Posted on 07/07/2008 7:26:53 PM PDT by markomalley
I have until now refrained from commenting on the turmoil affecting the Church of England, on the grounds that I am not an Anglican and therefore it is none of my business. As a Catholic, I have routinely been disgusted throughout the four decades since the Second Vatican Catastrophe by the propensity of outsiders - encouraged by the bogus ecumenical movement - to harangue the Holy Roman Church about its doctrine, practices and liturgy and to offer impertinent prescriptions for change.
Now, however, the Anglican contagion is invading the Catholic Church and that is quite another matter. The news that Anglican bishops have had private talks with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is a provocative development. Any collective negotiation suggests that these disgruntled prelates envisage the possibility of some kind of corporate adherence to the Catholic Church. The barque of Peter should immediately hoist the signal: not wanted on voyage.
What kind of Catholic converts would these men be? The Church of England has been ordaining priestesses since 1994 - in itself testimony to the insincerity of Anglicanism in its so-called ecumenical discussions with Rome - yet these people were happy not only to continue within it but also to hold high office and to conduct services in cathedrals forcibly expropriated from the Catholic Church.
If immemorial tradition was not enough, their "Catholic" consciences ought to have been informed by the Apostolic Letter "Ordinatio Sacerdotalis" issued by John Paul II on May 22, 1994, in which he infallibly decreed: "We declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgement is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful."
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.telegraph.co.uk ...
Oh, btw, this is also proof that not all the "in your face" Catholics in the world are not FReepers.
HE’s mixing up two groups...one the Anglo Catholics who oppose women priests and promiscuous gay sex in clergy and the PC types.
I’m with Spurgeon and Whitefield on this one: The Church of England is no better than the RCC.
I think the author’s point is if the Anglo Catholics were really concerned about the ordination of women priests, they should have left the Anglican church 10+ years ago when they first started doing so.
A) The papal statement referenced was not made infallibly since there was only one such declaration in the last century, and this is not it;
B)This point of view would have refused admission to the Church of Cardinal Newman. All Christians who accept the Magisterium are welcome to the Church.
I think the author questions whether these Anglican priests/bishops would really "accept the Magisterium" of the RCC or whether they'll accept 90% of it and then try to agitate for the Church to give up whatever 10% they might not like (artificial birth control, purgatory, prayers to Mary and the Saints, etc.)
Anglican ping
It is not very Christian to challenge the motives of others without evidence. In any case there are far more Catholics that have this point of view than Anglicans, and they have not been accomadated.
No, he’s actually not confusing the two groups. Even the “conservatives,” his argument goes, tolerated much wickedness, and there’s little reason to believe they’ve suddenly adopted the Catholic faith... it’s just less objectionable to them than the Anglican Church.
I’m not sure I agree: THere’s nothing like this current crisis to make one decide that maybe there is a divine purpose to the Roman-style hierarchy, and if so, than maybe even in one isn’t persuaded to Catholic doctrines by apologetics, they may be accept the Catholic doctrines by reckognizing the authority of the magisterium. This may be precisely why the CDF (doctrine) has taken over from Cardinal Kaspar’s congregation. But it’s a valid point that the acceptance into the Church should be done on the basis of conversion, not as a political union.
Ut unum sint.
When I converted, I had to accept in faith teachings I initially disagreed with (the Catholic position on abortion was one biggie). I decided I would not ever vocalize my disagreement, btw. Once I became Catholic, I saw the wisdom and the correctness of Church teaching.
I think my journey started, not because I embraced the Catholic Church, but that the church I had known my whole life was tossing out everything that I had been taught growing up, and I realized that it was taking me down with it.
Maybe some of those Anglicans will be like the Katrina Refugees who, when forced to leave New Orleans, realized that they had a chance for a new beginning in places that were a lot nicer than what they left behind.
My Priest left Anglicanism over 25 years ago. My Parish is one of a handful of Anglican Use Parishes in the US. We are thriving.
Traditional Anglican ping, continued in memory of its founder Arlin Adams.
FReepmail Huber or sionnsar if you want on or off this moderately high-volume ping list (sometimes 3-9 pings/day).
This list is pinged by Huber and sionnsar.
Resource for Traditional Anglicans: http://trad-anglican.faithweb.com
Humor: The Anglican Blue
Speak the truth in love. Eph 4:15
"10+"?
Where were you when I left over 25 years ago? And even that was AFTER they began doing so.
"10+"?
And this is all you seekers have to know about the Church of Papal Infallibility.
You are not wanted here. No Anglicans Need Apply.
Go ahead and drown yourselves in the open ocean, says Christian Rome. You aren't good enough to join us.
