Posted on 03/09/2011 1:30:07 PM PST by NYer
LONDON - Hundreds of disaffected Anglicans left the Church of England to become Roman Catholics on Ash Wednesday, the Christian day of penance.
The day set by the church to welcome converts wishing to join the Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham, a unique grouping created by Pope Benedict XVI for Anglicans left feeling isolated since the Church of England decided in 1992 to ordain women as priests.
Tensions have grown further as the governing General Synod moves to allow women to become bishops while denying special structures to protect the sensitivities of the objectors.
"I believe that synod is trying to make the church conform to the culture rather than being faithful to new life found in Jesus Christ," the Rev. David Lashbrooke said in his farewell sermon at St. Marychurch in Torquay, southwestern England.
Those joining the ordinariate will be allowed to keep some of their customs and liturgy, though they won't be allowed to receive communion until they are confirmed shortly before Easter. Their priests can be ordained to the Catholic priesthood even if they are married.
Church officials haven't released numbers, but a Catholic magazine, The Tablet, has reported that about 20 priests and 600 lay people around England are making the move. Five former bishops have already gone over.
"Of more than 22,000 ordained Church of England clergy in total, about two dozen would appear to have decided to join the ordinariate at this time," said Howard Dobson, spokesman for the Archbishops' Council.
"It is impossible to obtain an accurate figure of lay numbers as no one needs to register their leaving the C of E," Dobson said. The church claims 1.7 million active members.
In the Catholic diocese of Brentwood, covering east London and suburban Essex County, 241 adults and children, including seven priests, have indicated they will be moving from the Church of England, said diocesan press officer Mary Huntington.
The program set by the Catholic Church for the ordinariate is built around the season of Lent leading up to Easter, when new members normally prepare for confirmation, and Pentecost 50 days after Easter when former Anglican priests will be ordained into their new church.
The Rev. Simon Chinery, a curate or assistant priest at two Anglican churches in Plymouth, said he felt "a sense of peace, a sense of excitement and some nervousness" as he prepared for the Ash Wednesday service at a Catholic church.
In his farewell to his old churches on Sunday, Chinery noted he wasn't the first priest from the parish to become a Catholic but that Benedict had made it easier.
"Whereas previously ex-Anglicans were stealthily admitted to the Catholic church through a side entrance, this time the front door has been thrown open and the welcome mat laid out," he said.
"I deeply love the Church of England, it's a hard decision to leave it behind," he said Wednesday, adding that he would particularly miss the church's rich musical heritage.
The Rev. Ed Tomlinson was leaving St. Barnabas Church in Tunbridge Wells, southeast England, and felt relief as he took about 70 parishioners with him into the Catholic Church.
"I spent so many years battling to defend the faith from within the Church of England, which is crazy, and that's taken all my energy away from visiting the sick, preaching the good news and helping people," Tomlinson said in an interview with British Broadcasting Corp. radio.
A smaller group remains committed to St. Barnabas and the Church of England, Tomlinson added, "and they have my prayers and good wishes."
While some move, others are still weighing their options.
Rev. John Corbyn of St. Mary Magdalene Church in Harlow, 25 miles (40 kms) northeast of London, said his group may be part of a second wave to migrants.
"It's not just one day and that's it," Corbyn said. "It's not a closing down sale."
You say you are a sola scripturist. That you believe in the bible alone, so these should be simple questions."
I did not say I was a "sola scripturist". I did not say I was not. But, you might want to tap the brakes a bit. You want to know who "put all these books in one volume and published it"? I would suspect that was Gutenberg, the inventor of the moveable type. Before that there was no such thing as "publishing". If you mean who identified the books that rightfully are called the Word of God, then I already answered the question. The Jews identified the books of the portion we call the Old Testament and the early Jewish believers identified the books of the portion we call the New Testament. You might have some kind of trouble accepting that as an answer, but re-read it...it is still true. Long before there was ever a Roman Catholic anything, these existed and were identified as the Word of God.
“You want to know who “put all these books in one volume and published it”? I would suspect that was Gutenberg”
Ok, I’ll accept that.
Are you aware he published a Vulgate? Go look it up.
“If you mean who identified the books that rightfully are called the Word of God”
I mean *exactly* what I say I mean, nothing more nor less.
When do you believe the Catholic church began?
When was the first donkey ridden?
How tall is a tree?
What exactly do any of your questions have to do with the price of rice? Are you unable to simply make a point?
My point is that the Catholic church was founded by Christ.
Ergo, they are the Church of the Apostles, and anyone who believes in the Apostles ought to be a member of his Church.
Did you really believe that Gutenburg published Luther’s bible? Really?
Well, my FRiend, I respectfully disagree. The catholic church (universal assembly) was indeed founded by Christ. Unfortunately, a number of power hungry, misguided, heretics founded the Roman Catholic Church sometime around 300AD. It has been swallowing people whole since then. The true Body of Christ has been prevailing in spite of their work of darkness.
“power hungry, misguided, heretics founded the Roman Catholic Church sometime around 300AD”
Do you have a source for that?
Yes. History vs. the self-proving, self-deluded, self-justifying myths promulgated by Rome. As it was posted elsewhere, the Bible and the Roman Church are mutually exclusive...if you read the one, you would not belong to the other.
Ok, then who is your historical source that asserts that the Roman Catholic church was founded sometime around 300 AD?
I’m curious as to where you are getting this idea from.
Then who is your historical source that asserts that the Roman Catholic church was founded before 300AD?
Rome’s assertion.
Yes. Yet another of their self-aggrandizing claims to fame.
Eusebius of Caesarea and his Historia Ecclesiastica.
Your turn.
With apologies to Wikipedia, it doesn't take much to find this fellow is just more of the self-proving, self-aggrandizing group of Rome. He bordered on subordinationism, he clearly had a problem with what became Pelagianism. And, tragically for your argument, he was born around 263ad landing his writings just about on the 300ad mark to which I referred. Your turn.
No, it’s your turn still.
Who wrote that the Church was founded ‘thereabouts’ in 300 AD?
I find your evasion telling. Where’s the source?
.
Have you stopped beating your wife? This is not a legitimate question after I said that the Roman Catholic Church was non-existent before approx. 300ad. Your question wrongly presumes that the Roman Catholic Church (an institution of dubious character) is the "Church" to which Jesus refers. Nothing could be further from the truth. This is just more of the self-proving fraud perpetrated by Rome.
Jesus was referring to the "assembly" of believers that He would build, an assembly which includes believers as far back as Adam, Abraham, Moses, et al. There is no such word as "church" in the Scriptures. The word is a derivative some say of the Scottish word "kirk" or some such thing. The Roman translation from Greek to English brings eklasia, or assembly, a common word meaning "public assembly collected together" into a trademarked word that Scripture does not support. Sorry. Your turn.
“I said that the Roman Catholic Church was non-existent before approx. 300ad.”
What is your source for this assertion?
By Church, capital C, I am referring to the Roman Catholic church.
Now, if you are asserting that the Roman Catholic Church was founded around 300 AD, what is your source for this assertion?
Who founded it? Where was it founded? How was it founded? Why then?
Right now, all we have is that this is what Dutchboy88 says happened. That’s simply not good enough. Where’s your source for all this, Dutchboy? Why are you being so damn evasive?
Find its appearance prior to that date.
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.