Anglicans want to defect to Rome

[Mannyfit75]

Excuse me?

This is bizarre. Either you are very confused or you really hate your separated brothers and sisters.

I could understand your having concerns about individual conversion which drains away the lifeblood of Anglicanism. But how could any serious Catholic possibly object to a corporate reunion?

Edwin

You know as a devote Catholic myself, I welcome Anglicans to come home to Rome. Cardinal Newman was an Anglican who converted to Roman Catholicism. If Anglicans wish to leave their own Church and be converted to the Catholic Church, so be it. Besides, you can’t deny the Holy Spirit from denying where they will be going.

 

[manualman]

Edwin,

I find your position on women’s ordination intriguing and unusually honest, thanks.

I tend to think that you touched very closely on the reality of the situation: women cannot be priests, but the church has not yet fully articulated a rational explanation for it. Personally, I am against women’s ordination because I believe it is inextricably linked to fundamental characteristics of manhood. Our culture has an incredibly poor grasp of the real meaning of human sexuality. I think this will change as time goes on and the church will then be able to explain herself rationally.

I think it is a parallel situation to birth control. Humanae Vitae did a great job of explaining how BC violates the procreative nature of married sex, but said little about how it ALSO damages the unitive nature. It has taken decades to discern this. The teaching was right, but the explanation for it has lagged behind. Not surprising in a divinely revealed religion…

 

[Yerusalyim]

Sixtus,

You confuse me.

Ours is not so diverse. There is more or less one interpretation of Scripture. That in my view is too narrow. They may come and stay for a short while but I doubt it will last. Catholcism will be too restrictive.

It’s just all these various “interpretations” of scripture that have created such disunity in the body of Christ. There can only be one authoratative interpretation of scriptures or there is disunity. Catholicism is not “restrictive” it’s liberating. What you seem to be implying (please correct me if I’m wrong) is that you believe in the license seen in many of the Anglican communion churches which would allow gay marriages…openly gay priests…even openly gay marriages…there are even some Bishops in the Anglican communion that question the divinity of Christ or even the very existence of God…is that the kind of thing you think is good about the Anglican communion?

There will always be a body of people who accept this type of teaching…but not the Catholic Church…and not a growing number of Anglicans…what would be good is another Rite within the Catholic Church that allowed for the ACCEPTABLE culture divirsity of the Anglicans who want to come home.

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

I tend to think that you touched very closely on the reality of the situation: women cannot be priests, but the church has not yet fully articulated a rational explanation for it. Personally, I am against women’s ordination because I believe it is inextricably linked to fundamental characteristics of manhood. Our culture has an incredibly poor grasp of the real meaning of human sexuality. I think this will change as time goes on and the church will then be able to explain herself rationally.

Have you read Ordinatio Sacerdotalis? It’s all there, and it’s as rational as any rational Catholic could ever want. And, more to the point, it’s authoritative.

I think it is a parallel situation to birth control. Humanae Vitae did a great job of explaining how BC violates the procreative nature of married sex, but said little about how it ALSO damages the unitive nature. It has taken decades to discern this. The teaching was right, but the explanation for it has lagged behind. Not surprising in a divinely revealed religion…

Perhaps it did take time to set out the damage noted, but the violation of the nature of the act, as created by God, is the main consideration, and WAY ahead of all the others. It had to be stressed, because it was psychobabble arguements that sought to undermine the primacy of that consideration that were being put forward to disregard the teaching.

Sadly, Anglicans (among whom I worshipped for some years) have tended to let psychobabble-based arguments undermine that truth that they had – the disoluability of marriage, birth control, women priests are examples – to the point that they are now in danger, as a larger community, of losing it all. Their polity has evolved to the point that they cannot guard the truths they do possess, and maintain unity. The breakup of the Anglican Communion is not forthcoming; it’s in progress. If Anglicans look on joining the Church as “defecting” at all, they are probably looking to do so for the wrong reasons. They certainly cannot join the Catholic Church in order to facilitate continuing to be Anglicans.

Blessings,

Gerry Hunter

 

[mary_bobo]

Excuse me?

This is bizarre. Either you are very confused or you really hate your separated brothers and sisters.

I could understand your having concerns about individual conversion which drains away the lifeblood of Anglicanism. But how could any serious Catholic possibly object to a corporate reunion?

