So now that it’s been repeatedly pointed out to you that your characterization of Catholics as “quiet” about areas on which they dissent is simply false, you are claiming that Americans are a special case because the Vatican doesn’t dare crack down on them for financial reasons. As far as I can see, this statement is made out of raw prejudice and nothing else. The Vatican has disregarded and/or outright rejected the beliefs and attitudes of American Catholics ever since American Catholics started developing a distinctive ethos in the mid-19th century. Most commentators seem to think that the Vatican, if anything, has a distinctive animus against American Catholicism. The Vatican is dominated by a peculiarly European kind of conservatism which is alien both to American “liberalism” and American “conservatism.” I can’t think of any reason to take this assertion of yours seriously.
I agree that relative to Anglicans RCs are more likely to do this. But Anglicans do it too, and RCs openly dissent quite a bit. The most relevant point–which is the point you initially denied–is that whether or not the RCC does anything to punish dissenters, the dissenters have something solid and fairly clear to dissent against. Anglican dissenters don’t, unless they go “all the way” and deny the Nicene Creed!
Agreed (see, I do agree with you sometimes
). I’d put it this way: you have to go farther on the conservative side of the spectrum to find evangelicals opposed to WO than to find Catholics (using the term in the Anglo-Catholic sense, to mean any Christians who believe in apostolic succession and the things that go with it) opposed to WO. I think this is because the evangelical opposition to WO depends on a fairly literal reading of the NT, which isn’t shared by Pope Benedict, for instance. Catholics, on the other hand, have the whole question of sacramental symbolism and the sheer weight of tradition.On this issue. Not necessarily on others. On Scriptural issues, for instance, Pope Benedict is a liberal by the standard of many evangelicals. Similarly with the question of whether non-Christians can be saved. In *Truth and Tolerance, *he simply rules the “exclusivist” position out of court as no longer seriously maintained by anyone with regard to the question of personal salvation (or more precisely, he rules the question of personal salvation out of court in order to focus on the issue of truth and revelation).
I don’t see this. But then, I may define unity differently than you do. I see a lot of good manners and tolerance and a collapse of denominational distinctives, but not what I’d consider real unity.
The work of ARCIC continues. You may not consider it serious.
I believe in women’s ordination, but I’m horrified by the idea of Christians finding unity around women’s ordination rather than around the Creed, the Scriptures, the Sacraments, and apostolic succession. And if you note, that is a very Anglican opinion, since I just reproduced the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral!
Ha! I like your last sentence. I regard ‘unity’ is a merging of denominations, as in the United Church of Christ, or (next) being in full communion with other denominations. Recently the Episcopal Church united with Moravians in the US, previously the much larger Evangelical Lutherans, and various Catholic splinters, including, I think (GKC would know) one with apostolic succession (correct me, GKC , if I’m wrong). I guess after this, is sharing churches, but this doesn’t count for much, and being in dialogue, and there are varying degrees of this.
That hairdoo is of Morgoth for sure…
shaw:I don’t think I’ll ever be able to hear or read the word “motley” without thinking of GKC. Where is he, btw? I miss his comments. Maybe all the “Bieber” talk scared him away. lolAgreed. The Anglican Communion is too varied and “motley” (to coin a GKC phrase) to ever generalize so they “they’re all gay” or “they’re all ordaining women” doesn’t apply. Likewise the stereotypes about chauvenism and intolerance in Catholicism and the dullard peasant stuff doesn’t fly either with me.
And yes, Bieber is a terrifying apparition! I recoil at teen hearthrobs. LOL! Bieber is defintely from the Tower of Baradur!
I survived a Winter Jam concert last night. I lost the draw to take the teenagers to hear about 8-10 current Christian “rock” bands. One called “Red” could put most mainstream heavy metal groups to shame. and no I do not know what they were singing. Lots of flames, smoke and very loud noise passing for music. Like the groups I listened to as a teenager. The kids thought I was cool until they saw the earplugs.Agreed. The Anglican Communion is too varied and “motley” (to coin a GKC phrase) to ever generalize so they “they’re all gay” or “they’re all ordaining women” doesn’t apply. Likewise the stereotypes about chauvenism and intolerance in Catholicism and the dullard peasant stuff doesn’t fly either with me.
And yes, Bieber is a terrifying apparition! I recoil at teen hearthrobs. LOL! Bieber is defintely from the Tower of Baradur!
Still had some mojo as I did wear my clericals.
Ah, Mark you take me back to my youth group days. Those were some great times. By the way Red is a pretty good band too. I’m 30 and still listen to that kind of stuff. I always have said I will be suffering from Alzheimers in a nursing home with that stuff blaring out of my room.I survived a Winter Jam concert last night. I lost the draw to take the teenagers to hear about 8-10 current Christian “rock” bands. One called “Red” could put most mainstream heavy metal groups to shame. and no I do not know what they were singing. Lots of flames, smoke and very loud noise passing for music. Like the groups I listened to as a teenager. The kids thought I was cool until they saw the earplugs.
Among the most interesting events was when the lead for Newsboys talked about how they beat Bieber, or he who must not be named, on Billboard. At the mention of the name that must not be mentioned the 8-10000 kids there erupted into boos. Making me wonder just who determines teen hearthrobs?
Oh and the ride home. Winter Jam is run by evangelical protestant non denominations with a charismatic bend types. Lead to many interesting discussion for the Catholic and Anglican teenagers on things like scripture alone, “sinners prayer” and as the 'pastor" told all those who prayed the sinners pray to follow him on facebook and twitter. Never a discussion on joining a local church body. How is that for ya…twitter and facebook is, at least in his mind, church.
All of my observations re the Catholic Church were only in relationship to the* Anglican Church. The Catholic Church in US (and the world) is too large and too diverse to make generalizations about. There is plenty of dissent in the Catholic Church in the US–just ask Rome. But the level* of dissent pales compared to the degree of Anglican dissent. (Maybe Anglicans have more to dissent about-one could certainly say they do). My remarks re why Anglicans dissent (aside from doctrinal differences) may reflect the predominance of the AC in democracies, which is directly related to the Commonwealth, their common language (easier to disagree with someone if you speak their language!) and the web, which Anglicans have been on in large numbers (compared with the size of their churches) from the beginning.
That, 1234, elicited a real-life guffaw from me.
Although I have very limited knowledge of the orthodox, I would answer roughly the same way. Just because they hold traditions does not mean they are in full compliance with the Holy Church. What was there status before Vatican II? where they not schismatic? I firmly believe that Vatican II is a momentary illness and that the true church will prevail.How then do you explain the Orthodox?