Britain could have an Ordinariate by new year

Onesimus

http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2010/09/24/britain-could-have-an-ordinariate-by-new-year/

Looks like more anglicans are uniting with Rome once again! How do you all view this article? my question goes out to all Christian and non Christians too.

Onesimus

http://whispersintheloggia.blogspot.com/2010/09/anglicanorum-wuerlibus.html

I found this other article that I thought may add to the discussion.

alex73

That was why the Pope in Person when to beatify Blessed Newmann in Birginham.

Its only a matter of time before Anglicans divide along liberal and traditional lines.

antiskeptic

Onesimus wrote: »

Looks like more anglicans are uniting with Rome once again! How do you all view this article? my question goes out to all Christian and non Christians too.

Rome uniting with Anglicans?

alex73

antiskeptic wrote: »

Rome uniting with Anglicans?

Anglicans returning to Rome.

philologos

Onesimus wrote: »

http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2010/09/24/britain-could-have-an-ordinariate-by-new-year/

Looks like more anglicans are uniting with Rome once again! How do you all view this article? my question goes out to all Christian and non Christians too.

Personally, I think it's awful. People know how to unaffiliate with the Anglican Church if they want to.

The Anglican Church is much more complex than "liberal or traditional".

There are broadly three lines: 1) Anglo-Catholic, 2) Broad Church, 3) Reformed / Evangelical.

What is effectively being discussed is more conservative Anglo-Catholics going to Rome. None of 2 or 3 would even consider it. This is a small portion of the church.

The RCC has enough of its own problems without fiddling around in an unwelcome manner with other churches.

antiskeptic

Jakkass wrote: »

Personally, I think it's awful. People know how to unaffiliate with the Anglican Church if they want to.

I'm curious Jackass, why do you think it's awful? If someone is essentially R.Catholic in outlook, why worry about their better aligning themselves so?

philologos

If people wish to leave that's their own choice. They know how to leave and move to the RCC already without the RCC meddling. I guess the result would be a more reformed CofE though, which might actually be a good thing.

georgieporgy

Jakkass wrote: »

Personally, I think it's awful. People know how to unaffiliate with the Anglican Church if they want to.

The Anglican Church is much more complex than "liberal or traditional".

There are broadly three lines: 1) Anglo-Catholic, 2) Broad Church, 3) Reformed / Evangelical.

What is effectively being discussed is more conservative Anglo-Catholics going to Rome. None of 2 or 3 would even consider it. This is a small portion of the church.

The RCC has enough of its own problems without fiddling around in an unwelcome manner with other churches.

Jakkass, are you saying that sections 2&3 (broad and reformed) are the correct church? are Anglo-Catholic wrong in their thinking? Not attacking you. just asking for clarification of thought.
and if you don't mind me joking with you... I think you are weakining

philologos

georgieporgy wrote: »

Jakkass, are you saying that sections 2&3 (broad and reformed) are the correct church? are Anglo-Catholic wrong in their thinking? Not attacking you. just asking for clarification of thought.
and if you don't mind me joking with you... I think you are weakining

Not at all. Anglo-Catholic churches are about as valid as any other form of Anglican worship. Personally I would be in camp 3, and indeed I prefer this type of structure. The only group that can possibly join the RCC are people who are already inclined to RCC thinking. In the Anglican church it is the Anglo-Catholic wing.

I don't welcome interference from other churches in issues that Anglicans clearly have to work out together. Bear in mind the only opposition doesn't come from Anglo-Catholics either.

If the Archbishop of Canterbury did a similar advert in the light of the clerical child abuse scandals I could imagine the response it would get.

georgieporgy

OK. I just have one big question. Protestants (loose umbrella term) hold that all christians (bible only) are ok in their interpretations of Scripture except..... us guys! Like why is that?

We (RCC) think we are right on the ball but we think you guys are ok too.(but slightly mixed up) please interpret this in the kindest possible way.

Why can't RCC be included in the christian family and not be feared as the whore of babylon etc etc?

Onesimus

I dont see how the RCC is meddling with anything at all. It's the anglicans who are approaching them.

There can only be one Church, and the anglicans have yet ( as some have already done so ) to see through the threefold structure they have which is divided, because their structure has different beliefs and various pastoral suggestions on core elements of their faith. They are not one in their faith and a kingdom that is divided against itself cannot stand.

philologos

georgieporgy wrote: »

OK. I just have one big question. Protestants (loose umbrella term) hold that all christians (bible only) are ok in their interpretations of Scripture except..... us guys! Like why is that?

The problem with this issue isn't primarily RCC theology. The primary issue in this case is that the RCC is interfering with issues in the Anglican Church to increase their own numbers rather than letting us to discuss these issues in full.

