Declaration of Pope Francis and Archbishop Justin Welby

[Peter_J]

It’s lamentable that, so many years after Vatican II, there are yet individual Catholics here and there who cling to an ecclesiology of the past that today is acknowledged as wrong; they cling to antiquated expressions that Rome long ago repudiated.

I think that “here and there” is key.

We’re talking about, say, a hundred or a couple hundred posters right? But when Expatreprocedit say “laypeople”, in general, he’s talking about a billion Catholics, with a “b”. Pretty big numerical difference.

 

[commenter]

We need to differentiate between heritage and current institutional realities.

Heritage refers to the past, which may or may not hold true today. Anglicanism has a strong spiritual and intellectual heritage, which impacted the British Empire and spread Christianity to many places for the first time. Catholics tended to under appreciate some of the history and genuine insights over the centuries. Recent popes have called on Catholics to take a closer look at that heritage, how it complements, rather than opposes our own.

The current institutional reality is that the C of E, and some related churches, have rejected basic doctrinal and moral truths that were identified as crucial, by their own Anglican predecessors and by recent popes. That doesn’t mean Anglicanism is wrong, it means the current C of E, TEC, etc, are no longer Anglican, but some orthodox Anglican individuals remain.

That doesn’t mean we ignore Catholic wrongs committed over the centuries, or the insights of Dorothy Sayers. The Church should keep contact with the C of E, just as it does with the government of China and the government’s church in China. The Church also keeps in contact with the Mormons. There are good people to be found everywhere.

But the more we learn about and appreciate the genuine Anglican heritage, the greater is our understanding of how great a loss it was for Christianity when recent institutional leaders threw much of it overboard. Prudence indicates productive ecumenical development will be found with the genuine successors of Anglican heritage - in ACNA and the Continuum, as well as orthodox individuals still remaining in the C of E, TEC, etc.

 

[GKC]

We need to differentiate between heritage and current institutional realities.

Heritage refers to the past, which may or may not hold true today. Anglicanism has a strong spiritual and intellectual heritage, which impacted the British Empire and spread Christianity to many places for the first time. Catholics tended to under appreciate some of the history and genuine insights over the centuries. Recent popes have called on Catholics to take a closer look at that heritage, how it complements, rather than opposes our own.

The current institutional reality is that the C of E, and some related churches, have rejected basic doctrinal and moral truths that were identified as crucial, by their own Anglican predecessors and by recent popes. That doesn’t mean Anglicanism is wrong, it means the current C of E, TEC, etc, are no longer Anglican, so some orthodox Anglican individuals remain.

That doesn’t mean we ignore Catholic wrongs committed over the centuries, or the insights of Dorothy Sayers. The Church should keep contact with the C of E, just as it does with the government of China and the government’s church in China. The Church also keeps in contact with the Mormons. There are good people to be found everywhere.

But the more we learn about and appreciate the genuine Anglican heritage, the greater is our understanding of how great a loss it was for Christianity when recent institutional leaders threw much of it overboard. Prudence indicates productive ecumenical development will be found with the genuine successors of Anglican heritage - in ACNA and the Continuum, as well as orthodox individuals still remaining in the C of E, TEC, etc.

I thank you, and Dorothy L. thanks you.

 

[Picky_Picky]

We need to differentiate between heritage and current institutional realities.

Heritage refers to the past, which may or may not hold true today. Anglicanism has a strong spiritual and intellectual heritage, which impacted the British Empire and spread Christianity to many places for the first time. Catholics tended to under appreciate some of the history and genuine insights over the centuries. Recent popes have called on Catholics to take a closer look at that heritage, how it complements, rather than opposes our own.

The current institutional reality is that the C of E, and some related churches, have rejected basic doctrinal and moral truths that were identified as crucial, by their own Anglican predecessors and by recent popes. That doesn’t mean Anglicanism is wrong, it means the current C of E, TEC, etc, are no longer Anglican, but some orthodox Anglican individuals remain.

