Churches Back Plan to Unite with Pope

[mgrfin]

Edwin

So what you are saying is that with the See of Canterbury, Anglicanism existed from the 6th Century? Please, in the 6th Century, all the sees were Roman Catholic. True till the time of Henry VIII, or to be generous, till the time of Elizabeth I.
Henry was poor and closed the monasteries and the properties and incomes attached. That was the real beginning of the end for the Catholic Church in England.

You dishonor the army of saints and martyrs who died for their faith in 16th Century England.

Anglicans like to believe that they are Catholic, and there are just some small issues to be ironed out. The devil you say…

Angicanism is not in schism from the Roman Catholic Church. It is in heresy. Denial of the Papacy is heretical. Denial of the Priesthood is heretical so is denial of the Eucharist heretical. Promoting of gay and lesbian ministers to the ‘priesthood’ is heretical. Divorce is heretical; so is obvert homosexuality. Denial of certain sacraments is heretical.

It is a long road to hoe to come back, and substantial doctrinal issues would have to be resolved.

Researching what Anglicans believe is not a simple matter on the Internet. A person is sent in ten directions to find the beliefs of Anglicans. The process of disintergration is well underway, so they are not just within arms length of Mother Church.

All this denial just gets my Irish up.

BTW, Wikipedia states that the Roman Catholic Church was begun in 325 AD. I don’t know who all those Christians were for the first 300 years, with their popes, and such. Maybe they were Anglicans.

peace,
mgrfin

 

[Dempsey1919]

Contarini:

That makes no sense. The existing Catholic dioceses date from the 19th century. The See of Canterbury dates from the end of the sixth century, and is unquestionably the rightful primatial See.

I think you’ll find that England was a Catholic country until the reformation, so it stands to reason that The See of Canterbury was once a Catholic ‘see’. St Anselm was Archbishop of Canterbury and he is a Doctor of the Catholic Church.

The point I am trying to make is that if a reunification takes place, then the CofE should assimilate into the Catholic Church. The leader of the Catholic Church in England is Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor and I believe that he should remain so even if there is a reunification. The Anglicans do not need their own ‘identity’, they should automatically become part of the Latin rite.

Contarini:

Furthermore, it’s not obvious that “we were the ones who left.” You excommunicated us, after all, not the other way round (don’t cite Henry to me–that schism was resolved under Mary). The fact that this was the decisive point is shown by the fact that only after this did the Catholic Church send missionary priests to England.

The fact is that the Anglicans are in schism with the CC and always have been. They were excommunicated for valid reasons. For years the Catholic Church was suppressed in England and many Catholics were martyred.

Contarini:

You are proposing this weird and counterintuitive procedure out of sheer vindictiveness.

What makes you think that? I don’t think it’s vindictive. I just can’t see why converts have to have their own rite because they came from a different church. What happens if Mormons decide to join the CC, do they get their own special Mormon rite of the Catholic Church?

All I am saying is that there is still considerable sectarianism in the UK, especially in Glasgow and Ulster. A lot of Anglicans will be against this unification. I know plenty of Protestants in this country who listen to anti-catholic songs, and who hate the Catholic Church.

 

[mgrfin]

And it seems to me that this is a problem, especially in places like the U.S. I don’t see why separate rites have to go with separate episcopates. The Fathers seem clear that there should be one bishop for one place, and anything else is schism. There can be liturgical and theological diversity without rival episcopates.

I think the real problem is that the Eastern Catholics rightly do not trust the Latin bishops. Which shows how flawed the unity of the Roman Communion is.

Edwin

So, “Credo …in unam, sanctam, Catholicam, Apostolicam Ecclesiam…” is a myth to you. I don’t know; I’m in this Church, and I don’t feel the tensions, stress, and cracks that you do.

peace,
mgrfin

 

[Dempsey1919]

mgrfin:

So what you are saying is that with the See of Canterbury, Anglicanism existed from the 6th Century? Please, in the 6th Century, all the sees were Roman Catholic. True till the time of Henry VIII, or to be generous, till the time of Elizabeth I.
Henry was poor and closed the monasteries and the properties and incomes attached. That was the real beginning of the end for the Catholic Church in England.