Again would it be acceptable for other non-RCC churches to take advantage of clerical child abuse to disaffect clergy and parishioners from the RCC? I suspect there would be uproar.

georgieporgy wrote: »

We (RCC) think we are right on the ball but we think you guys are ok too.(but slightly mixed up) please interpret this in the kindest possible way.

I don't know about the RCC's stance exactly. The RCC doesn't recognise non-RCC churches as churches, but "Christian communities". If the RCC genuinely believed that Anglican churches were OK as they are, they wouldn't feel the need to shift Anglicans to the RCC.

On occasion I have spoken to the Legion of Mary missionaries in Temple Bar, and one incident I asked the question that whether or not according to RCC theology I as a Protestant could be saved. They proceeded to talk amongst themselves in a huddle, discussing it, only after a few minutes to come back and say that yes, actually I could. Nonetheless they insisted that I should consider joining Catholicism.

There are clearly some issues where the RCC doesn't regard Protestantism as OK still despite reform.

georgieporgy wrote: »

Why can't RCC be included in the christian family and not be feared as the whore of babylon etc etc?

I believe they can be. Certain elements of theology in all churches can be mistaken.

georgieporgy

Jakkass wrote: »

The problem with this issue isn't primarily RCC theology. The primary issue in this case is that the RCC is interfering with issues in the Anglican Church to increase their own numbers rather than letting us to discuss these issues in full.

Again would it be acceptable for other non-RCC churches to take advantage of clerical child abuse to disaffect clergy and parishioners from the RCC? I suspect there would be uproar.



I don't know about the RCC's stance exactly. The RCC doesn't recognise non-RCC churches as churches, but "Christian communities". If the RCC genuinely believed that Anglican churches were OK as they are, they wouldn't feel the need to shift Anglicans to the RCC.

On occasion I have spoken to the Legion of Mary missionaries in Temple Bar, and one incident I asked the question that whether or not according to RCC theology I as a Protestant could be saved. They proceeded to talk amongst themselves in a huddle, discussing it, only after a few minutes to come back and say that yes, actually I could. Nonetheless they insisted that I should consider joining Catholicism.

There are clearly some issues where the RCC doesn't regard Protestantism as OK still despite reform.



I believe they can be. Certain elements of theology in all churches can be mistaken.

that's funny about the Legion of Mary having a chin wag to decide if you 're ok lol. But we know that they are "ordinary" christians out on a work project. They may have faith but they may not be well up on the finer points of theology. But they came up with the right answer. You are in!

I still haven't figured out how to break up quotes when replying to posts so forgive me if my style is clumsy. Help anybody....

Getting back to the main point, I think what the Pope is doing is offering a means whereby those Anglicans who wish to to unite with RCC and keep their traditions can do so. So parishes/communities can convert as a block rather than individually. The initial overtures came from said Anglicans.
What you have to say about the paedophile situation in the RCC is quite right. I would just love if the Anglicans took them on board but wouldn't wish it on them.

philologos

georgieporgy wrote: »

What you have to say about the paedophile situation in the RCC is quite right. I would just love if the Anglicans took them on board but wouldn't wish it on them.

You missed the point. If the Anglican Church offered a similar measure and advertised that people disenchanted with the abuse scandals, could join them, priests, parishes, individuals it would be seen as wholly unacceptable.

By the by, you claim that it was Anglicans who approached them. Fair dues. Just tell them how to leave and leave it up to them to join rather than making pomp & circumstance as has been done with the new "Anglican rite".

Inter-church relations cannot really progress or continue if stumbling blocks such as these are put in place. It appears that the RCC has a radically different understanding of inter-church relations than other churches. It seems to mean that all join the RCC, rather than mutual co-operation.

georgieporgy

Jakkass wrote: »

You missed the point. If the Anglican Church offered a similar measure and advertised that people disenchanted with the abuse scandals, could join them, priests, parishes, individuals it would be seen as wholly unacceptable.

By the by, you claim that it was Anglicans who approached them. Fair dues. Just tell them how to leave and leave it up to them to join rather than making pomp & circumstance as has been done with the new "Anglican rite".

Inter-church relations cannot really progress or continue if stumbling blocks such as these are put in place. It appears that the RCC has a radically different understanding of inter-church relations than other churches. It seems to mean that all join the RCC, rather than mutual co-operation.

I honestly don't think anybody would object if the Anglican Church made such a formal proposal. I wish they would! But why would they? And what parish would follow such a disgraced cleric?

The pomp and circumstance you talk of is a bit "in your face" and antagonistic but I think that's more a newspaper FRONTPAGE story than something coming out of Rome.