That doesn’t mean we ignore Catholic wrongs committed over the centuries, or the insights of Dorothy Sayers. The Church should keep contact with the C of E, just as it does with the government of China and the government’s church in China. The Church also keeps in contact with the Mormons. There are good people to be found everywhere.

But the more we learn about and appreciate the genuine Anglican heritage, the greater is our understanding of how great a loss it was for Christianity when recent institutional leaders threw much of it overboard. Prudence indicates productive ecumenical development will be found with the genuine successors of Anglican heritage - in ACNA and the Continuum, as well as orthodox individuals still remaining in the C of E, TEC, etc.

Can you tell me which are the basic moral truths the C of E has rejected?

 

[Peter_J]

Can you tell me which are the basic moral truths the C of E has rejected?

Sexual.

 

[Picky_Picky]

Sexual.

Could you be more explicit?

 

[Padres1969]

We need to differentiate between heritage and current institutional realities.

Heritage refers to the past, which may or may not hold true today. Anglicanism has a strong spiritual and intellectual heritage, which impacted the British Empire and spread Christianity to many places for the first time. Catholics tended to under appreciate some of the history and genuine insights over the centuries. Recent popes have called on Catholics to take a closer look at that heritage, how it complements, rather than opposes our own.

The current institutional reality is that the C of E, and some related churches, have rejected basic doctrinal and moral truths that were identified as crucial, by their own Anglican predecessors and by recent popes. That doesn’t mean Anglicanism is wrong, it means the current C of E, TEC, etc, are no longer Anglican, but some orthodox Anglican individuals remain.

That doesn’t mean we ignore Catholic wrongs committed over the centuries, or the insights of Dorothy Sayers. The Church should keep contact with the C of E, just as it does with the government of China and the government’s church in China. The Church also keeps in contact with the Mormons. There are good people to be found everywhere.

But the more we learn about and appreciate the genuine Anglican heritage, the greater is our understanding of how great a loss it was for Christianity when recent institutional leaders threw much of it overboard. Prudence indicates productive ecumenical development will be found with the genuine successors of Anglican heritage - in ACNA and the Continuum, as well as orthodox individuals still remaining in the C of E, TEC, etc.

Also as TEC, C of E, etc… are still members of the Anglican Communion I don’t get how you can say they’re no longer Anglican. Especially considering the C of E is the original Anglican Church from which the entire tradition flows.

 

[Upgrade25]

We need to differentiate between heritage and current institutional realities.

Heritage refers to the past, which may or may not hold true today. Anglicanism has a strong spiritual and intellectual heritage, which impacted the British Empire and spread Christianity to many places for the first time. Catholics tended to under appreciate some of the history and genuine insights over the centuries. Recent popes have called on Catholics to take a closer look at that heritage, how it complements, rather than opposes our own.

The current institutional reality is that the C of E, and some related churches, have rejected basic doctrinal and moral truths that were identified as crucial, by their own Anglican predecessors and by recent popes. That doesn’t mean Anglicanism is wrong, it means the current C of E, TEC, etc, are no longer Anglican, but some orthodox Anglican individuals remain.

That doesn’t mean we ignore Catholic wrongs committed over the centuries, or the insights of Dorothy Sayers. The Church should keep contact with the C of E, just as it does with the government of China and the government’s church in China. The Church also keeps in contact with the Mormons. There are good people to be found everywhere.

But the more we learn about and appreciate the genuine Anglican heritage, the greater is our understanding of how great a loss it was for Christianity when recent institutional leaders threw much of it overboard. Prudence indicates productive ecumenical development will be found with the genuine successors of Anglican heritage - in ACNA and the Continuum, as well as orthodox individuals still remaining in the C of E, TEC, etc.

I agree with much of what you said. Anglican heritage, flowing from the Benedictines of England, and restored in the C o E by the Oxford Movement, is a beautiful thing that deserves to be protected even if(when, hopefully) they come back into communion.

