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

[Contarini]

These are good questions that I would like to hear an answer to.

How does this not eventually lead directly back to an “Ecumenism of Return”?

It seems to me that thirdn6 is in fact calling for an “ecumenism of return” in more or less the exact sense rejected by Pope Benedict. As I understand it, this “ecumenism of return” expects Protestants who reunite to be simply folded back into the Roman Catholic Church (I am using that term in its strict and proper sense) as if they had never left. Hence thirdn6’s frequent references to “bona fide RCs” and things of that nature.

Keep in mind that, technically speaking, you can’t return to something unless you first have left it. Almost all non-Catholic Christians were brought up as non-Catholics. They never have been Catholics. If they were to become Catholics now, they would not be “returning” to the Church. They would be entering for the first time.

I find that to be a bizarre statement coming from a Catholic. We do not exist solely as individuals. We are members of Christ’s Body. Our practices and beliefs have been shaped by specific traditions of Christianity, all of which go back to the “undivided” Catholic Church of the first millennium (and in the case of Protestants and Catholics, to the pre-Reformation Western Catholic Church). So the individuals aren’t returning, but the traditions are. Ironically, your deafness to the relevance of “return” language indicates just how radically you have bought into “ecumenism of return.” To me the principal mark of such an approach is that it insists on treating non-Catholics as individuals. The point Pope Benedict made in 2005 was that he wants to reunite *traditions *of Christianity, not simply convert individuals. This is much more difficult, but much more worthwhile.

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[Lilyflower]

Oh, the Judge Mark…where do you get the power to judge Rome? From Christ? Or from Henry VIII? Are you not usurping the authority of Christ who alone was given by God the authority to judge?

Grace and Peace!

Blessings and peace

 

[jay29]

Henry VIII had NO DIVINE AUTHORITY to start his own church. This is the bottom line.

 

[Lilyflower]

Rome has spoken!

 

[comfort1st]

I’ve never once met an Anglican who claimed to be anything other than a Protestant.

Interesting, because Anglicans ARE catholic (note the lower case ‘c’) and most of the Anglicans I know (though not all) take that stand-point.

We may have a different approach from the Roman one to many areas of Christian teaching, but that doesn’t say we’re not catholic, or we’re wrong. Surely our focus should be on bringing people to the trinitarian God!

 

[comfort1st]

Henry VIII had NO DIVINE AUTHORITY to start his own church. This is the bottom line.

He didn’t. The “Church of England” was in existence long before Henry VIII. a council of the English church, in the 7th century, decided to accept the newly arrived (thanks to Augustine) Roman hierarchical model of church governance to replace the already existing collegiate model. Henry was many centuries later.

 

[thirdn6]

I find that to be a bizarre statement coming from a Catholic. We do not exist solely as individuals. We are members of Christ’s Body. Our practices and beliefs have been shaped by specific traditions of Christianity, all of which go back to the “undivided” Catholic Church of the first millennium (and in the case of Protestants and Catholics, to the pre-Reformation Western Catholic Church). So the individuals aren’t returning, but the traditions are. Ironically, your deafness to the relevance of “return” language indicates just how radically you have bought into “ecumenism of return.” To me the principal mark of such an approach is that it insists on treating non-Catholics as individuals. The point Pope Benedict made in 2005 was that he wants to reunite *traditions *of Christianity, not simply convert individuals. This is much more difficult, but much more worthwhile.

In Christ,

Edwin

Are you speaking for the whole of Anglican Communion here?
Let’s fast-forward to the present… How will the ordination of women priests/bishops and same-sex marriages be excluded (as they should because they’re against Catholic teachings) at the ecumenical talks when they’re already becoming part of the Anglican tradition? How will that fit in towards reuniting with RCC if there seems to be lesser proponents of a “split” among your bishops?

You said, “We are members of Christ’s body.” I recommend for you to read (again?) Lumen Gentium and the recent iteration of the Vatican regarding the position of the Catholic Church and ecclesial communities.

and also… the likes of Bp Gene Robinson, the Anglican-muslim priest(?) in Seattle were shaped by some specific beliefs and practices in YOUR tradition going back to Henry VIII?