You dishonor the army of saints and martyrs who died for their faith in 16th Century England.

Anglicans like to believe that they are Catholic, and there are just some small issues to be ironed out. The devil you say…

Angicanism is not in schism from the Roman Catholic Church. It is in heresy. Denial of the Papacy is heretical. Denial of the Priesthood is heretical so is denial of the Eucharist heretical. Promoting of gay and lesbian ministers to the ‘priesthood’ is heretical. Divorce is heretical; so is obvert homosexuality. Denial of certain sacraments is heretical.

It is a long road to hoe to come back, and substantial doctrinal issues would have to be resolved.

Researching what Anglicans believe is not a simple matter on the Internet. A person is sent in ten directions to find the beliefs of Anglicans. The process of disintergration is well underway, so they are not just within arms length of Mother Church.

All this denial just gets my Irish up.

BTW, Wikipedia states that the Roman Catholic Church was begun in 325 AD. I don’t know who all those Christians were for the first 300 years, with their popes, and such. Maybe they were Anglicans.

peace,
mgrfin

Great post. Totally agree. The Anglicans are by definition “heretics.” Still to this day, it is illegal for the Monarch of the UK to be Catholic. It was rumoured that Tony Blair wanted to wait until retirement until he converted to Catholicism because he didn’t want to do so while Prime Minister.

I’m not trying to agitate anyone, but people need to realise that there is still a divide in many areas. I live close to an area that has Catholic estates and Protestant estates. There is an Orange Lodge in the Protestant area. The reunification will not be easy. Can you imagine what would happen in Northern Ireland?

 

[mgrfin]

Great post. Totally agree. The Anglicans are by definition “heretics.” Still to this day, it is illegal for the Monarch of the UK to be Catholic. It was rumoured that Tony Blair wanted to wait until retirement until he converted to Catholicism because he didn’t want to do so while Prime Minister.

I’m not trying to agitate anyone, but people need to realise that there is still a divide in many areas. I live close to an area that has Catholic estates and Protestant estates. There is an Orange Lodge in the Protestant area. The reunification will not be easy. Can you imagine what would happen in Northern Ireland?

My ancestors suffered terribly at the hands of the English, for their faith. My family’s home parish is that of St. Oliver Plunkett, who was beheaded, drawn and quartered by the Brits at some Kangaroo court on July 1, 1681. Thank you, for your faith, St. Oliver.

peace,
mgrfin

 

[Dempsey1919]

My ancestors were Irish aswell. In my experience, most Catholics in the UK descend from Irish immigrants. I know that is definitely the case in Liverpool and Manchester, as well as Glasgow.

Most of my Catholic friends have Irish family members. One of the reasons for the growth of the CC in England during the 19th Century was because of Irish immigration.

 

[Abira]

If the Church of England reunites with the Catholic Church then they should join the Latin rite. They shouldn’t have their own identity. There have been Catholics in England for centuries. The Anglicans should join with us. Afterall, they were the ones who left.

I agree totally as I did earlier with this idea

The Church of England will never re-join the CC anyway, too much has changed in terms of them allowing birth control, women priests, ordaining openly practicing homosexuals as Bishops etc.