However, Anglicanism, is wrong. There is a tremendous amount of good, but even the devil will let 99 or more truths go by for 1 fatal lie. I think that’s the case with traditional Anglicanism, now referred to as Anglo-Catholicism by some. God willing, they can correct their present(Lambeth on) errors and those imposed in their tradition(Pope not church head, the later Victorian error of further Protestantising) and come back home. We need that English tradition, and for the Ordinariates to spread.

 

[Upgrade25]

Could you be more explicit?

Contraception, Abortion, Women “Priests”. They have, at least, condemned homosexuality.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

The current institutional reality is that the C of E, and some related churches, have rejected basic doctrinal and moral truths that were identified as crucial, by their own Anglican predecessors and by recent popes. That doesn’t mean Anglicanism is wrong, it means the current C of E, TEC, etc, are no longer Anglican, but some orthodox Anglican individuals remain.

That doesn’t mean we ignore Catholic wrongs committed over the centuries, or the insights of Dorothy Sayers. The Church should keep contact with the C of E, just as it does with the government of China and the government’s church in China. The Church also keeps in contact with the Mormons. There are good people to be found everywhere.

But the more we learn about and appreciate the genuine Anglican heritage, the greater is our understanding of how great a loss it was for Christianity when recent institutional leaders threw much of it overboard. Prudence indicates productive ecumenical development will be found with the genuine successors of Anglican heritage - in ACNA and the Continuum, as well as orthodox individuals still remaining in the C of E, TEC, etc.

Fortunately, to begin with your last paragraph, the premise you put forward is not at all how the dialogue at the international level is either conducted nor is it how it is progressing.

We, as Catholics, do not moreover determine who is Anglican – Anglicans determine who is Anglican using criteria internal to them just as we use criteria internal to us in making our decisions.

Because of the ontological reality, one cannot compare Catholic relations with those of the Anglican communion with our relations with the Mormons…as all of our documents make abundantly clear…given the level of communion that already exists between us

We are also respectful of the decisions they make relative to their self-conduct as indeed they are of our decisions concerning our self-conduct. Decisions made on either side of the dialogue table, of course, have profound two-way implications that affect both partners in the dialogue. they are never simply one-way.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

I agree with much of what you said. Anglican heritage, flowing from the Benedictines of England, and restored in the C o E by the Oxford Movement, is a beautiful thing that deserves to be protected even if(when, hopefully) they come back into communion.

The Church’s presence in Britain predates by centuries the monasticism of Benedict. The Church was present in Britain long before Benedict was born. While the Benedictines did make various contributions, much much more was contributed to the Church in Britain by the vast many others in Britain who were not Benedictine.

However, Anglicanism, is wrong. There is a tremendous amount of good, but even the devil will let 99 or more truths go by for 1 fatal lie. I think that’s the case with traditional Anglicanism, now referred to as Anglo-Catholicism by some. God willing, they can correct their present(Lambeth on) errors and those imposed in their tradition(Pope not church head, the later Victorian error of further Protestantising) and come back home. We need that English tradition, and for the Ordinariates to spread.

What do you mean it is “wrong”?

We have warmly welcomed the Anglican patrimony into our liturgical life precisely because it was something enriching to us as well as precious to those who sought to live their faith life and their proper traditions while restored to full communion with Rome and Rome agreed. Be it Anglican plain chant, Anglican hymnody, the beautiful prayers of Thomas Cranmer and of the Book Common Prayer which have been incorporated into the Missal of Divine Worship, other aspects of Angican liturgy to say nothing of Anglicanism’s vast spiritual and theological heritage.

It is to make a most grave error, moreover, to speak of “Anglo-Catholicism” as “traditional Anglicanism.” Anglo-Catholicism is its own distinct reality.

The utility of the ordinariates in every circumstance remains to be evaluated. I think the ordinariate in the United States and Canada has been of great utility – although so, frankly, was the pastoral provision that existed in the United States for many years before the decision to establish the Ordinariate. A different approach, frankly, may be better in the United Kingdom, where the praxis was decidedly different from that of the Americans.