I think what the Pope was saying in his recent trip to the UK was let's leave arguments aside and all pray together and see what comes of it.

philologos

georgieporgy wrote: »

I honestly don't think anybody would object if the Anglican Church made such a formal proposal. I wish they would! But why would they? And what parish would follow such a disgraced cleric?

You're missing the point. I'm talking about those disenchanted / disillusioned / upset by the clerical child abuse, not about the perpetrators! I.E - Those who object to the child abuse. Please don't misconstrue my posts.

georgieporgy wrote: »

The pomp and circumstance you talk of is a bit "in your face" and antagonistic but I think that's more a newspaper FRONTPAGE story than something coming out of Rome.

I'm afraid it was about as much the RCC. I believe there was even a formal press release about it by Vincent Nichols.

georgieporgy wrote: »

I think what the Pope was saying in his recent trip to the UK was let's leave arguments aside and all pray together and see what comes of it.

This is just inadequate. The arguments have to be had if this is an issue initiated by the RCC. I feel that Rowan Williams should have been clear and strong on the issue, that this will actually harm inter-church relations between Anglicans and Catholics into the future.

Unless, the RCC is willing to understand that inter-church relations actually involve mutual co-operation rather than the expectation that all churches will join the RCC inter-church relations will be strained.

antiskeptic

Onesimus wrote: »

There can only be one Church, and the anglicans have yet ( as some have already done so ) to see through the threefold structure they have which is divided, because their structure has different beliefs and various pastoral suggestions on core elements of their faith. They are not one in their faith and a kingdom that is divided against itself cannot stand.

You're speaking to people who don't have any problem with the idea of believers from different denominations (including the RC one) belonging to the one church. To us, you are mixing your units, confusing denominations (the Roman Catholic church, the Anglican church, the Presbyterian church) with The Church referred to by Christ. And in so mixing up, saying in effect, nothing.

alex73

antiskeptic wrote: »

You're speaking to people who don't have any problem with the idea of believers from different denominations (including the RC one) belonging to the one church. To us, you are mixing your units, confusing denominations (the Roman Catholic church, the Anglican church, the Presbyterian church) with The Church referred to by Christ. And in so mixing up, saying in effect, nothing.

If Anglicans convert to Catholicism they will continue to have their traditions but will in effect be Catholics. (Not Anglicans)

antiskeptic

alex73 wrote: »

If Anglicans convert to Catholicism they will continue to have their traditions but will in effect be Catholics. (Not Anglicans)

The overarching question isn't whether they are Anglicans or Catholics but whether they are Christians. If they are then it matters not what denomination they belong to - they would still belong to the one true church.

If they are not Christians then it doesn't matter whether they're Anglicans, Catholics, Presbyterians or Atheists. That was the point being made.

alex73

antiskeptic wrote: »

The overarching question isn't whether they are Anglicans or Catholics but whether they are Christians. If they are then it matters not what denomination they belong to - they would still belong to the one true church.

If they are not Christians then it doesn't matter whether they're Anglicans, Catholics, Presbyterians or Atheists. That was the point being made.

The Catholic Church under the Bishop of Rome has 21 rites, Just as Ukraine's Orthodox returned to Rome retaining their rite, Thus the Pope has given Anglicans the possibility.

philologos

^^ You ignored his point entirely. He's saying what matters is whether or not they are Christians, not whether or not they are Anglican, Catholic, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Independent etc. If they are Christians, they are already members of the Christian faith (one true church).

alex73

Jakkass wrote: »

^^ You ignored his point entirely. He's saying what matters is whether or not they are Christians, not whether or not they are Anglican, Catholic, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Independent etc. If they are Christians, they are already members of the Christian faith (one true church).

Not all Christians are become part of the true church. Lutherans don't believe in the Eucharist, Anglicans do. The only reason Anglicans can return is because the traditional part of the church retained much of the true Church.

philologos

alex73 wrote: »

Not all Christians are become part of the true church. Lutherans don't believe in the Eucharist, Anglicans do. The only reason Anglicans can return is because the traditional part of the church retained much of the true Church.

Which Anglicans? By the by, all Christians believe in the Eucharist. Not all Christians believe in the Eucharist in the same way as the RCC do. Transubstantiation isn't held by all Anglicans either. Not even most. Personally, I believe that Christ is spiritually present in the Eucharist, but that it does not transform into literal flesh and blood. It is a remembrance. Hence why Jesus Himself said "Do this in remembrance of me".

Personally, I would consider Lutherans, Methodist, Presbyterians, Evangelicals, and countless other Christians to be a part of the true Christian faith, in that they teach the Gospel cogently.