The anglican church is a big place and there are many within it that do not believe in the above ideas…also, I do not believe that the church of england has EVER ordained a practicing homosexual as a bishop… the american episcopal did and that’s where the split may occur… you can say that a branch of anglicanism has…but not the church of england (if anyone has info on an english bishop i england who is practicing SSA then mail me)

And let’s not forget that the Queen is still the head of the Church; I can’t see her giving up this position to the Pope.

she is the figurehead… the head of the church of england and the worldwide anglican union is the archbishop of canterbury… if you can state any occassion within the last hundred years where the monarch has changed the course f anglican theology say it… she is just there as a political nod…she holds no actual power within the church… also when prince charles becomes king he isn’t even a believer i don’t think and he wants to abolish the title for himself (it is after all only a title… it carries no real power, they just sign papers to agree with whatever the church decides for itself)

Sectarianism is still a problem in some areas of the British Isles and many Anglicans are still anti-Catholic. They would never accept the unification. There’s just too much history.

that’s true for some, not for others… the recent changes have scared a lot of anglicans who feel liberalism has gone too far and they have reacted by going back to their roots in many parishes… certainly I have seen quite a few (I can pm you if you like about some of these experiences but i dont wanna derail the thread lol

Before a reunion with Rome, they should renounce all of the reforms listed above, and be dissolved. Then they should join the existing Catholic dioceses.

if the archbishops idea to make a plural union…liberal and conservative… occured as speculated then the conservatives could rejoin as they would be a seperate entity from the liberals.

S

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

for some reason the link in my OP didn’t work even though i copied it in… if that doesn’t work on your browser try this one…

timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article1403702.ece

S

I’ve found that a single dot out of place can stop a URL from working ​

I think any notions of imminent union are premature. to say the least of it. Continentals do have the weird idea that because there are plenty of “RC” features about the C of E, it is therefore “RC” (but for having no Pope). This idea was one of the reasons for the failure of the Malines Conversations in the early '20s.

It is not - because while there is plenty that is “RC” about it, it is also, & equally, & Protestant Church. Basically, it is a Protestant re-formed version of the previously existing Church that was united with Rome. So it is not either “Catholic” or “Reformed” - but both & neither

And it is essential for Continental Catholics in union with Rome to understand this. It is a “bridge church”, in continuity both with the ancient past, & with the Reformation. It is profoundly affected by “Roman Catholic”, & Lutheran, & Reformed, & “Orthodox” influences, all at once, in a synthesis peculiar to itself

There is no likelihood whatever that the more Reformed wing of the C of E - that part of it which is in sympathy with Calvinism - will ever submit to Rome; Rome is as much feared & suspected as ever it was, by a lot of people, because it is not trusted to behave like a recognisably Christian Church; Anglicans of this sort love it no more than do the monks on Mount Athos. Some Anglicans left the C of E, not for Rome, but for Protestant bodies, when the ordination of women was approved: not for Rome or Byzantium. These Anglicans love ARCIC & its works no more than plenty of Catholics do; many Catholics regard it as heretical & as a capitulation to error - & so do many Anglicans. The reasons differ greatly, but the conclusions are identical.

Besides - Rome is so much larger than the Cof E, or even the Anglican Communion as a whole, that any union would in fact be a swallowing-up of Anglicanism.

The Papacy also has its double character as a Church & State against it - any hint of Roman interference in English politics is sure to be resisted. Apart from anything else, the Queen swore at her Coronation to “protect the Protestant Reformed religion by law established”. Anything that would make her an oath-breaker & perjurer is absolutely out of the question.

If union is imminent, how are those dogmas which have hitherto been immovable obstacles to union going to be resolved ? How come that they will (on this hypothesis) suddenly have become credible, when they were not ? How is that honest ?

Conclusion - union may be desirable, but it is not imminent, nor anything like it.

 

[Abira]

My ancestors suffered terribly at the hands of the English, for their faith. My family’s home parish is that of St. Oliver Plunkett, who was beheaded, drawn and quartered by the Brits at some Kangaroo court on July 1, 1681. Thank you, for your faith, St. Oliver.

peace,
mgrfin

while i sympathise with something that happened hundreds and hundreds…and yet more hundreds of years ago… you can’t keep looking to the past like this…

I do not blame current catholicism for the indulgences sold hundreds of years ago, and neither do i defend the mistakes made in the crusades (to those that bring these views/histories up)

every nation and every person has sinned in the past… the fact that your ancestors suffered is not, as harsh as it sounds, the fault of the current anglican church… or of england for that matter… it is the fault of the people who committed the act

let’s not get into a battle of who did what to who’s ancestors as it would never end!!