Edwin

Let’s not jump on our fellow poster. Perhaps it would help if the OP would explain how this opinion was derived at and how he/she thinks the CC will be harmed. And I wonder what “different cultures” mean. I think we can have a better conversation if we knew where the OP was coming from.

 

[manualman]

Have you read Ordinatio Sacerdotalis? It’s all there, and it’s as rational as any rational Catholic could ever want. And, more to the point, it’s authoritative.
…
Perhaps it did take time to set out the damage noted, but the violation of the nature of the act, as created by God, is the main consideration, and WAY ahead of all the others. It had to be stressed, because it was psychobabble arguements that sought to undermine the primacy of that consideration that were being put forward to disregard the teaching.

…
Gerry Hunter

Of course I read it. And it is an excellent argument from authority and tradition, which, as I noted, is good enough for me. What it does not do, however, is explain rationally WHY neither Jesus nor the apostles ordained women. I suspect that there IS a very good reason that hasn’t been articulated well yet. We live in a world where a LOT of people think the differences between man and woman amount to little more than plumbing. Blindness.

 

[Sixtus]

Yerusalyim

Sixtus,

You confuse me.
Quote:Ours is not so diverse. There is more or less one interpretation of Scripture. That in my view is too narrow. They may come and stay for a short while but I doubt it will last. Catholcism will be too restrictive.

It’s just all these various “interpretations” of scripture.

No it isn’t, that is a large part of it but not the whole story by any means.

What you seem to be implying is that you believe in the license seen in many of the Anglican communion churches which would allow gay marriages…openly gay priests…even openly gay marriages…

No I am not!

there are even some Bishops in the Anglican communion that question the divinity of Christ or even the very existence of God…is that the kind of thing you think is good about the Anglican communion?

No!

There will always be a body of people who accept this type of teaching…but not the Catholic Church…and not a growing number of Anglicans

.

Society is made up of a diverse range of individuals with competing ideologies, lifestyles and sexual orientation. Now you may wish to call it sexual abberation, but I would call such a view bigotry. Society is very diverse. Unless diversity is recognised and diverse individuals are empowered then they will continue to feel marginalised. Eventually, they will leave not because they don’t fit but because they were not made to feel welcome.

What you think of my Catholicism is upto you. Judge me on my postings. But like it or not, there IS diversity within Catholicism.

If the Christian Church is ever to become ‘one’ again, it can only happen through acceptance of a diverse range of ways to worship and a respect for the various Protestant traditions which have evolved since the Reformation.That is the natural product of human evolution. It will not go away. Pentecostilists are never going to beat their breasts and say ‘mei culpa’. We either embrace diversity or we remain a divided Christianity.

 

[Yerusalyim]

Society is made up of a diverse range of individuals with competing ideologies,

Can all those competing ideologies be correct?

lifestyles and sexual orientation.

Now you may wish to call it sexual abberation, but I would call such a view bigotry.

God quite clearly calls it SIN. Your problem is with God, not with me.

Society is very diverse

.
and your point is? The Church is also very diverse.

Unless diversity is recognised and diverse individuals are empowered then they will continue to feel marginalised.

So, it’s your contention then that we ignore the CLEAR message of both scripture and tradition and “embrace” the homosexual community…accept them as they are…ignore the message of Christ that we call sin SIN and ask openly gay people to be our priests and bishops inspite of what God says? Is that it?

Eventually, they will leave not because they don’t fit but because they were not made to feel welcome.

Murderers, theives and adulterers don’t feel too welcomed in the church either…how do we make THEM feel welcomed so they don’t leave.

Look, the Church is Christ’s instrument for salvation. That means carrying the message that sin is sin. Christ’s instruction to the woman taken in adultery wasn’t…“oh, what a sweet girl…it’s a shame they didn’t understand you or accept you”…no, Christ didn’t condone having her killed, but his instruction to the adulderous woman was SIN NO MORE. Prostitutes and Tax collectors were indeed being saved…but were GIVING UP those professions.

You can be gay and be Catholic…but you can’t have a sinful lifestyle validated by the Church.

What you think of my Catholicism is upto you. Judge me on my postings. But like it or not, there IS diversity within Catholicism.

Yes, there is DIVERSITY in the Catholic Church…Latin Rite, Armenian Rite, Byzantine Rite, etc…and local cultural customs are honored…but accepting openly gay men as priests and bishops…well, if that’s what you are looking for I HIGHLY recommend you become a low Church Anglican…you’re not much of a Catholic.

