Personally, I see bowing and genuflecting as being pretty different from each other. I genuflect to the Eucharist (e.g. in the tabernacle) because then I’m genuflecting to Christ. On the other hand, there are a lot of things that I bow to: a cross, a statue, an icon, etc.As far as the genuflecting or bowing at the altar, however, this would imply a valid consecration, which I don’t believe.
Or, at the mention of the Holy Name, in an Anglican Mass, I’d assume.Personally, I see bowing and genuflecting as being pretty different from each other. I genuflect to the Eucharist (e.g. in the tabernacle) because then I’m genuflecting to Christ. On the other hand, there are a lot of things that I bow to: a cross, a statue, an icon, etc.
I wouldn’t genuflect to a cross, even in a Catholic Church, but I don’t mind bowing even to a Protestant cross.
Or, even into my area.Good point. Many of them have gone to e.g. Orthodoxy.
Actually, among Anglican intellectuals, I don’t think I’m in an extremely small minority at all (with regards to the filioque). But I’m not sure how to go about doing a poll.Scratch that last statement. I spoke without really thinking. Nevertheless, I think the “extremely small minority” statement was correct.
I’ve read this paragraph a few times, but every time I feel like I’m missed something, as though my eyes must have skipped over a sentence or two.
No. I didn’t say that at all.You’re saying:
(A) that it was wrong, a thousand or so years ago, for Western Christians to start putting the filioque in the Creed, and
(B) that it’s quite alright, nowadays, to continue putting the filioque in the Creed
It would be a bit questionable, yes. Although I agree that it wouldn’t be anywhere near as questionable in terms of authority as some of the other things we have done (like ordaining women). I suppose that the fact that I don’t actually have strong theological objections to the filioque (I really haven’t a clue which account of the Trinity is true, or if it’s possible to say that one is truer than the other), but do have a theological reason for supporting women’s ordination, plays a role in shaping my opinion here!– and even that it would be questionable for the Anglican Communion to say the Creed without the filioque (even if it wanted to)?
Perhaps there’s no contradiction between (A) and (B), but I’m sure you can see how your last post read, like there’s a sentence missing or something.
No. I think they probably weren’t. But I think that they are part of our history, and denying our history is bad. This is the basic reason why I don’t convert to Catholicism individually. It amounts to repeating the error of the Reformation in order to undo it. We need to stop running from historical accountability. We need to stop trying to create a perfect Church. We need to stop charging off on our own. We need to be willing to bear with our sinful, corrupt, and even heretical brothers and sisters, as we hope that Christ (working in them) will bear with us.Is there, in your view, something that’s changed in the last thousand years, that reconciles (A) and (B)? Do you believe (as we Catholics do) that one or more of the councils that sanctioned the filioque were Ecumenical Councils?
It isn’t clear to many people, because the Anglo-Catholics have spent nearly two centuries muddying the record. But how many Anglicans before 1833 had any doubt that they were Protestants? Precious few, if any. Far fewer (probably none) before 1660. None at all in the reigns of Edward or Elizabeth (of course when I say “before year X” I mean “between the Reformation and year X”).The only thing I want to put in here is that the highlighted statement is exactly the opposite of how I see it: I believe that historically it isn’t clear that Anglicans are Protestants
I was counting you in the “Anglican-not-in-communion-with-Cantebury” category, hence not in the “Anglicans leaving Anglicanism” category. (Probably not a very important distinction, I’ll admit.)Or, even into my area.
GKC
That’s make a lot of sense actually, but I guess the question is: How do you view the Seven Ecumenical Councils of the 1st millennium (which established the Creed and forbade changes to it)? Don’t they (from your point of view) trump even Lateran IV et al (since you don’t regard Lateran IV et al as ecumenical councils)?… When I objected that this seemed to contradict the 39 Articles, he told me that Lateran IV trumped the Articles because it was a Council of the whole Western Church. In other words, he considered himself to have some allegiance not only (although most directly) to the Anglican Communion, and not only (although supremely) to the universal Catholic Church, but also to the historic tradition of Western Catholicism.
Ah. I should have seen that.I was counting you in the “Anglican-not-in-communion-with-Cantebury” category, hence not in the “Anglicans leaving Anglicanism” category. (Probably not a very important distinction, I’ll admit.)
Oh that’s alright. To be perfectly honest, I have some qualms about the whole “Anglican-but-not-in-the-Anglican-communion” terminology – I myself object to applying the term “Catholic” to anyone who’s not in communion with the pope, so …Ah. I should have seen that.
GKC
I have never been in support of women priests, but I did think allowing priests to marry would be a good thing. After all, there is nothing against it in scripture and it was allowed for a good amount of time. (Sorry, I don’t feel like going to look up how long…) I have a married priest (pastoral provision) and he does a great job. And yet, I find myself no longer so enthused about it. It is a raw deal for the wife. And it would be even harder with small children in the family.I’m just thinking out loud a little’ but I really wonder.
With the graying of our Catholic priests.
And the growing problem of parishes closing and being consolidated due to a lack of priests.
And the growing problem of priestless parishes.
Could it be possible someday for the Vatican and Magisterium to approach the refusal to ordain women to the priesthood or diaconate?
I mean what can the church do under current circumstances?
Will we allow priestless parishes continue to multiply?
Use even more Eucharistic Ministers to distribute Holy Communion and deprive the laity of the Holy Sacrifice?
Pray and hope for more vocations, and wait for the results, that has not worked so far.
I feel with the growing debate between ourselves and the Episcopalians/anglicans, this issue haas gone unmentioned.
And I feel that we Roman Caatholics need to discuss this.
I think it takes an exceptional person to be in ministry period. I don’t think that the fact Catholic clergy can’t marry necessarily makes them better than protestants. Our old Anglican, married priest (rector) was far superior in preaching, pastoral care, prayer, and enthusiasm than our celibate Catholic clergy at my current church. We had really strong priests in our old Anglican diocese. And our bishop there, John David Schofield, was and continues to be super strong. He’s an amazing speaker and very sincere. The guy’s a born leader.I have never been in support of women priests, but I did think allowing priests to marry would be a good thing. After all, there is nothing against it in scripture and it was allowed for a good amount of time. (Sorry, I don’t feel like going to look up how long…) I have a married priest (pastoral provision) and he does a great job. And yet, I find myself no longer so enthused about it. It is a raw deal for the wife. And it would be even harder with small children in the family.
Aside from the valid point of the church not having the authority to make such a change,I think that ordaining women is a “band aid” type solution that would end up doing far more harm in the long run. The more traditional the orders, the greater the numbers. Doesn’t that say that people want it to actually stand for something? I am willing to bet that the churches that ordain women have seen a strong decline in male attendance. Oh, make that an even stronger decline in male attendance than the large decline in attendance in general.
It takes an exceptional man to renounce all and become a priest. You have to respect that sacrifice and devotion. It doesn’t necessarily take that type of person to become a Protestant minister. In fact, frequently people go into it for very wrong reasons. Wouldn’t opening the priesthood to married men lower the standards? I know some Anglican priests that I admire tremendously, but I know as many that have totally lost my respect.
This may sound like hair-splitting, but it’s important to note that the Church doesn’t permit priests to marry, but rather ordains married men.I have never been in support of women priests, but I did think allowing priests to marry would be a good thing.
I’m not sure either how long it was allowed in the West, but I do know that it has always been allowed in the East.After all, there is nothing against it in scripture and it was allowed for a good amount of time.
(Sorry, I don’t feel like going to look up how long…)