This is a bit disturbing. He's identifying both sides of a critical issue as being identical?
Really? “Rome” said this? Or was it some guy with a blog?
Stand down, please. You aren’t being helpful.
The source here is not Rome, it is a Catholic blogger who opposes what he thinks Rome is doing.
Anglo Catholics are against the ordination of women. I believe they were permitted to opt out of recognizing women priests.
"Christian Rome" is in fact in negotiations with the Anglicans and has said no such thing. Nor will it. Furthermore, a huge number of Anglicans have become Catholics in the last few years, as you no doubt know, so your "No Anglicans Need Apply" jibe is utter garbage.
This is an editorial and is one man's opinion, no more, no less than your delightful post on this thread. It carries as much official weight as any private opinion on this matter.
An opinion piece in the Daily Telegraph is not the voice of "Christian Rome".
Go ahead and drown yourselves in the open ocean, says Christian Rome. You aren't good enough to join us.
Funny, the Anglican Use (Roman Catholic) Conference is this week, and they have invited not only Catholics, but Episcopalians and Anglicans to come. One of the Keynote Speakers is an Episcopalian Bishop who swam the Tiber.
Why do you say that?
I think you've nailed it completely.
Because neither the Catholics, the Anglicans, nor the Orthodox are "genuine" Christians™ according to the standards of some.
He seems to have some valid concerns. I have complete faith in Pope Benedict, however. I know he will do the right thing for our Church.
I think this is probably what will happen, essentially, even in the case of a mass exodus of Anglicans for Rome. Their orders are not valid and they are never simply accepted as is; and of course, they do have to take instruction (or at least be examined as to their beliefs) and make a formal submission.
That said, many Anglo-Catholics and conservative Anglicans exist in a strange state of suspension. They are afraid to commit to Catholic truth because they know it will make demands on them (even the demand of suddenly being unpopular), so they sort of vaguely assent to it but at the same time are able to ignore what is going on in their own church as being somehow not relevant to them directly.
The clergy among them will, of course, have to leave their clerical jobs, and all of them will have to leave their beautiful little churches (many of them stolen from Rome in the first place) and the other lovely things they have enjoyed in their protected place as members of a state church. This may sound trivial, but it actually will cost them something and they are concerned about it.
Finally, the Catholic Church, represented by people such as Cdl Cormac Murphy-O'Connor and other Spirit of Vatican II luminaries, has given a pretty dismal witness in Britain for nearly 5 decades now, and I can see why they might not have been rushing to become part of it. Aside from the fact that the good Cardinal and others of his ilk obviously didn't want them.
In short, while it would have been great if the Anglicans could have acted on their conscience before now, I don't think that necessarily means that they are insincere. They will, after time in the Church, learn to do more than tolerate certain positions as they understand them, just as sockmonkey did; that's to be expected. I think the biggest barrier, frankly, has been the Catholic bishops.
If it's any consolation, the 19th century bishops didn't want John Henry Newman, either, in part because they were insanely jealous of him. But the Pope did, and the rest is history.
“This is a bit disturbing.”
“...make formal submission to the Sovereign Roman Pontiff.”
That’s the part that disturbs, even if it doesn’t surprise. The comments of this blogger are not the isolated ravings of someone far outside the Roman mainstream of the laity.
Well said. Just because a Catholic has a blog, it doesn’t mean that his blog actually reflects what the Church teaches or that it is anything more than his opinion. Just as one should not believe everything one reads in the newspaper, neither should one believe everything he reads online.
Because I read the Bible, historical accounts, biographies, etc. and form opinions. I agree with some people on some issues, disagree on others, etc.
I recently read a biography of Spurgeon and am currently reading a biography of George Whitefield. Each book describes some aspects of the Church of England, revealing it to be a “junior RC”, much as the other Anglicans tend to be - to varying degrees. Both of these preachers recognized the inherent danger to the souls of men present in the Roman Catholic Church and in the Church of England. As one who holds to reformed theological view, I agree with them in that assessment.
While I undrestand the writer’s concerns, posting a “not wanted” sign for the benefit of these people at the Catholic Church’s doorway entirely misses the purpose and mission of the Church. The salvation of souls is “what it’s all about,” and this is done at the level of the individual, not at that of the corporation. Refusing entry of individual Anglicans who seek the fullness of the Faith is entirely wrong. However, given that these same people seemed willing enough to stay “within the Anglican communion” since the establishment of certain unfortunate practices within it, it might not be out of line for these folks, upon reception, to make a specific statement of faith that rejects the legitimacy of those practices. Certainly this would be a good thing to expect the erstwhile Anglican clergy involved to do.
