Beats me.
Early thirties is not youth. Mid- forties is youth. You’re still a stripling in your mid- thirties.Wow. I guess I was aware of that at the time, but some things didn’t seem so shocking in my youth (early thirties is youth right?) as they do in old age.
From my perspective, its the Catholic representatives of the dialogue. They ‘dialogue’ about how to reunite, then the Anglicans disregard their half; the talk about the role of the Papacy in a unified hypothetical, then ignore the Pope; talks go on about the importance of the priesthood being male, then the Anglicans ordain women; they talk about preserving traditional marriage, then Anglicans marry homosexuals; talks go on about openly gay clergy, meanwhile Anglicans are already doing it. Am i missing something or are the dialoguers saying things that Catholics shouldnt?
Well, you seem to think the talks have been about why the Roman viewpoint is right and why Anglicans should share it. They haven’t been. They have been about various issues where the two sides think it worth exploring differences and similarities of approach, and they have developed increased understanding, That’s really all they’ve been, but the churches seem to find that worthwhile. Your description of the dialogue doesn’t match anything I’ve read.
Some things don’t seem so shocking in my old age (early 70s is old age, right?) as they did in my youth. I’ve seen so much in the interim.Wow. I guess I was aware of that at the time, but some things didn’t seem so shocking in my youth (early thirties is youth right?) as they do in old age.
Maybe. But I had a 13 year old daughter, in my youth, in that case. Which means she’s a youth herself, today.Early thirties is not youth. Mid- forties is youth. You’re still a stripling in your mid- thirties.
If so, it represents a value for “peace” (at least) that I was previously not familiar with.
I take it, then, that the appropriate amount of wisdom may perhaps have been vouchsafed?
I can’t claim wisdom. Just knowledge, in selected areas.
He didn’t say Catholic, he said Catholic…Nothing against Anglicans, or England, but that wouldn’t be universal. By definition.
On a side note, I think it would help if you guys would get your story straight on the word “catholic”.
You kind of lost me with that last sentence. Everything else you said makes it sound like the dialoguers are saying things that Catholics should say.
Irregardless, it’s still Catholic.He didn’t say Catholic, he said Catholic…
On a more serious note, the word Catholic, regarded as a word out of the Greek that means Universal ( hence the Protestant usage of the Church Catholic rather than the Catholic Church, when describing the " Church without Borders").I’m wondering if the Catholic representatives are actually representing Catholicism, or their own personal stance - which might extend from ‘pastoral sensitivity to Anglican sensibilities’
The talks have been in progress nigh unto 50 years, with a mass of paper published on the …conclusions. If you haven’t checked into it, look into the Anglican- Roman Catholic International Commission.
But every single example you gave looks to me like the opposite: Anglican participants representing their own personal stance rather than Anglicanism.
True. The “universal” meaning is why Anglicans and many Protestants still adhere to the unmodified Nicene Creed statement that we believe in the “one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church” or the Apostle’s Creed’s similar verbiage of, “the holy catholic Church.”Irregardless, it’s still Catholic.