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

My ancestors suffered terribly at the hands of the English, for their faith. My family’s home parish is that of St. Oliver Plunkett, who was beheaded, drawn and quartered by the Brits at some Kangaroo court on July 1, 1681. Thank you, for your faith, St. Oliver.

peace,
mgrfin

It’s doubtful how far one can speak of “the British” at that date - people on the far side of the Atlantic tend to lump English, Scots, Irish & Welsh together as “the English” or “the Brits” - which is a bit like lumping black, “Indian”, Dutch, Italian & Japanese citizens of the USA together as “Yanks”.​

Plenty of Anglicans harbour equally strong feelings about the martyrs of the Reformation - by which they mean, not St.Edmund Campion & Companions, or St. Oliver Plunkett, but those put to death under Mary I.

The OP’s right - we can’t allow ourselves to be imprisoned by the unhappy memories of the past, or we shall be poisoned by them. And what good would that do ?

 

[Abira]

Identity problem? What about the Eastern Catholics in union with Rome? They most certainly have a separate identity.

what i mean by that is that because england has had The Church of England as its state religion for so long, it is very much our culture… to break with this and to move towards theological union it would need to be a clear break… if it retained its own seperate identity I believe that anglicans would not understand that they were ‘catholic’… it would be a kind of:

oh well we’re Catholic, but not like those accross the street…

I think it would be better in the long run to have a clear union without yet more titles making divisions…

I wasn’t talking about how it works within various denominations worldwide but of how i think this could be achieved within the society that has evolved i egland over hundreds of years and what i believe would be most easily understood in my culture

It is only an opinion, but I think union should mean union… not a ‘partial’ union. Many Anglicans are more ‘catholic’ than they realise…especially high anglicans… check out the online versions of order of services and look at how many similarities there are… also the every day ideas of anglicans differs from the ideas held by many anglican hierarchy. I can go into this in more detail if you need.

Take care, S

 

[mgrfin]

if the archbishops idea to make a plural union…liberal and conservative… occured as speculated then the conservatives could rejoin as they would be a seperate entity from the liberals.

S

The Anglicans are not going to join the Catholic Church.

It is so splintered, so you have to ask “what part would join us”?

They are so different from us, they couldn’t join as a group…they would have to come in as individuals.

Anyway, they are too smart for us. Who could stand all that snobbery?

mgrfin

 

[Abira]

I’ve found that a single dot out of place can stop a URL from working ​

I think any notions of imminent union are premature. to say the least of it. Continentals do have the weird idea that because there are plenty of “RC” features about the C of E, it is therefore “RC” (but for having no Pope). This idea was one of the reasons for the failure of the Malines Conversations in the early '20s.

It is not - because while there is plenty that is “RC” about it, it is also, & equally, & Protestant Church. Basically, it is a Protestant re-formed version of the previously existing Church that was united with Rome. So it is not either “Catholic” or “Reformed” - but both & neither

And it is essential for Continental Catholics in union with Rome to understand this. It is a “bridge church”, in continuity both with the ancient past, & with the Reformation. It is profoundly affected by “Roman Catholic”, & Lutheran, & Reformed, & “Orthodox” influences, all at once, in a synthesis peculiar to itself

There is no likelihood whatever that the more Reformed wing of the C of E - that part of it which is in sympathy with Calvinism - will ever submit to Rome; Rome is as much feared & suspected as ever it was, by a lot of people, because it is not trusted to behave like a recognisably Christian Church; Anglicans of this sort love it no more than do the monks on Mount Athos. Some Anglicans left the C of E, not for Rome, but for Protestant bodies, when the ordination of women was approved: not for Rome or Byzantium. These Anglicans love ARCIC & its works no more than plenty of Catholics do; many Catholics regard it as heretical & as a capitulation to error - & so do many Anglicans. The reasons differ greatly, but the conclusions are identical.

