner of ways are, it seems to me, playing a very odd game. There I agree with rpp.
The Ordinariate will best commend itself though not by jeering at them but by getting on with their lives in the Catholic Church and rejoicing in the wide ocean in which they now swim. I have a very wide experience of the Ordinariate, and not just in the UK. They are doing alright, despite all the noise from the gainsayers. But I recommend rpp leave the scorn to those who have their knickers in a twist about it and doesn't retaliate with his own constant nyah-nyah-nyah. It's not dignified and in the end is counter-productive.
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