Can you hurdle all these obstructions (how about the TEC legal battles?) and say that the whole of Anglican Communion be still reunited with the RCC?

Why not allow individual anglicans to decide for themselves if they want to remain Protestant or to start swimming towards Rome? I know some already did and some are even bishops(?)!

 

[thirdn6]

He didn’t. The “Church of England” was in existence long before Henry VIII. a council of the English church, in the 7th century, decided to accept the newly arrived (thanks to Augustine) Roman hierarchical model of church governance to replace the already existing collegiate model. Henry was many centuries later.

That was the Catholic “Church IN England”, my friend.

 

[thirdn6]

Interesting, because Anglicans ARE catholic (note the lower case ‘c’) and most of the Anglicans I know (though not all) take that stand-point.

We may have a different approach from the Roman one to many areas of Christian teaching, but that doesn’t say we’re not catholic, or we’re wrong. Surely our focus should be on bringing people to the trinitarian God!

lower case ‘c’ means catholic only in universal/global sense. It doesn’t identify a 'c’atholic community with the true Catholic Church- taken as already a proper name for the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of our Lord Jesus Christ since the time of the early christians.

 

[Contarini]

That was the Catholic “Church IN England”, my friend.

Yes. From your theological perspective communion with Rome is the make-or-break issue, so naturally you see the “Ecclesia Anglicana” after the break with Rome as a different entity from the Ecclesia Anglicana that existed before. We don’t share this theological perspective. We see ourselves as the same body, just as you think you were the same church after Vatican II in spite of the fact that some of your traditionalist schismatics think you aren’t.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Henry VIII had NO DIVINE AUTHORITY to start his own church. This is the bottom line.

No, it’s irrelevant, because as already noted he did no such thing. He made certain claims about his authority over the Catholic Church within his dominions.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Are you speaking for the whole of Anglican Communion here?

Certainly not.

Let’s fast-forward to the present… How will the ordination of women priests/bishops and same-sex marriages be excluded (as they should because they’re against Catholic teachings) at the ecumenical talks when they’re already becoming part of the Anglican tradition? How will that fit in towards reuniting with RCC if there seems to be lesser proponents of a “split” among your bishops?

I’m not sure what that last sentence means. Of course the ordination of women has put new obstacles to unity, which is the reason I would have opposed it had I had the chance to do so (even though I have no theological objections to it). And obviously the recent gestures in the direction of recognizing same-sex unions pose even bigger obstacles, if possible. I have said several times that I do not expect the Catholic Church to compromise its defined dogmas on faith and morals. I don’t know how many times I need to say this.

You said, “We are members of Christ’s body.” I recommend for you to read (again?) Lumen Gentium and the recent iteration of the Vatican regarding the position of the Catholic Church and ecclesial communities.

I am quite aware of what Lumen Gentium says. The use of the phrase “ecclesial communities” is significant precisely because it recognizes that we do *as communities *have some (however imperfect) participation in Christ’s Body.

and also… the likes of Bp Gene Robinson, the Anglican-muslim priest(?) in Seattle were shaped by some specific beliefs and practices in YOUR tradition going back to Henry VIII?

Indeed the idolatries and errors of the sixteenth century continue to bear bitter fruit. Henry’s doctrine of the independence of national churches has been reiterated by the Episcopal Church recently (to my horror, I must confess–I really thought that we all agreed that this was blasphemous nonsense). Gene Robinson’s belief that God called him to divorce his wife and fully embrace his “gay identity” does no doubt have some things in common with Henry’s willingness to cause schism in the pursuit of an annulment. But probably more significant is the view of the Reformers that a call to celibacy must be a personal conviction and cannot be attached to external circumstances. Given what appears to be the case with regard to homosexuality (for many, not all, self-professed homosexuals), it is probably impossible to maintain the orthodox view of human sexuality and this particular view of the Reformers at the same time.

Can you hurdle all these obstructions (how about the TEC legal battles?) and say that the whole of Anglican Communion be still reunited with the RCC?