Do churches have problems with their theology? Yes, definitely. Dare I say that the RCC isn't exempt from this. This is why we are on a constant journey to bring our faith back to its rightful Scriptural basis. This is why the Reformation occurred, and this is why there have been numerous restoration movements since the Reformation also.

Claiming that the RCC is the one true church is effectively claiming that Christians outside the RCC aren't proper Christians. There is really no if but or and about it as I would see it logically. The RCC didn't exist in its current form until the 4th century, so this leaves us with a conundrum concerning the early churches, were they true or false?*

* The Early Church was formed of the Gentile church, the Jewish church, the Armenian Apostolic Church, and according to historical record the Mar Thomas Church. One cannot effectively argue that they were all the RCC.

antiskeptic

alex73 wrote: »

The Catholic Church under the Bishop of Rome has 21 rites, Just as Ukraine's Orthodox returned to Rome retaining their rite, Thus the Pope has given Anglicans the possibility.

I'll make the same point to you that I made to Onesimus.

"You're speaking to people who don't have any problem with the idea of believers from different denominations (including the RC one) belonging to the one church. To us, you are mixing your units, confusing denominations (the Roman Catholic church, the Anglican church, the Presbyterian church) with The Church referred to by Christ. And in so mixing up, saying in effect, nothing."


In other words, when speaking to people who a) see Rome as just another denomination and b) see the one true church as not being the preserve of any one denomination, there is no point asserting a denomination (in this case Rome) to be the one true church. Do I need to underline the term no point?

alex73

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'll make the same point to you that I made to Onesimus.

"You're speaking to people who don't have any problem with the idea of believers from different denominations (including the RC one) belonging to the one church. To us, you are mixing your units, confusing denominations (the Roman Catholic church, the Anglican church, the Presbyterian church) with The Church referred to by Christ. And in so mixing up, saying in effect, nothing."


In other words, when speaking to people who a) see Rome as just another denomination and b) see the one true church as not being the preserve of any one denomination, there is no point asserting a denomination (in this case Rome) to be the one true church. Do I need to underline the term no point?

At the moment Anglican Church are Roman Catholic are 2 separate and distinct Church's.

The Pope has given Conservative Anglicans the possibility to unit under the authority of Rome.

Once are group of Anglicans moves over to Rome they will cease to be part of the Current Anglican Church and will become Catholics, However they will retain some of the structure's of their current system. (if a priest is married he will be allowed to remain as a priest).

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_ben-xvi_apc_20091104_anglicanorum-coetibus_en.html


As a catholic I believe only the Catholic Church is the one Church.

philologos

alex73: You're demonstrating a misunderstanding of the Anglican Church. Conservatives are right across the Anglican Church. The only people the Pope can reach out to are conservative Anglo-Catholics. Reformed conservatives won't be interested in such an offer.

It's not conservative versus liberal by any stretch of the imagination.

georgieporgy

Here in his own words is an example of one such recent convert from Anglican priest to RC.

Taylor Marshall and family from Texas.

http://cantuar.blogspot.com/2007/09/about-taylor-marshall.html


http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_aoxvhOU2Auk/Suht3GFbLCI/AAAAAAAAAWw/MEYEzl8tjRA/s1600/familybaptism.jpg

philologos

One can find numerous sources of such conversions in any direction. I can't help but think that this type of thinking is damaging to Christianity as a whole.

georgieporgy

But I am interested in the reasons why people convert from one religion to another. For example, most catholics quit practicing because they cannot accept things like sex outside marriage is wrong, divorce+remarriage wrong, artificial birth control wrong, abortion etc etc.

There are another group who do not know what their own (RC) religion teaches and they succumb to believing slanderous accusations about it so they abandon it in disgust.

Many are scandalized by the bad bevavior of other catholics so they use that as an excuse to leave. They fail to notice the many good examples in their midst.

What I have noticed about protestants who convert to catholicism is they are not abandoning virtue but rather seeking to know God better. Reading their conversion stories often shows that their study of Scripture is what led them to the RC.

Read through Taylor Marshall's story and see what you make of it.

philologos

Personally, I'm much more interested in Christians living out the Gospel, and proclaiming Christ crucified in their lives than denominational spats. They are so harmful to the message that we hold.

Personally, I'd rather if Anglicans, Catholics, Lutherans, Presbyterians and so on, effectively just got on with it. Living out Jesus' example in every sphere of living rather than bickering amongst themselves.

I live I guess with the assumption that all churches are going to be flawed in execution, primarily because fallible humans run them. The love of God is more important than human institutions.

georgieporgy

I agree wholeheartedly.