If the Christian Church is ever to become ‘one’ again, it can only happen through acceptance of a diverse range of ways to worship and a respect for the various Protestant traditions which have evolved since the Reformation.

And some of THAT is true…but here’s the simple fact…Christianity will be divided because of human sin until Christ comes again. Acceptance of diversity is one thing…you’re calling for the acceptance of SIN and compromising the Gospel…that can not happen.

That is the natural product of human evolution.

The division of Christianity is not a product of human evolution, but of human sin, pride, and arrogance…on both the protestants and Catholic sides…but you are asking for SIN to be embraced…shame on you.
It will not go away. Pentecostilists are never going to beat their breasts and say ‘mei culpa’.

We either embrace diversity or we remain a divided Christianity.

You’re not asking for diversity to be embraced…you’re asking that SIN be embraced…openly gay bishops and priests be accepted…you’re asking for doctrinal impossibilities like female priests…sorry, you need to go join the Anglican communion where you can have an openly gay bishop and a female priest…enjoy…I’ll stick with the Pillar and Foundation of Truth.

 

[Ma.Eugenia]

I am a life-long committed practicing catholic.

But I will be the first to speak against Anglicans defecting to Rome.

We are different in culture. Anglicansim is just to rich and diverse to risk re=alignment with Rome. It is my hope it will never happen

I hope that it will happen (unification of all Christian Churches).

I think anyone who converts to the Catholic Church, because in faith, they sought and discovered the Truth that it is the one, true Church established by Jesus should be made welcome.

No matter how different they are from us, anything is possible as God is Almighty and the Holy Spirit can open the hearts and minds of people. Just look at St. Paul—how different was he from the early Christians, he was very anti-Christians at the start, yet God converted him!

I don’t think it is God’s will that other Christian Churches are separated from each other because of differences in certain beliefs. Some say, some Churches holds some truth but are a little off in certain teachings.

I believe that the fullness of truth is found in the Catholic Church. I think of our separated brethren as in the parable of the “lost sheep” or the “lost coin” .

See parable from Luke 15: 3-10 here:

rc.net/wcc/parabl21.htm

In the meditation part of this article, it said (in part):

What can we learn from the lesson of Jesus’ parable about a lost sheep? This parable gives us a glimpse of the heart of a true shepherd, and the joy of a community reunited with its lost members… The shepherd’s grief and anxiety is turned to joy when he finds the lost sheep and restores it to the fold. The shepherd searches until what he has lost is found.

I believe that our goal should be unification, not continued division.

God bless!

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I am a life-long committed practicing catholic.

But I will be the first to speak against Anglicans defecting to Rome.

We are different in culture. Anglicansim is just to rich and diverse to risk re=alignment with Rome. It is my hope it will never happen

​

In addition, deploring development X in Anglicanism is not the same thing as positive acceptance of Catholic teaching: opposition to women priests =//= acceptance of the Pope’s primacy of jurisdiction

 

[Sixtus]

Ma. Eugenia
Just look at St. Paul—how different was he from the early Christians, he was very anti-Christians at the start, yet God converted him!

St Paul had a private audience with Christ on the road to Damascus and as a result was converted.

Defection by definition is not genuine conversion but protest!
They are joining us in order to protest against some elements within Anglicanism that is no longer compatible.

When they grow weiry of us, to whom will they defect next and worse how many simpler folk will they take with them!

Gottle of Geer said:

In addition, deploring development X in Anglicanism is not the same thing as positive acceptance of Catholic teaching: opposition to women priests =//= acceptance of the Pope’s primacy of jurisdiction

---

My point exactly

 

[Randy_Carson]

I am a life-long committed practicing catholic.

But I will be the first to speak against Anglicans defecting to Rome.

We are different in culture. Anglicansim is just to rich and diverse to risk re=alignment with Rome. It is my hope it will never happen

Anglicans have never actually received the Body and Blood of the Lord in the Eucharist because their orders are invalid.

Wouldn’t it be better if they did?

 

[paarsurrey]

Though I understand the concern- I am a bit dismayed that you wish against a protesting group rejoining the flock. Christ prayed for unity; and the Church, guided by God will not be harmed by even the most unorthodox of the Anglicans. Wouldn’t you agree?