Of course not. I do not expect the whole of any currently separated Communion to be reunited with Rome, at least not in my lifetime. (Even the Assyrians split when they try for corporate reunion, and they’re probably the most favorable candidates around right now.)

Why not allow individual anglicans to decide for themselves if they want to remain Protestant or to start swimming towards Rome?

Of course individuals can decide to be Protestant. But can an individual decide for him or herself to become Catholic? They may start swimming toward Rome, but that will just result in drowning unless they arrive at the other side. And for that something more than “deciding for yourself” is required.

This is my biggest problem with conversion to Catholicism. It’s a radically Protestant act. One of these days I’m going to write a blog post called “Ten Catholic reasons to remain Protestant!”

Furthermore, the Pope has made his wishes clear. He is committed to corporate reunion, however unrealistic it may seem. I respect his wishes. Why don’t you?

I know some already did and some are even bishops(?)!

Yes. That influences me greatly. The bishop of the area where I currently reside was trying to persuade my [Methodist] wife to become Episcopalian some months ago, on the grounds that the historic home of Methodism is within Anglicanism. I was about to say that the same thing was true of Anglicanism and Catholicism, when he stopped and said: “But of course my good friend Bishop Steenson would say the same about Anglicanism and Catholicism!” Everyone seems to respect Bishop Steenson. You appear to have caught a gem in that one.

Edwin

 

[Camron]

It seems to me that thirdn6 is in fact calling for an “ecumenism of return” in more or less the exact sense rejected by Pope Benedict.

Pope Benedict is calling for a return to Catholic belief for all Christians, such as the Creeds which talk about matters of faith.

The Creeds, however, never speak of matters of spirituality or discipline, two things which Pope Benedict XVI is allowing people of different Christian denominational backgrounds to retain (along with their liturgical forms and disciplines for example).

As I understand it, this “ecumenism of return” expects Protestants who reunite to be simply folded back into the Roman Catholic Church (I am using that term in its strict and proper sense) as if they had never left. Hence thirdn6’s frequent references to “bona fide RCs” and things of that nature.

I’d have to look into that further. It was not a thought that I had thought deeply about. Then again, I’ve always been Catholic since I was baptized as a babe, so I have difficulty placing myself in the position of a potential convert to the Catholic Church.

Others in my family have converted from Protestant backgrounds and would probably grasp this perspective better.

I find that to be a bizarre statement coming from a Catholic.

What’s so bizarre about it?

What I find bizarre is a non-Catholic explaining to other Catholics what needs to be done within the Catholic Church for non-Catholics to join the Catholic Church even though the non-Catholic hasn’t actually joined the Catholic Church yet.

That’s kind of bizarre in my opinion.

We do not exist solely as individuals.

Then you can speak to Karl Keating about that one. The quote was paraphrased from his own E-letter which I provided a link to already.

I agree with him on this matter too.

Now, as far as I see it, if you have not been confirmed in the Catholic faith, then you are not in the Catholic faith in the “Big C” Catholic sense. You are indeed a separated brethren and playing semantic games with whether or not you are (or will someday be) considered Catholic even though you say you are not a part of the Catholic Church and currently know that you are not Catholic.

There’s no mystery here Edwin. You are currently not Catholic.

Regarding a retrofit for the status of the Anglican orders during the separation, a special revelation may come. But I don’t think it will be happening anytime soon. And, to be honest, I think that’s something that God will only decide in the end of time.

We are members of Christ’s Body.

If you are not Catholic then you are one of the separated brethren. There’s no disputing this point from a distinctly Catholic perspective.

Our practices and beliefs have been shaped by specific traditions of Christianity

There’s no doubt about this part noted above.

…all of which go back to the “undivided” Catholic Church of the first millennium…

But this part I would seriously question.

Not all theologies, spiritualities, liturgical forms, and disciplines within the Anglican branch go back to the “undivided” Catholic Church of the first millennium. There are indeed some theologies, spiritualities, liturgical forms, and disciplines within the contemporary Anglican branch which are downright apostate.

When I‘m talking about an individual status, I’m talking about you Edwin. Because, in the end, it will have nothing to do with what your current denomination has to say. It will have everything to do with what you’ve decided to do with the knowledge that God has gifted you with.