As for your reference to Lambeth and the present, Lambeth Palace goes back hundreds of years. I presume you are probably making some allusion to the Lambeth Conferences but the reference is too opaque to merit comment.

 

[abucs]

To better understand your opinion and position, might I ask what your role was in the ecumenical movement and how long you were involved?

Hello pnewton,

my comment was of an experience ‘of’’ the ecumenical movement, not particularly ‘in’ the movement except for my experience in Catholic education and parish life. I will give you a brief outline since you have asked. First i will give the bad experiences.

My first experience (although i didn’t know it at the time) was when i was enrolled in Catholic education. This was back in the 80’s when Catholic religious education was watered down to the extent that the great majority of my classmates left the faith. Instead of teaching about Catholicism it was focusing on universalism. It saw universalism as a moral virtue to instil a doubt in Christianity and to give other ‘traditions’ equal weight.

It derided the idea that Catholicism was truth. It presented such thinking as ignorant chauvinism displaying the sin of pride wrapped up in error. As you would expect, the prevailing mood among us young Catholic students (when we started to think about life) was “Well why should i be Catholic”. The teaching i received had no answer, so people did the rational thing and left Catholicism as did I.

Later after my Catholic re-awakening I saw clearly what had happened when i attended a Catholic University to receive a Master of Teaching degree. I attended Theology lectures run by pretend Catholic militant feminists and Religious Education lectures run by ecumenical universalists.

I am not exaggerating to say that everything including the kitchen sink was thrown at the students to have them doubt their faith. From the Inquisition to Hitler’s Pope to the bible being written by Roman pagans. It was completely over the top and intellectually ridiculous.

The overriding ethos is that we should all be together with other religions and with Catholicism ‘debunked’ we should look to other traditions. In considering Protestantism the role of the pope was criticised and the idea of sacraments, while nice in a naive way was really only symbolic. In considering Islam the idea of Jesus as God was presented as an obstacle. The incarnated Christ was an exaggerations from later Christian generations influenced by pagan ideas so we should downplay the importance of Jesus.

In considering the Jewish religion we were told how Christians persecuted the Jews and we needed to make amends and be quietly guilty. In considering non Abrahamic faiths we were told how their ideas of spirituality were much more advanced than the dogmatic Christianity, and with considering Atheism the ambiguous language became talking about ‘spiritual experiences’ and how we don’t really know anything and therefore the atheists were more enlightened in realising this. I remember the lecturer standing up in front of the class and telling us that the Book of Proverbs was really a secular book because it spoke more of reason and therefore was more universal then the supernatural exaggerated stories of myth. This was in a Catholic university!

I can say LITERALLY a hundred things which basically attacked the idea of Catholicism being correct and suggested such thoughts were triumphalist, brutish and caused problems in society.

We were asked to write essays for 20% of our final grade on why Jesus should be taken out of the Catholic religious education curriculum because he was a divisive figure.

In the next year we were asked to write another essay for 20% of our final mark questioning whether Catholic Religious education should be taken away from the local bishop and other traditions such as Islam, Buddhism and secular humanism be included.

Later when i taught in a Catholic school my co-teacher (we taught two to a class in that diocese) wanted to throw out the religious education and teach morals through the Harry Potter series. She was my superior. The bishop stopped her but now she is in another school working in the position of Religious Co-ordinator for the whole school. She was a ecumenical preacher. She opposed the bishop’s directive to say the Angelus each day and preferred to promote secular causes. etc etc etc

In the parish we had ecumenical nuns writing commentaries in the church bulletins from a ecumenical viewpoint. I remember one time when Matthew 16:18 was the reading and the nuns tried to downplay the role of the pope in their bulletin and the priest came out strongly preaching against what was written in the bulletin in his homily.