Hi
Unity must be always welcome if it is done on TRUTH.
Thanks
I am an Ahmadi – a peaceful faith in Islam bridging gaps between faiths/denominations/religions/agnostics
The West, as I understand, due to certain disinformation has seen only MullahIslam or MullahShariah; the true face of Muhammad’sIslam and PromisedMessiahImamMahdi’sIslam is yet hidden from their eyes, which is truly speaking only peaceful.
GodAllahYHWH is All-Knowing; one should invariably give Claim and Reason on all important issues from one’s Revealed Book; one shouldn’t try putting one’s own words into God’s mouth.

 

[rr1213]

Anglicans have never actually received the Body and Blood of the Lord in the Eucharist because their orders are invalid.

Anglicans beg to differ of course. Nonethless, I think that this is a bit of an overstatement even from the Catholic viewpoint. The early Anglicans had been ordained as Catholics, so their orders were valid. After the use of the Edwardian Ordinal, and the death of the early Anglicans, the Catholic Church contends that Anglicans became incapable of bestowing valid orders because of defects int the intent and form of the Edwardian Ordinal. The form has pretty much been corrected since and the Anglican Communion a little over a hundred years ago began incorporating Dutch Old Catholic bishops and other bishops with “valid” orders (per Catholics) in Anglican ordinations. If the requisite intent of these bishops was present, many folks believe that the orders would be valid even from a Catholic perspective. To the best of my knowledge, Rome hasn’t spoken on how, if at all, the “Dutch Touch” has affected the validity of Anglican orders.

 

[GKC]

Anglicans beg to differ of course. Nonethless, I think that this is a bit of an overstatement even from the Catholic viewpoint. The early Anglicans had been ordained as Catholics, so their orders were valid. After the use of the Edwardian Ordinal, and the death of the early Anglicans, the Catholic Church contends that Anglicans became incapable of bestowing valid orders because of defects int the intent and form of the Edwardian Ordinal. The form has pretty much been corrected since and the Anglican Communion a little over a hundred years ago began incorporating Dutch Old Catholic bishops and other bishops with “valid” orders (per Catholics) in Anglican ordinations. If the requisite intent of these bishops was present, many folks believe that the orders would be valid even from a Catholic perspective. To the best of my knowledge, Rome hasn’t spoken on how, if at all, the “Dutch Touch” has affected the validity of Anglican orders.

Yep. You got the theory down. But the regular and frequent co-consecration between the Anglican Communion, and the OCs began in 1932; with the PNCC in 1946. The OC bishop who started the whole thing made a clear and complete statement of his intent to confer Apostolic Succession, as the Church has always understood it, on the Anglicans whom he co-consecrated. Just in case there was this question.

The Dutuch Touch is now wide-spread amonsgt Anglican prelates, it’s hard to find one without it. And it figures in the few cases in which Anglican clergy have been received and ordained by Rome sub conditione.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus

 

[rr1213]

Really? I thought that the first co-consecrations took place shortly after the issuance of Apostolicae Curae. I take your word for it though (especially since most of what I know in this area I’ve garnered through you and Edwin ).

BTW, I read Seeker last week. Quite an entertaining novel…

 

[PauloFreire2]

“Anglicans want to defect to Rome”

They shouldn’t. They should stay and try to make their church work. How can they suddenly be Catholic? Where were they before?

 

[GKC]

Really? I thought that the first co-consecrations took place shortly after the issuance of Apostolicae Curae. I take your word for it though (especially since most of what I know in this area I’ve garnered through you and Edwin ).

BTW, I read Seeker last week. Quite an entertaining novel…

There were a couple of isolated incidents, involving some *vagantes *, with sort of OC credentialas, about 20 years before, but 1932 marks the real agreements between Utrecht and Canterbury.

Glad you liked SEEKER. Jack got the Nebula for best novel this year for it. I’ll be seeing him next month. PM me for more info.

GKC

 

[GKC]

“Anglicans want to defect to Rome”

They shouldn’t. They should stay and try to make their church work. How can they suddenly be Catholic? Where were they before?

Catholic, in many cases. Not RC, though.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus

 

[Antioche]

I hear all the replies about your statement and I understand what they mean. I also understand what you mean. There’s one thing… People change and people want to change. The Holy spirit is doing amaising things. Even St-Peter in his early ministry at first was not delighted to convert pagans sutch as the romans untill Jesus spoke to him. The romans had no compatibily with the christains but it happened.

Of course the church is on it’s guards for threats coming from masonic ties christians. I’m a defender of our faith and all
25 000 + christian deniminations can keep their faith but I would welcome my christian brothers who sincerely want to come back to Rome …our apotolic church. After all " the gates of hell shall not prevail"