Rome tells Anglicans: it's time to decide if you are Protestants or Catholics

[Fortuna]

Please stop. I was trained as a Priest in the Episcopal Church and came to Catholicism on the Newman Road. I have read the Catechism, thank you.

I am currently leaving the Episcopal (Anglican See) church for the Catholic church.

The heart of the church is what I believe truly matters. I believe that it is the congregation in Jesus that is the heart.

I have found a warm heart and warm people in the Catholic church. People who have not judged me nor have they treated me with jealousy, envy or suspicion.

I have begun catechism studies and this is one thing the Episcopal or Anglican church seems to be missing and could certainly use.

It is not just me, others are leaving and without me having said a word to anyone about how I feel. More and more protestants are looking for the spiritual support and warm fellowship offered by the Catholic church.

After all, isn’t loving thy neighbor God’s second most important command. Shouldn’t we treat each other with love and not sardonic remarks or suspicion?

Kudos to you for going Catholic.

Forgive my ignorance, for I have just recently started my studies, but what is the Newman Road? Should I be aware of this?

God Bless, Fortuna

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

So you believe in Petrine primacy being instituted by Christ…although, you have different view of what does primacy means…a lip-service primacy? honorific? I don’t see any wisdom in that kind of primacy…

Primus inter pares means first among equals. It means collegiality–a brotherhood of bishops on which authority rests in council together. It means the pope speaks for the church, not as the church when announcing decisions reached in council. It means that the pope is a court of last resort for disputes between bishops who consent willingly to the pope’s exercise of this aspect of his office–i.e., the bishop is the final authority in his diocese, and the pope, by virtue of his “elder brother” status, decides disputes between bishops. This is the extent of his authority–and to my understanding, this is the understanding of the pope’s role which allowed the synod of Carthage (for instance) to write to the pope and say: stop meddling in our affairs!

as Anglican, I suppose you accept the Bible as authoritatively infallible. Since you do not accept infallibility, supposedly, you should not hold the Bible as authoritatively infallible considering that its canons are decided by the fallible (as you imply) teaching authority of the Church.

As an Anglican, I accept the Bible as authoritative. I do so based on the authority of scripture itself, based on the universal witness of the church, based on the pronouncement of the individual part of the church in which I currently reside.

I think, though, that there’s a little confusion here–I don’t lump questions of papal authority into the domain of revealed theological truths. The church’s infallible witness regarding its theology is, to me, untouched by whether or not papal supremacy is in error. Granted, it may not be so for you. But the faith remains intact, whole, and unaffected by whether or not it is papal supremacy is a mistake. Viewing it as a mistake, however, I cannot submit to it.

“Feed my sheep” (3x at that) is the universal pastoral jurisdiction entrusted to Peter; it is not simply a lip-service primacy.

Feed my sheep does not imply universal ordinary authority or universal jurisdictional authority–it implies a responsibility of service which Peter must exercise with reference to his fellow apostles: a burden of humility which he alone is asked to exercise. This does not translate into lordship.

It is in fallible humanity that the grace of God can be more appreciated. The CC does not claim absolute papal infallibility as if every utterance of the pope, personal, unofficial and informal without condition is infallible. There are conditions that must be followed for a papal (or conciliar) teaching to be considered infallible.

I’m familiar with the conditions.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

 

[natsclem]

Grace & Peace!

Primus inter pares means first among equals. It means collegiality–a brotherhood of bishops on which authority rests in council together. It means the pope speaks for the church, not as the church when announcing decisions reached in council. It means that the pope is a court of last resort for disputes between bishops who consent willingly to the pope’s exercise of this aspect of his office–i.e., the bishop is the final authority in his diocese, and the pope, by virtue of his “elder brother” status, decides disputes between bishops. This is the extent of his authority–and to my understanding, this is the understanding of the pope’s role which allowed the synod of Carthage (for instance) to write to the pope and say: stop meddling in our affairs!
…
Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

Is that what you do in Anglicanism? What if a priest feels unjustly suspended by his bishop, to whom should he appeal? to the synod? Who decides with finality?

I feel it would be better if I can appeal my case to a higher authority.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Is that what you do in Anglicanism? What if a priest feels unjustly suspended by his bishop, to whom should he appeal? to the synod? Who decides with finality?

I feel it would be better if I can appeal my case to a higher authority.

Sorry, natsclem–I failed to mention other ancient degrees of episcopal dignity. I imagine that if a priest felt unjustly suspended by his bishop, he could it take it as far as his patriarch, who would have the final say.