At another parish we had dialogues with Muslims on Tuesday nights and the Muslims thought we were completely weak because many of us bent over backwards to not try to assert our faith. They were much more respectful and impressed when i stood up for what i actually thought about Catholicism. Some of the Catholics were so impressed with the strength of conviction of the Islamic adherents that they became Muslim. That is, they respected and admired in others what they were taught to feel ashamed of in themselves. And they were the few who up until that point had managed to come through Catholic education and still be Catholic.

ok there is probably a lot more i can say that about the bad experiences but now for some good experiences that are based on face to face people talking openly and honestly who accept differences and respect people being honest with them.

 

[ComplineSanFran]

Fortunately, to begin with your last paragraph, the premise you put forward is not at all how the dialogue at the international level is either conducted nor is it how it is progressing.

We, as Catholics, do not moreover determine who is Anglican – Anglicans determine who is Anglican using criteria internal to them just as we use criteria internal to us in making our decisions.

Because of the ontological reality, one cannot compare Catholic relations with those of the Anglican communion with our relations with the Mormons…as all of our documents make abundantly clear…given the level of communion that already exists between us

We are also respectful of the decisions they make relative to their self-conduct as indeed they are of our decisions concerning our self-conduct. Decisions made on either side of the dialogue table, of course, have profound two-way implications that affect both partners in the dialogue. they are never simply one-way.

Might I ask a question for further clarification? Are you saying that the Roman Catholic Church, bottom line, should not and does not hold other branches of the Christian Church to Catholic standards? One exception would be what defines a baptized Christian of course. You said that Anglicans must determine its own definitions and self-conduct, which includes it’s own governance and discernment process.

TEC, then, is therefore free to discern the calling of women to the ordained priesthood, of LGBTQ men and women to have full inclusion in all faculties of the Church, etc, etc. These are decisions made in full discernment of the Holy Spirit and in full accord with Church governance.

If the RCC is respectful of the discipline of other branches of the Church, why is there strong language here and in many other places, that includes ‘heretics’, ‘evil’, ‘rebellion’, ‘apostate’.
I am a theologian; I know my terms and what is officially accurate, per Catholic teachings. What I wonder is why there is belief that Catholicism and only Catholicism is true to the very jot and tittle, and that any one else who calls him or herself Christian is in error, according to Catholic standards IF there is an honoring of other branch self-governance and belief systems.

Heresy vs respect for non-Catholic beliefs and governance.

There seems to be a bit of a gap between those two strong points of view.

 

[abucs]

Originally Posted by pnewton
To better understand your opinion and position, might I ask what your role was in the ecumenical movement and how long you were involved?

Part 2, what seems to work.

As mentioned above, my talking with Muslims honestly and confidently not only creates respect but really allows people to get to the centre of differences and come to accept them… This then allows a greater friendship because there is trust in knowing what the differences are and expecting that the other will continue to be open and honest instead of fudging the issue’ or being embarrassed to actually voice an opinion that is different.

Also i have :

played football/soccer in the secular league for an Assyrian Catholic team. (one of the teams we played against was Jewish and a member of that team interviewed and employed me in an IT business).

played football(soccer) in the protestant run league

been accepted to teach at a non denominational Christian school.

taught in secular schools with a Muslim majority and worked with Muslim, Catholic, and non denominational religious educators by attending and helping with their classes.

Been part of Catholic schools who have hosted visits of local Orthodox priests who have come to tell the children about who they are.

Also, every year i take part in a multi-faith organisation of a Christmas dinner for the less well off.

In this last capacity i travel around to different churches - Anglican, Presbyterian, non denominational etc and pick up a variety of items donated or lent for the Christmas dinner. Things such as tables, chairs, refrigerators, kids presents and lollies, Christmas dinner food, hampers etc.

Everybody gets on well. This is real people conversing, living and getting on with life in an open and honest manner, often making light-hearted jokes at the other’s expense.

I contrast this with what i see as an institutionalised form of the Catholic ecumenical movement whose contribution has been to present being a proud Catholic as problematic and an obstacle to some form of imaginary fantasy of universalism which has caused many Catholics, including myself at one stage, to doubt the church, feel ashamed of it and leave,

I just repeat that i think we need to speak openly, honestly and with charity. If there are differences it is unhealthy to pretend they are not there. It s more healthy to acknowledge them.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Might I ask a question for further clarification?

