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

[Jonathan_Cid]

I’m glad Cardinal Kasper is calling on the Anglicans to make that decision, but honestly, why would they listen to the Cardinal? Perhaps the ones who see themselves as Catholics would, but the ones who see themselves as Protestants, why should they care what the Cardinal has to say?

 

[Angainor]

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

That headline is bizarre. Isn’t it Rome that presumes to tell the Anglicans if they are Protestant or Catholic? Can anyone decide if they are Protestant or Catholic or just the Anglicans?

I realize that is just the Telegraph headline and Rome probably didn’t phrase it that way.

 

[chris_molter]

That headline is bizarre. Isn’t it Rome that presumes to tell the Anglicans if they are Protestant or Catholic? Can anyone decide if they are Protestant or Catholic or just the Anglicans?

I realize that is just the Telegraph headline and Rome probably didn’t phrase it that way.

Well, really, it’s all about ecumenism. It’s harder for Rome to have real dialogue if the Anglicans can’t even decide what they believe. In any case, if they were to decide to lean towards a more Anglo-Catholic stance (as it looked in the mid 20th century), then we could really start working towards real unity. Otherwise, if they decide to go all evangelical on us, then we can dialogue with them the way we would with ELCA or any other mainline Protestant body.

why should they care what the Cardinal has to say?

Even the liberals and evangelicals in the Anglican world can care what a senior churchman from another communion has to say. It’s called ecumenism, and some people think it’s a good idea when properly approached and implemented

 

[comfort1st]

Nowhere does it say that the Church has “all the truth”. It DOES say that it cannot err in teaching the Faith.

Doesn’t that mean that where the faith is based on a misunderstanding then that faith is in error? Surely if we misunderstand scripture because we fail to put a passage in context then aspects of faith built on that scripture will be in error.

But who would want to hold fast to a Church that claims it CAN teach error?

I’d prefer to worship in a church which admits to its humanness, and the possibility that it can get things wrong.

Steven

 

[Peter_J]

That headline is bizarre. Isn’t it Rome that presumes to tell the Anglicans if they are Protestant or Catholic? Can anyone decide if they are Protestant or Catholic or just the Anglicans?

I realize that is just the Telegraph headline

It’s not even that, as far I know. “Rome tells Anglicans: it’s time to decide if you are Protestants or Catholics” is the headline of a blog.

and Rome probably didn’t phrase it that way.

I’d call that a very good probability.

 

[Jonathan_Cid]

I wouldn’t doubt no one in Rome has even said anything to the effect of Anglicans having to choose whether they are Protest-ant or Catholic.

 

[chris_molter]

Doesn’t that mean that where the faith is based on a misunderstanding then that faith is in error? Surely if we misunderstand scripture because we fail to put a passage in context then aspects of faith built on that scripture will be in error.

You are correct, my friend. This is exactly what the Catholic Church claims the Holy Spirit will not allow to happen when it teaches definitively.

I’d prefer to worship in a church which admits to its humanness, and the possibility that it can get things wrong.

Steven

Well, it’s one thing when the members of the Church recognize their humanness and potential to get things wrong (we don’t think the Pope is infallible except in **extremely **limited circumstances). It’s another thing entirely to believe that the Holy Spirit will let the Body of Christ get things wrong. We certainly don’t think the Church is always infallible, even in matters of faith and morals (trust me, there are plenty of faithful critiques of things the Church does), but when the Church says “This is the Truth that has been handed down by the Apostles”, then we believe that the Holy Spirit is speaking infallibly through the Church, just as it did when it inspired the writers of Holy Scripture.

Do you think after those writers died that the Holy Spirit withdrew from the Church and allowed her to teach erroneous things about God and the Faith using that infallible scripture?

If so, the whole idea of the Trinity could be wrong, couldn’t it?

How can we trust the Church to make infallible decisions then, but think that it can’t now?

 

[KingAlfred]

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

I met an Anglican bishop whose residence and church looked like Catholic ‘mock-ups’. My first impression was negative. I privately wondered, “Why not just become Catholic if you’re so determined to copy all things Catholic?”

 

[mercygate]

Many converts from Protestant sects to Catholicism report joining an Anglican/Episcopal church (seeking a more liturgical form of worship) and then later joining the Catholic Church. In this way, the Anglican Communion serves a valuable “bridge” function. I would not want to see this resource disappear just yet.

I don’t think that’s what you meant, but you reminded me of it.

God bless you,
Paul

Anglicanism, for me, functioned more like a ladder than a bridge. It enabled me to “up-church” in manageable stages before becoming fully Catholic. I don’t know how the Lord would have captured me without that staging process. I am sure He would have; but I cannot imagine it.

I will forever be grateful for the deeply catholic training and formation I received as an Anglican. Frankly, with the Catholic Church in the condition it has been in for the past 40 years, it is very difficult to become Cathoic AS a Catholic.

 

[Contarini]

Many converts from Protestant sects to Catholicism report joining an Anglican/Episcopal church (seeking a more liturgical form of worship) and then later joining the Catholic Church. In this way, the Anglican Communion serves a valuable “bridge” function. I would not want to see this resource disappear just yet.

I don’t think that’s what you meant, but you reminded me of it.