Re: whether we do it like that in Anglicanism–yes and no. The bishop is the final authority in his diocese is about as far as it goes. The nature of our polity does not quite allow for much more. The Presiding Bishops do not quite hold the authority of the Patriarchs of old, though their position in relation to their brother bishops is similar. Moreover, Cantuar is not considered an Anglican pope.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

 

[thirdn6]

And the two prelates set up the ARCIC, wirh such high hopes.

GKC

And the Holy Spirit got in the way… not allowing it to prosper

 

[natsclem]

Grace & Peace!
…
Feed my sheep does not imply universal ordinary authority or universal jurisdictional authority–it implies a responsibility of service which Peter must exercise with reference to his fellow apostles: a burden of humility which he alone is asked to exercise. This does not translate into lordship.
…
Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

In “Feed my sheep”, there is no indication that the “sheep” refers to his fellow apostles; on the contrary, it is general.

In John 21:15, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon son of John, do you truly love me more than these?” “These” is referring to other apostles/disciples who were with Peter in the Sea of Tiberias–Thomas (called Didymus), Nathanael from Cana in Galilee, the sons of Zebedee, and two other disciples.

After Peter replied, Jesus said, “Feed my lambs.”

As the conversation between Jesus and Peter goes, “lambs/sheep” does not refer to the specific disciples present with Peter at that moment but in general sense.

Jesus seems to be saying…
“Simon son of John, if you truly love me more than your fellow apostles, take care of all my disciples”

Consequently, obedient as he is, Peter would exercise universal pastoral/ordinary jurisdiction no matter what his fellow apostles would think and feel because he loved Jesus more than them.

In actuality, the Pope rarely (if ever) directly interferes in a local concern except when a local ordinary refers it to him or when a grave local matter/issue is not handled well by the ordinary. Of course, he is the ultimate authority in the settlement of case/disputes not only between/among bishops but also between a bishop and a priest.

 

[GKC]

And the Holy Spirit got in the way… not allowing it to prosper

I don’t think I’d attribute what happened to the Anglican Communion to the Holy Spirit.

GKC

 

[Contarini]

And the Holy Spirit got in the way… not allowing it to prosper

You’re a Catholic. Why do you think the Holy Spirit would want to oppose the reunion of your separated brethren with the Holy See?

Edwin

 

[thirdn6]

You’re a Catholic. Why do you think the Holy Spirit would want to oppose the reunion of your separated brethren with the Holy See?

Edwin

Individual conversion? YES! Corporate reunion? Compromise the Faith? NO.
We have Apostolicae Curae to begin with. Besides, I don’t think Catholics can accept the 39 Articles and the Book of Common Prayer. WE JUST CAN’T.

 

[thirdn6]

I don’t think I’d attribute what happened to the Anglican Communion to the Holy Spirit.

GKC

Very obvious, isn’t it? How would you mingle these two faiths together- one is allowing same-sex marriages and women priests/bishops while the other condemns it? Adulterated wine be mixed to a pure wine- it is lethal.

 

[Lepanto]

No one is playing at being Catholic. They are Catholic. That they’re not Roman Catholic seems to be what is causing you so much distress. That distress is appreciated, but unnecessary.

As a Roman, you are bound to believe in the nullity of Anglican orders and in the invalidity of our sacraments. That’s fine! That’s what you’re bound to believe. Anglicans are not so bound. Your decrees of nullity in this matter have much import for a Roman, but for an Anglican, not so much.

Please stop calling us “Roman” Catholics. Not only is it inaccurate, but it is offensive to many Latin Catholics, as well as to virtually all of the Eastern Catholics. Thank you.

“So the proper name for the universal Church is not the Roman Catholic Church. Far from it. That term caught on mostly in English-speaking countries; it was promoted mostly by Anglicans, supporters of the “branch theory” of the Church, namely, that the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church of the creed was supposed to consist of three major branches, the Anglican, the Orthodox and the so-called Roman Catholic. It was to avoid that kind of interpretation that the English-speaking bishops at Vatican I succeeded in warning the Church away from ever using the term officially herself: It too easily could be misunderstood.”

Full explanation:
ewtn.com/faith/teachings/churb3.htm

 

[natsclem]

Please stop calling us “Roman” Catholics. Not only is it inaccurate, but it is offensive to many Latin Catholics, as well as to virtually all of the Eastern Catholics. Thank you.

“So the proper name for the universal Church is not the Roman Catholic Church. Far from it. That term caught on mostly in English-speaking countries; it was promoted mostly by Anglicans, supporters of the “branch theory” of the Church, namely, that the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church of the creed was supposed to consist of three major branches, the Anglican, the Orthodox and the so-called Roman Catholic. It was to avoid that kind of interpretation that the English-speaking bishops at Vatican I succeeded in warning the Church away from ever using the term officially herself: It too easily could be misunderstood.”