(and in the case of Protestants and Catholics, to the pre-Reformation Western Catholic Church). So the individuals aren’t returning, but the traditions are.

I am sorry but unless a serious miracle happens, the Anglican Church will not be returning to the Catholic Church anytime soon.

Yes, “polite dialogue” will continue.

Yes, individuals leaving the Anglican Church will be coming to the Catholic Church for the “first time” too.

But, based on its current trajectory, the Anglican Church, will not be “returning” to Rome anytime soon, which is truly sad. And I think you already know this to be true too, even though you keep hoping for something that’s mostl likely not going to come.

Ironically, your deafness to the relevance of “return” language indicates just how radically you have bought into “ecumenism of return.”

Excuse me but I’m not deaf to the relevance of the “return” language. And if you disagree with the idea that you would be coming to the Catholic Church for the “first time”, then you can take that up on the E-letter page where the thought came from in the first place. I’m quite sure that Mr. Keating is not deaf to the relevance of the “return” language either.

To me the principal mark of such an approach is that it insists on treating non-Catholics as individuals.

And since when did treating people on an individual one-to-one basis become a bad thing?

The point Pope Benedict made in 2005 was that he wants to reunite *traditions *of Christianity, not simply convert individuals.

Yes, I know. But you’re taking the Pope’s language too far and making it out as if he had nothing at all to say about individual conversion. He’s not talking about groups of people sticking around in another non-Catholic denomination (a non-Catholic denomination which does not have valid sacraments and is quickly falling away from heresy [in the more “liberal sectors”] and land-sliding into toward a depth of apostasy) in the vain hopes of restoring the denomination back into a Catholic status.

That’s not what he’s saying at all.

He is saying to come to the Catholic Church and bring your Anglican theologies, spiritualities, liturgical forms, and disciplines that are not contrary to Catholic teaching with you, just as the Venerable John Henry Cardinal Newman did.

He’s saying that we can learn from each other. And their coming to join us would enrich the lives of all Catholics in doing so, precisely because they (Anglicans) would have many valid gifts to enhance the Catholic faith.

This is much more difficult, but much more worthwhile.

Actually, it’s impossible given the current state of entire spectrum of the Anglican Churches as is, and you should know this by now. There may be smaller bodies within the Anglican Churches which convert en masse (I could see this happening). But an entire conversion of all the Anglican Churches will not be forthcoming.

Furthermore, it is not more worthwhile if individuals within these Anglican Churches refuse to convert to the Catholic faith in the vain hope that their denomination will reconcile with the Catholic Church to achieve a “retroactive Catholic status”. In fact, if that’s what going on, then they have totally missed what Pope Benedict XVI is actually calling for in the first place.

In Christ,
Edwin

Aye, and may the Lord’s Face shine upon you as well Edwin.

 

[Lilyflower]

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

I find ‘Roman’ Catholic very contentious and provocative. In Northern Ireland during the troubles, ‘Roman’ was sectarian and intended to be. It was used to provoke and intimidate Catholics.

 

[Alethiaphile]

He said: “Ultimately, it is a question of the identity of the Anglican Church. Where does it belong? Does it belong more to the Churches of the first millennium – Catholic and Orthodox – or does it belong more to the Protestant churches of the 16th century?

Notice that Bishop Kasper classifies both the Catholic and Orthodox as “Churches of the first millenium” together over against Protestantism, yet:

1. Catholics and Orthodox disagree as to which is truly the Chruch of the first millenium, and
2. On many points the Orthodox have more in common with the Anglicans than with Rome. Joe

 

[comfort1st]

the true Catholic Church- taken as already a proper name for the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of our Lord Jesus Christ since the time of the early christians.

Since the Greek did of the NT didn’t use upper and lower case letters the more authentic reading is “the one holy catholic and apostolic church of our Lord Jesus Christ”

“Catholic” in the sense of the first century always meant universal.

 

[comfort1st]

Lilyflower quoted Lepanto asking us not to use the term “Roman Catholic” because it’s inaccurate.

The term “Roman Catholic” is used internationally to refer to that part of the catholic church which is dictated to by the see of Rome (ie by the Pope), to distinguish it from other parts of the catholic church.