Besides - Rome is so much larger than the Cof E, or even the Anglican Communion as a whole, that any union would in fact be a swallowing-up of Anglicanism.

The Papacy also has its double character as a Church & State against it - any hint of Roman interference in English politics is sure to be resisted. Apart from anything else, the Queen swore at her Coronation to “protect the Protestant Reformed religion by law established”. Anything that would make her an oath-breaker & perjurer is absolutely out of the question.

If union is imminent, how are those dogmas which have hitherto been immovable obstacles to union going to be resolved ? How come that they will (on this hypothesis) suddenly have become credible, when they were not ? How is that honest ?

Conclusion - union may be desirable, but it is not imminent, nor anything like it.

that is a seriously well considered post.

there is a lot of truth there… as you sya it is important not to think of anglicans, and definitely not the church of england in particular in the general framework of protestantism, it is a strange beast lol

What the recent threat of schism has done to my church is to make them see what division and lack of authority can do to a union. Many anglican priests have joined the catholic faith, as have many parishioners. There is a real section of anglicans who want union with rome… can this be said of Catholics?

the current archbishop of canterbury has been kinda controversial about gay people, BUT what this ‘schism’ did for him is to make him realise that unity is more important than his personal beliefs and doctrines… he put aside his personal views for union.

There have been a few posters saying blankly that it will never happen…isn’t possible etc etc… all things are possible! but in the church nothing ever moves quickly!

It is no longer the main faith in England… the real church of england is now Catholicism in a sense.

I believe that anglicans will go into union with rome by simply converting in dribs and drabs, rather than a whole scale signing over of the church of england… there is a real sense of unease at many things that are now occuring… but don’t get me started on that!! lol

 

[Abira]

The Anglicans are not going to join the Catholic Church.

It is so splintered, so you have to ask “what part would join us”?

They are so different from us, they couldn’t join as a group…they would have to come in as individuals.

Anyway, they are too smart for us. Who could stand all that snobbery?

mgrfin

wow!! anyone would think with all the bitterness in that post that you didn;t care about the wellbeing and eventual union with your fellow christians!!!

I would have thought that catholics wanted a union at some point in the future… and snobbery??? well I didn’t know what snobbery was until I read your post.

I’m sorry if I’m blunt but I’m quite shocked by your bluntness

 

[mgrfin]

I’ve found that a single dot out of place can stop a URL from working ​

I think any notions of imminent union are premature. to say the least of it. Continentals do have the weird idea that because there are plenty of “RC” features about the C of E, it is therefore “RC” (but for having no Pope). This idea was one of the reasons for the failure of the Malines Conversations in the early '20s.

It is not - because while there is plenty that is “RC” about it, it is also, & equally, & Protestant Church. Basically, it is a Protestant re-formed version of the previously existing Church that was united with Rome. So it is not either “Catholic” or “Reformed” - but both & neither

And it is essential for Continental Catholics in union with Rome to understand this. It is a “bridge church”, in continuity both with the ancient past, & with the Reformation. It is profoundly affected by “Roman Catholic”, & Lutheran, & Reformed, & “Orthodox” influences, all at once, in a synthesis peculiar to itself

There is no likelihood whatever that the more Reformed wing of the C of E - that part of it which is in sympathy with Calvinism - will ever submit to Rome; Rome is as much feared & suspected as ever it was, by a lot of people, because it is not trusted to behave like a recognisably Christian Church; Anglicans of this sort love it no more than do the monks on Mount Athos. Some Anglicans left the C of E, not for Rome, but for Protestant bodies, when the ordination of women was approved: not for Rome or Byzantium. These Anglicans love ARCIC & its works no more than plenty of Catholics do; many Catholics regard it as heretical & as a capitulation to error - & so do many Anglicans. The reasons differ greatly, but the conclusions are identical.