Full explanation:
ewtn.com/faith/teachings/churb3.htm

Why should we be offended being called Roman Catholics? In the Philippines, Filipino Catholics do not protest being called Roman Catholics; they are even proud of writing it on their public documents. Personally, however, I use Catholic Christian. Perhaps, I am the only one in the whole country using such nomenclature/categorization.

I don’t think it is offensive to be affiliated to the Church of Rome for whom St. Paul thanked God through Jesus Christ because their “faith is being reported all over the world” (Romans 1:8 NIV). Moreover, how can it be offensive if being called “Roman” means to be subject to the successor of Peter upon whom the invincible Church was built and the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven was entrusted singularly by Christ.

“Roman Catholic” encapsulates the universality of Christian faith held by Roman Christians (Romans 1:8 NIV) fortified by the Blood of Peter (for whom Christ prayed that his faith may not fail) and Paul (whom Christ appointed to be Apostle to the Gentiles).

Many of the threatening heresies were in the East. At one point, Arianism took hold among most of the Eastern bishops well supported by the Emperor, who exerted all his imperial influence for that heresy even in western provinces and exiled Pope Liberius and installed an antipope, Felix II, who in turn was deposed by the Romans. Even the bishopric of Constantinople under Demophilus of Constantinople succumbed to arianism. Thanks to the heroism of Alexandrian Eastern Athanasius and the steadfastness of Pope Liberius in defending the Nicene faith. In 380 AD, during the co-reign of Theodosius I and Gratian (who published an edict that all their subjects should profess the faith of the bishops of Rome and Alexandria–i.e., the Nicene faith–or be handed over for punishment for not doing so) the Nicene faith finally triumphed in the East and, in 381, at the Second Ecumenical Council in Constantinople, a group of mainly Eastern bishops assembled and accepted the Nicene Creed of 381.

 

[GKC]

Very obvious, isn’t it? How would you mingle these two faiths together- one is allowing same-sex marriages and women priests/bishops while the other condemns it? Adulterated wine be mixed to a pure wine- it is lethal.

Your historical sense of the situation is faulty. When Paul VI and Michael Cantuar met, and Paul tendered Michael his Episcopal ring, and the ARCIC was formed, those things you speak of were in the future. It is those changes I meant by saying that the Holy Spirit had no part in what happened later to the Anglican Communion.

GKC

 

[GKC]

Individual conversion? YES! Corporate reunion? Compromise the Faith? NO.
We have Apostolicae Curae to begin with. Besides, I don’t think Catholics can accept the 39 Articles and the Book of Common Prayer. WE JUST CAN’T.

Some of the 39 Articles I bet half a nickle you accept. Some you wouldn’t. for that matter, I don’t accept many of them myself. No Anglican must, except, (from a technical standpoint), the ordinands of the Church of England (who often ignore that) and (lately) one province of the Anglican Communion is Africa, who adopted the Articales as normative, in reaction to the situation in the Communion as a whole.

The Articles are not binding on any Anglican in general, otherwise. And I doubt you yourself would have a problem with, say, Art. I. But what’s your problem with the BCP? I don’t have much use for the 1979 book, myself, but what’s your issue with the 1928 Book?

And how would *Apostolicae Curae *affect a corporate reunion? At the worse, it would require subconditione ordination of any Anglican priests wishing to become RC priests, which has happened before.

GKC

 

[Contarini]

Individual conversion? YES! Corporate reunion? Compromise the Faith? NO.

Why do you assume that corporate reunion involves compromising the Faith? And how do you explain the fact that the Pope has repeatedly expressed his commitment to corporate reunion?

We have Apostolicae Curae to begin with.

Why do you see that as an insuperable obstacle? We have been trying to deal with this for more than a century now by including Old Catholic bishops in our consecrations. I don’t think most ecumenically serious Anglicans would object to conditional reordination, which could be justified on the Catholic side by the inclusion of Old Catholics (i.e., even on the basis of Apostolicae Curae you can reasonably admit that some of our bishops and priests might now have valid orders).

Besides, I don’t think Catholics can accept the 39 Articles and the Book of Common Prayer. WE JUST CAN’T.

Is this based on a thorough reading of both? Have you read Newman’s Tract 90, which argues that the Articles may be compatible with the Council of Trent? I myself don’t find the Tract very convincing, and obviously neither did Newman. Indeed, many Anglo-Catholics today (as GKC will tell you) reject the Articles outright. I don’t think anyone is going to ask Catholics to accept the Articles in their probable historical sense as orthodox. What might happen is that we would draw up a statement as to how we now understand the matters discussed in the Articles, and your side would decide as to whether that statement is acceptable. (I think that this is basically what ARCIC has done.) We would of course repudiate any meaning of the Articles that is contrary to the historic Faith.