Some time ago I came across a story about a village which put down a well and claimed to have the best water in the world. Another village, some distance away, also put down a well, and claimed IT had the best water in the world. Then a third village did the same. An argument raged for years as to who had the best water. That was, until someone discovered that all were tapping the same source - a river flowing beneath all three.

The Roman Catholic church doesn’t have exclusive right to all the answers, any more than any other church does.

The gospel reading set for the 21st of May in the common lectionary used by Australian churches was Mark 9:38-41 in which Christ chastised the disciples for stopping someone from casting out demons simply because he didn’t belong to their group. It’s about time we ALL stopped telling God who can be in “the true church” and just concentrate on making disciples for Christ.

 

[chris_molter]

Notice that Bishop Kasper classifies both the Catholic and Orthodox as “Churches of the first millenium” together over against Protestantism, yet:

1. Catholics and Orthodox disagree as to which is truly the Chruch of the first millenium, and
2. On many points the Orthodox have more in common with the Anglicans than with Rome. Joe

True enough, but:

1. The Catholic Church DOES recognize the validity of Orthodox sacraments (thereby making them a Church). Some Orthodox reciprocate, although getting the Orthodox to agree entirely on anything ecclesial is like herding wet cats.
2. That can be argued, however, (overall) the Orthodox are no more willing to grant the validity of Anglican Orders than the Catholics.

For either Anglicans or Catholics to try to use the Orthodox as some sort of club against the other is disingenuous. Anglicanism is, by and large, Western in its theology and outlook. It was part of the Roman communion, not the Eastern, and that history will always color its identity.

 

[chris_molter]

Lilyflower quoted Lepanto asking us not to use the term “Roman Catholic” because it’s inaccurate.

The term “Roman Catholic” is used internationally to refer to that part of the catholic church which is dictated to by the see of Rome (ie by the Pope), to distinguish it from other parts of the catholic church.

Are you aware of the polemic origin of the term? Also, neither Catholics nor Orthodox agree that there are other “parts” of the Catholic Church.

Some time ago I came across a story about a village which put down a well and claimed to have the best water in the world. Another village, some distance away, also put down a well, and claimed IT had the best water in the world. Then a third village did the same. An argument raged for years as to who had the best water. That was, until someone discovered that all were tapping the same source - a river flowing beneath all three.

Again, neither Rome nor Constantinople buy the “branch theory”, nor do most Anglicans.

The Roman Catholic church doesn’t have exclusive right to all the answers, any more than any other church does.

Nor does Rome claim such a thing.

The gospel reading set for the 21st of May in the common lectionary used by Australian churches was Mark 9:38-41 in which Christ chastised the disciples for stopping someone from casting out demons simply because he didn’t belong to their group. It’s about time we ALL stopped telling God who can be in “the true church” and just concentrate on making disciples for Christ.

I agree up to a point. However, just because we have allies, both Christian and non-Christian in the fight against secularism, injustice, etc. doesn’t mean we ought to stop asserting the truth. To cease doing so would be an injustice.

But yes, let us not make the best the enemy of the good!

 

[Contarini]

Pope Benedict is calling for a return to Catholic belief for all Christians, such as the Creeds which talk about matters of faith.

The Creeds, however, never speak of matters of spirituality or discipline, two things which Pope Benedict XVI is allowing people of different Christian denominational backgrounds to retain (along with their liturgical forms and disciplines for example).

He explicitly mentioned theology.

What’s so bizarre about it?

What I said. It implies that people exist in abstraction from the traditions of Christianity that have shaped them, so that if I as an individual Protestant was never a member of the Catholic Church, it makes no sense to speak of the community to which I belong “returning” to the Catholic Church. The point is that we are all members of communities and traditions, and these communities have histories. They can “return” to something from which they have long been separated, even if all of their members were baptized into the separated communities and have never belonged to the parent tradition. The fact that Mr. Keating, who puts himself forward as a spokesperson for Catholicism, does not see something so obvious is truly bizarre. It shows just how deeply the American Catholic “apologetics” movement has been infected by fundamentalist Protestant ideas.