Stop being such a drama queen. Nobody in authority has said anything even remotely near that. These bishops have been in talks with the Holy See for some time now and I expect that when all is said and done they will be welcomed home with open arms. I know I welcome them. Perhaps they should have left the AC in 1980 but better late than never.
Is there a national directory of Anglican Use parishes that you can direct me to?
You obviously have no idea what a sandy foundation you build on, focusing on the mere opinions of men who denied a Faith with organic traceability to the time of Christ Himself. That you deny that traceability is your opinion. If the Faith was not accurately transmitted all those centuries wherein you say the Church was apostate, then God's promised providence, found, among other places, in Matthew 28, is totally meaningless. Your very premises insult God Himself, even while your aim is merely to insult Catholics with your statement that they are not even Christian.
I think it is beyond funny that a mostly american sect of Baptists, a modern protestant denomination, thinks they get to decide what is and what isn’t True Bible Christianity(TM)
You err in presuming to know who my buddies are or what foundation I build on or what my focus is or what my point of reference is. This is what the moderators call “reading the mind of another.” If I were an RC crybaby, I would whine to the mods.
I merely answered another person’s question.
My point of reference of the RCC begins in the 4th century AD, when it was created by ambitious men in a satanic marriage between the church and the state.
My trust is in the One who is the Rock - Christ Jesus and none other. I care not to put my faith in a false lineage of men that might - but doesn’t - go back to one of the Apostles.
Don’t get your bowels in an uproar because not everyone who claims Christ licks the feet of your pope. This is an open thread, after all.
No. Your point of reference concerning the nature of the “errors” of the Catholic Church begins in the 16th Century, since that is the timeframe for when they were first perceived (by some, at least) as errors. Prior to that, the doctrine of the Church was not considered erroneous by anyone, and did, in fact, have continuity with the apostolic teachings. That is why the “Reformers” had the cheekiness I referred to earlier. They presumed to redirect the teaching of the Church founded by Christ Himself on their own authority, and, in so doing, they abandoned, among other things, the notion that His divine Providence would preserve the Church He founded from erroneous doctrine. No one ever said that the Church would be preserved from the machinations of certain evil and corrupt men who claimed to be members of it. But the doctrine itself, no, that would be divinely guaranteed to remain intact as He would have it.
Regarding my remarks about Calvin, are you not a Calvinist? If you are not, I apologize for the error. Nevertheless, I will not apologize for my assertions about the insufficiencies of your 16th Century frame of reference, since those assertions are objectively true, whether the insufficiencies were conjured by Calvin, Luther, Knox, or any other 16th Century Catholic apostate “Reformer.”
We disagree on my point of reference. And since you don’t know my point of reference, you must be in error. Those 16th century folks were not the first ones to document errors in the Roman Catholic Church. A RCC centric book sent to me by a RC member of FR starts off listing errors of and within the RCC as early as the 4th century!
I am not a Calvinist, though I agree with much of his doctrine. I am not a disciple of any man, but of the Son of Man only.
We also disagree on who is apostate - the Reformers or Rome. I think no one short of God will reconcile our different opinions.
I think no one short of God will reconcile our different opinions.
On this point, certainly, we are in agreement!
It's all about grace!
Whining in public can be just as satisfying.
*******************
Hey, knock yourself out. I'm sure the Mods would love to hear from you.
I’m not a whiny RC crybaby so I won’t.
Oh, go ahead. No one will mind, or even be surprised.
LOL - don’t you just love the evangelization technique? It’s spectacular in its ineffectiveness.
Since I’ve never whined to a mod about anyone thus far, they might be surprised to get a whine from me instead of about me.
LOL!
Naw. They’re expecting it. Don’t you think?
**** Is there a national directory of Anglican Use parishes that you can direct me to? ****
Well, there aren’t that many of us, but you can find the list at http://www.pastoralprovision.org/Parishes.html
Until the king started killing off the Catholics.
Do your books include that?
**My point of reference of the RCC begins in the 4th century AD, when it was created by ambitious men in a satanic marriage between the church and the state.**
False information. One, holy, Catholic and apostolic church was founded by Christ in the New Testament. Refer to the Book of Acts, please.
“One, holy, Catholic and apostolic church was founded by Christ in the New Testament. Refer to the Book of Acts, please.” That’s according to YOPIOS (if I have the RCC acronym correct).
The one church founded by Christ is not visible (being scattered and having chaff mixed in with the wheat) and not under the rule of an authoritarian man appointed by sycophants.
I’ve read the book of Acts, thank you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.