As for the BCP–the Catholic Church has authorized the Book of Divine Worship, which contains most of the material found in the 1979 BCP of the Episcopal Church. I suspect that you ae thinking primarily of the Eucharistic and other sacramental liturgies in the BCP (the BDW replaces the Eucharistic prayers of the BCP with Catholic Eucharistic prayers). Certainly it would be hard to imagine using the 1662 English BCP in a Catholic context.

I think you have altogether the wrong impression as to what ecumenism involves. It is not about compromising the Faith. It is about trying to discover how each of our traditions is related to the historic Catholic faith and reunifying on that basis. Obviously your Communion makes a much stronger claim in that regard than ours (i.e., you claim that the Catholic Church fully “subsists” within your Communion–we do not). Many Anglicans see this as a serious obstacle to reunion. From my perspective, while it does present obstacles, it also gives us a solid body of non-negotiables to work from. We know that you can’t renounce your claim to uniqueness or any of the dogmas your Communion has declared to be infallible. But that still leaves a lot of room for discussion and mutual discernment.

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Please stop calling us “Roman” Catholics. Not only is it inaccurate, but it is offensive to many Latin Catholics, as well as to virtually all of the Eastern Catholics. Thank you.

When you stop claiming that communion with Rome is an essential part of what it means to be Catholic, then we will stop using the term “Roman Catholic.”

Thank you!

Edwin

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Please stop calling us “Roman” Catholics. Not only is it inaccurate, but it is offensive to many Latin Catholics, as well as to virtually all of the Eastern Catholics. Thank you.

I have to say I’m with Contarini on this.

However, while I’m not willing to compromise my belief in the Catholicity of the Anglican church by limiting my use of the word “Catholic” to describe only those in communion with Rome (which is effectively what you’re asking me to do by attempting to select for me the language I can use), I am willing to be more careful by replacing my frequent use of the word “Roman” with the phrase “Catholics in communion with Rome,” (or some variation thereof ) which more accurately reflects the practicalities of the situation.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

 

[mercygate]

Grace & Peace!

I have to say I’m with Contarini on this.

However, while I’m not willing to compromise my belief in the Catholicity of the Anglican church by limiting my use of the word “Catholic” to describe only those in communion with Rome (which is effectively what you’re asking me to do by attempting to select for me the language I can use), I am willing to be more careful by replacing my frequent use of the word “Roman” with the phrase “Catholics in communion with Rome,” (or some variation thereof ) which more accurately reflects the practicalities of the situation.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

It is not unfair to characterize the catholic wing of anglicanism as catholic. And it is no longer pejorative to call Catholics “Roman” Catholics, particularly in discussions of Petrine primacy.

When I was Anglican, however, I carefully distinguished by using a small “c” on catholic – actually as a point of pride.

Although all Anglicanism suffers from its Protestant history and is essentially Protestant in its stated principles, anybody who inhabits the “catholic” end of the Anglican spectrum will be devotionally, philosophically, liturgically and morally “more” catholic than two-thirds of the people sitting in the pews of my Catholic parish on any given Sunday.

We Catholics need not be stingy in acknowledging this.

 

[chris_molter]

you claim that the Catholic Church fully “subsists” within your Communion–we do not

Edwin

Man… we went from “est” to “subsistit”, putting up with all kinds of **** from the radtrads about it, and you’re STILL not happy? Geez, there’s no pleasing you people!

Really though, the change to “subsists” shouldn’t pose any problem for an Anglican who believes that all the marks of the Church also exist within particular groups of Anglicans. From what I’ve read, the “subsist” change allowed for Catholicity to be found outside the visible bounds of the Roman communion (probably with the Orthodox East foremost in the minds of the Vatican II Fathers).

As to the particulars of nomenclature as it relates to C/catholic, the Churches in communion with the Holy See, and Anglicanism, Fr Al Kimel had a couple great posts (and lively debate) at the old Pontifications site, although I’m not sure if they survived.

 

[Camron]

I think he’s absolutely right. For Anglicans and for me personally. I decided ten years ago that I was going to follow the first of those options, but as an Anglican it is easy to waffle in practice. And that’s not entirely bad. It’s good that we can function as a “bridge” church, but we need to keep our priorities clear. In other words, we adhere to the traditions coming out of the Reformation only insofar as they do not impair our allegiance to historic Catholicism (in the sense of the faith of the first millennium). Having just been trying to explain first-millennium Christianity (specifically the iconoclastic controversy) to a roomful of evangelical Protestants, I feel the point of the Cardinal’s appeal keenly.

Edwin

Interesting perspective.

What do you think it would take for the High Church and the Catholic Church to join again, including any possible concessions from both perspectives?