Besides - Rome is so much larger than the Cof E, or even the Anglican Communion as a whole, that any union would in fact be a swallowing-up of Anglicanism.

The Papacy also has its double character as a Church & State against it - any hint of Roman interference in English politics is sure to be resisted. Apart from anything else, the Queen swore at her Coronation to “protect the Protestant Reformed religion by law established”. Anything that would make her an oath-breaker & perjurer is absolutely out of the question.

If union is imminent, how are those dogmas which have hitherto been immovable obstacles to union going to be resolved ? How come that they will (on this hypothesis) suddenly have become credible, when they were not ? How is that honest ?

Conclusion - union may be desirable, but it is not imminent, nor anything like it.

Great post! The only one, including my own, that makes any sense today.

peace,
mgrfin

 

[GKC]

Great post! The only one, including my own, that makes any sense today.

peace,
mgrfin

Agreed. It is a very good post, as Gottle usually provides. I’d gloss it a little, but it would be superflous.

GKC

 

[mgrfin]

wow!! anyone would think with all the bitterness in that post that you didn;t care about the wellbeing and eventual union with your fellow christians!!!

I would have thought that catholics wanted a union at some point in the future… and snobbery??? well I didn’t know what snobbery was until I read your post.

I’m sorry if I’m blunt but I’m quite shocked by your bluntness

We’ve been stonewalled all Monday by Anglicans. Why wouldn’t we think they are snobs?

I’m just an Irish gravedigger’s son. Snobbery? I think not.

mgrfin

 

[Abira]

We’ve been stonewalled all Monday by Anglicans. Why wouldn’t we think they are snobs?

I’m just an Irish gravedigger’s son. Snobbery? I think not.

mgrfin

I am not a snob, and I’m an anglican

 

[mgrfin]

I believe that anglicans will go into union with rome by simply converting in dribs and drabs, rather than a whole scale signing over of the church of england… there is a real sense of unease at many things that are now occuring… but don’t get me started on that!! lol

That is what I believe as well. Catholics are not concerned with conversion of Anglicans or Episcopalians. I say I am sorry for that.

We seem to be going back to ‘outside of the church, there is no salvation’. Moving in the direction of Vatican 2 didn’t seem to work. So we are moving back to the Council of Florence and Pius XII (Mystici Corporis).

We worked with the Lutherans for 30 years on a joint statement regarding Justification. We never got anywhere. We got a statement, but it was 'blah, blah, blah". Probably because the Lutherans expected us to move to Luther’s position, and away from the Canons of Trent.

They don’t understand infallibility, if they thought that.

The Lutheran’s were looking for a ‘gotcha’, and a removal of the anathemas. Aint gonna happen.

For all our Catholic efforts, it was still 1550 A.D.

Anglicans may hold out false hope on reunion. We won’t accept Anglican orders of anyone-anyone; that has already been decided by Leo XIII. We have other doctrinal and moral issues involved, so a movenment en mass back to the the Roman Church is not practicable.

We pray, ‘ut unam sint’, but the Spirit must move all of us.

I apologize if you think I’m a snob. I am not. I wear my faith as a badge of honor, not as a doctoral degree.

mgrfin

 

[Abira]

I apologize if you think I’m a snob. I am not. I wear my faith as a badge of honor, not as a doctoral degree.

mgrfin

lol, thanks for the productive post!

I know some people are a pain…as you see the anglicans that have been annoying you today… and that you might not look favourably at english history ireland (the Irish that are not now in Ireland always are more set in a view that has since moved on from the point when their ancestors moved away)… but please don’t label a full group cos it personally addresses every member of that group as an individual

a doctoral degree? lol… now that you bring that up… I should get it made into a badge… first I have to get the doctorate lol