Yes, certainly

Are you saying that the Roman Catholic Church, bottom line, should not and does not hold other branches of the Christian Church to Catholic standards? One exception would be what defines a baptized Christian of course. You said that Anglicans must determine its own definitions and self-conduct, which includes it’s own governance and discernment process

It’s slightly more nuanced. It’s that we understand that matters internal to the dialogue partner, be it theological or related to their ecclesiastical law, are to be resolved internally by them…whether this is the Orthodox, Anglicans or Lutherans, etc

Rome is explicit that Catholic ecclesiastical laws properly bind Catholics

The comment may be made discreetly to advise the dialogue partner that a decision in a certain way may have dialogue ramifications and to invite reflection, weighting the implications – but the decision still is properly theirs; we wouldn’t say to the Orthodox or the Anglicans or the Lutherans, etc., in the absence of communion of governance, that they must choose one path and not another – since the decision is internal to them, governed by their own processes. Obviously, we all get to live with the results and their implications

This is reciprocal, of course. We respect the method of selection of the Archbishop of Canterbury, for example, whose enthronement we always participate in. And the method of papal election is respected by our dialogue partners and we receive those delegations who come to be present when a new Pope inaugurates his Petrine ministry

Having said all of that, there would still be a determination, internal to us, that the decision taken by the dialogue partner presents us with a situation that we determine is invalid from our theological perspective and analysis even while conceding that such may not be an issue or even of interest from their theological perspective and analysis

TEC, then, is therefore free to discern the calling of women to the ordained priesthood, of LGBTQ men and women to have full inclusion in all faculties of the Church, etc, etc. These are decisions made in full discernment of the Holy Spirit and in full accord with Church governance

I think the joint declaration treats of this quite well
Yet new circumstances have presented new disagreements among us, particularly regarding the ordination of women and more recent questions regarding human sexuality. Behind these differences lies a perennial question about how authority is exercised in the Christian community. These are today some of the concerns that constitute serious obstacles to our full unity. While, like our predecessors, we ourselves do not yet see solutions to the obstacles before us, we are undeterred. In our trust and joy in the Holy Spirit we are confident that dialogue and engagement with one another will deepen our understanding and help us to discern the mind of Christ for his Church. We trust in God’s grace and providence, knowing that the Holy Spirit will open new doors and lead us into all truth
We recognise, in each other, a different discernment that has been reached because the matter is seen through different lenses and the application of different theological paradigms

I have been witness over these decades to the great mutual respect that exists. Those with whom we have the best and deepest relations, there is a sense this is not where we would wish to be – at divergent discernments – even as we appreciate that each is holding to values that they cannot renounce and that are profoundly rooted in what has gone before

If the RCC is respectful of the discipline of other branches of the Church, why is there strong language here and in many other places, that includes ‘heretics’, ‘evil’, ‘rebellion’, ‘apostate’

The short answer is that those who answer thus show that they are Catholics who speak without conforming their thought to the Successor of Peter and to the Holy See. What is said is faithful to the Church only in so far as it faithfully reflects the position of the Holy See

The longer answer is: since The Directory for the Application for Principles and Norms on Ecumenism is a dispositive document of the Holy See binding even upon individual members of the lay faithful, then the use of those terms, which are completely inappropriate and proscribed, actually invites censure from competent ecclesiastical authority…above all when usage is in any way associated with an entity which is conceded, by ecclesiastical authority, the privilege of the title “Catholic” in its name

I am a theologian; I know my terms and what is officially accurate, per Catholic teachings. What I wonder is why there is belief that Catholicism and only Catholicism is true to the very jot and tittle, and that any one else who calls him or herself Christian is in error, according to Catholic standards IF there is an honoring of other branch self-governance and belief systems

Heresy vs respect for non-Catholic beliefs and governance

There seems to be a bit of a gap between those two strong points of view.