What I find bizarre is a non-Catholic explaining to other Catholics what needs to be done within the Catholic Church for non-Catholics to join the Catholic Church even though the non-Catholic hasn’t actually joined the Catholic Church yet.

That’s kind of bizarre in my opinion.

What’s bizarre about it? It’s only bizarre if you see ecumenism as unconditional surrender of one party. If ecumenism is our mutual discernment of the requirements of the one Catholic Faith we both profess, then there is nothing bizarre about either side pointing out things that need to be corrected in the other. Neither, might I add, is there anything bizarre or unfair about the process requiring far more concessions on one side or the other. I’m not suggesting that Anglicans and members of the Roman Communion enter this conversation on an equal footing.

Then you can speak to Karl Keating about that one. The quote was paraphrased from his own E-letter which I provided a link to already.

Probably speaking to Karl Keating would be a good idea, rather than trying to refute his ideas in the mouths of others. Thanks for the suggestion, but it’s perfectly irrelevant to the present discussion. You chose to make his ideas your own. If you can’t defend them, why adopt them? If you can defend them, why not do so?

I agree with him on this matter too.

So why hide behind him? Why not tell me why you hold to this odd, radically individualistic, uniquely modern and fundamentally Protestant approach? (Or rather, let’s have a discussion about why I think all those epithets are justified!)

Now, as far as I see it, if you have not been confirmed in the Catholic faith, then you are not in the Catholic faith in the “Big C” Catholic sense. You are indeed a separated brethren and playing semantic games with whether or not you are (or will someday be) considered Catholic even though you say you are not a part of the Catholic Church and currently know that you are not Catholic.

Sigh. That is not the issue. The issue is that we as Anglicans do have elements of the Catholic Faith. Your Church admits this explicitly. Furthermore–and this is clearly what Pope Benedict was talking about in 2005–some of the ways we express and articulate the Faith are ways that are not found, or not found in the same quality and quantity, within the Roman Communion as currently articulated. This is what the ecumenists and hierarchs of your Church recognize. But zealous conservative Catholic laypeople can’t get their heads around the idea, it appears.

Regarding a retrofit for the status of the Anglican orders during the separation

That’s not what I’m talking about. I have said over and over that any reunion would involve conditional ordination. I don’t understand why this is not getting across.

If you are not Catholic then you are one of the separated brethren.

I don’t see why you think this is a matter of debate.

Not all

theologies, spiritualities, liturgical forms, and disciplines within the Anglican branch go back to the “undivided” Catholic Church of the first millennium.

I never said that. My point is that the Anglican tradition as a whole does derive from the pre-Reformation Catholic Church (as do all branches of Protestantism, even the Anabaptists). And again, this is not controversial in the eyes of your Pope and bishops. Therefore, Mr. Keating’s denial of the applicability of the word “return” is downright silly.

And since when did treating people on an individual one-to-one basis become a bad thing?

Since Jesus Christ poured out His Precious Blood on the Cross to bring us into one Body.

He’s not talking about groups of people sticking around in another non-Catholic denomination (a non-Catholic denomination which does not have valid sacraments and is quickly falling away from heresy [in the more “liberal sectors”] and land-sliding into toward a depth of apostasy) in the vain hopes of restoring the denomination back into a Catholic status.

That’s not what he’s saying at all.

He is saying to come to the Catholic Church and bring your Anglican theologies, spiritualities, liturgical forms, and disciplines that are not contrary to Catholic teaching with you, just as the Venerable John Henry Cardinal Newman did.

He didn’t do that. You can’t do that as an individual. He was clearly speaking about communities, not individuals. You are, again, so deeply influenced by American individualism that you can’t see things any other way (as is your great authority Mr. Keating).

I do not expect the entire Anglican Communion to be reunited with the Catholic Church, at least not for a very long time.

What I would like to see is for the Catholic Church to make an explicit and public statement, based on the results of the ARCIC dialogs, as to the precise grounds on which Anglicans may reunite with the Roman Communion. Then we’d know where we stand. I’m frustrated by the endless diplomacy myself.

Edwin

Edwin