The simple answer to your question is because, with various and even notable exceptions, those posting to this forum are not only not theologians, if they have ever studied theology under a theologian at all, it has been – at best and generously stated – minimal

There’s also a failure on the part of posters here to put themselves in conformity with the appropriate dicasterial directives, which relative to this sub-forum they should know through their own diocese’s office of ecumenical affairs and the ecumenical official of their diocese as well as through the Conference of Bishops, specifically for the American readers, the Secretariat of Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs

 

[abucs]

Perhaps i should add that we should speak simply without being afraid to charitably talk directly to people with whom we have differences.

We should also not try to hide those differences in ambiguous and sometimes unfortunately downright dismissive and contemptuous political language.

If we are not willing to communicate with a personal honesty and reflection but from a position of smug superiority, dismissive to others then it comes across as ugly and is counter productive.

 

[Reuben_J]

If the RCC is respectful of the discipline of other branches of the Church, why is there strong language here and in many other places, that includes ‘heretics’, ‘evil’, ‘rebellion’, ‘apostate’.
I am a theologian; I know my terms and what is officially accurate, per Catholic teachings. What I wonder is why there is belief that Catholicism and only Catholicism is true to the very jot and tittle, and that any one else who calls him or herself Christian is in error, according to Catholic standards IF there is an honoring of other branch self-governance and belief systems.

Heresy vs respect for non-Catholic beliefs and governance.

There seems to be a bit of a gap between those two strong points of view.

There are beliefs of other Christian denominations that Catholics do not subscribe to. Out of respect they may not call them heresies but push them they may say them as what they are, that is according to the view of Catholicism.

Not everything that the Protestants believe is wrong except when they differ in a major way with Catholicism. In this regard Protestants would say the same for Catholicism, as can be seen in many of the active threads here. So why is that any surprise at all?

This is a Catholic Answer Forum and even though many Catholic posters may not be that articulate in expressing their views, they nevertheless would try to bring out authentic Catholic belief for information and discussion here.

Some of these are on the opposite pole of Protestant belief and they have to be stated as such. How can we say that your belief on certain issue is not heresy if we really think they are from our point of view? We can ignore them and keep quiet in order not to offend but then again that would be a disservice to this Forum especially to the readers as it can be deemed as agreeing to what’s being said.

 

[Picky_Picky]

Contraception, Abortion, Women “Priests”. They have, at least, condemned homosexuality.

Thank you. Of course I understand that contraception and abortion can be held to involve basic moral truths, although I cannot see that as an issue in differences over woman priests. The reason I asked is because people’s impression of C of E teaching is often awry — as indeed it is here. The C of E does not conduct same-sex marriages, but that is not the same as saying it “condemns homosexuality”.

The C of E conforms to Lambeth I.10 in this matter:

anglicancommunion.org/resources/document-library/lambeth-conference/1998/section-i-called-to-full-humanity/section-i10-human-sexuality?author=Lambeth+Conference&year=1998

 

[GKC]

Thank you. Of course I understand that contraception and abortion can be held to involve basic moral truths, although I cannot see that as an issue in differences over woman priests. The reason I asked is because people’s impression of C of E teaching is often awry — as indeed it is here. The C of E does not conduct same-sex marriages, but that is not the same as saying it “condemns homosexuality”.

The C of E conforms to Lambeth I.10 in this matter:

anglicancommunion.org/resources/document-library/lambeth-conference/1998/section-i-called-to-full-humanity/section-i10-human-sexuality?author=Lambeth+Conference&year=1998

Your point on females in sacerdotal vestments is one I had thought of making myself. But I’ve been distracted by wind and weather.

 

[Picky_Picky]

Your point on females in sacerdotal vestments is one I had thought of making myself. But I’ve been distracted by wind and weather.

Perhaps instead of women priests or women “priests” we should follow your lead and call them FISVs.

The wind and weather sounds awful (it’s a lovely day over here, so yaboo)