That’s one thing I meant. Obviously I would prefer to see corporate rather than merely individual reunion (since the reunion of individuals with the See of Rome means their separation from the Christians with whom they have been in communion–though of course a corporate reunion would in practice also mean the separation of Christians, since it’s highly unlikely that any existing ecclesiastical body could possibly unite with Rome without some dissenters refusing to go along).

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Anglicanism, for me, functioned more like a ladder than a bridge. It enabled me to “up-church” in manageable stages before becoming fully Catholic. I don’t know how the Lord would have captured me without that staging process. I am sure He would have; but I cannot imagine it.

I will forever be grateful for the deeply catholic training and formation I received as an Anglican. Frankly, with the Catholic Church in the condition it has been in for the past 40 years, it is very difficult to become Cathoic AS a Catholic.

I don’t have a problem with the “ladder” metaphor. I’m skeptical as to whether, as things are now, conversion to Catholicism is a simple “upgrade” with no losses taking place. (Even Newman implicitly admitted that this was not the case by the very title of his autobiographical novel describing conversion.) But I will not quarrel with the assertion that the losses are peripheral in comparison with the gains. Personally, it’s difficult to believe this firmly enough to make the jump. But that is very likely due to my own weakness.

Edwin

 

[mercygate]

I don’t have a problem with the “ladder” metaphor. I’m skeptical as to whether, as things are now, conversion to Catholicism is a simple “upgrade” with no losses taking place. (Even Newman implicitly admitted that this was not the case by the very title of his autobiographical novel describing conversion.) But I will not quarrel with the assertion that the losses are peripheral in comparison with the gains. Personally, it’s difficult to believe this firmly enough to make the jump. But that is very likely due to my own weakness.

Edwin

Well, just an off-topic observation. I’m eight years across the Tiber and I still pine for the beauty of my former Communion. That’s just the reality. Nevertheless, the peace is indescribable. Absolutely indescribable. I could not have imagined it.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Many converts from Protestant sects to Catholicism report joining an Anglican/Episcopal church (seeking a more liturgical form of worship) and then later joining the Catholic Church. In this way, the Anglican Communion serves a valuable “bridge” function. I would not want to see this resource disappear just yet.

I don’t think that’s what you meant, but you reminded me of it.

God bless you,
Paul

Funny, I always use bridges to cross to get somewhere. I don’t dawdle on them, except maybe to go fishin’ for a while, but then I go home.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

You are correct, my friend. This is exactly what the Catholic Church claims the Holy Spirit will not allow to happen when it teaches definitively.

Well, it’s one thing when the members of the Church recognize their humanness and potential to get things wrong (we don’t think the Pope is infallible except in **extremely **limited circumstances). It’s another thing entirely to believe that the Holy Spirit will let the Body of Christ get things wrong. We certainly don’t think the Church is always infallible, even in matters of faith and morals (trust me, there are plenty of faithful critiques of things the Church does), but when the Church says “This is the Truth that has been handed down by the Apostles”, then we believe that the Holy Spirit is speaking infallibly through the Church, just as it did when it inspired the writers of Holy Scripture.

Do you think after those writers died that the Holy Spirit withdrew from the Church and allowed her to teach erroneous things about God and the Faith using that infallible scripture?

If so, the whole idea of the Trinity could be wrong, couldn’t it?

How can we trust the Church to make infallible decisions then, but think that it can’t now?

You mean like “filioque?”

 

[chris_molter]

You mean like “filioque?”

Yep, exactly. Of course that’s within the context of the western approach to theology. Within that context, yes, the filioque is to be understood as an article of faith, however, Eastern Catholics (IIRC) aren’t required to subscribe to that approach, merely to hold that the filioque is not heretical.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Yep, exactly. Of course that’s within the context of the western approach to theology. Within that context, yes, the filioque is to be understood as an article of faith, however, Eastern Catholics (IIRC) aren’t required to subscribe to that approach, merely to hold that the filioque is not heretical.

that’s what seperates the Orthodox from the…

 

[chris_molter]

that’s what seperates the Orthodox from the…

Of course. However, in the grand scope of things, the filioque is a mere detail versus the larger issues of ecclesiology and authority. I think if we keep those as the paramount issues, all the others will fall into place on their own (or at least with greater ease).

Unless the Russians start getting all imperial on everyone…

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Of course. However, in the grand scope of things, the filioque is a mere detail versus the larger issues of ecclesiology and authority. I think if we keep those as the paramount issues, all the others will fall into place on their own (or at least with greater ease).

Unless the Russians start getting all imperial on everyone…

…or Orthodox contra mundi, a la St. Athanasius.

 

[chris_molter]

…or Orthodox contra mundi, a la St. Athanasius.

I suppose, if you’re bound and determined to see it from that POV.

Of course, at that point, Orthodoxy could be in the deep end with the EP and his allies vs the Russians and theirs. All the dirty laundry would come out, anathemas would be hurled, and communions broken. Old Calendarist redux.

I don’t think anyone wants that. Not y’all. Not Rome. Not me.

Whether we like it or not, we’re going to end up in communion eventually (decades or centuries from now, probably). Better to start working on the project now than to wait for the boss to show up and get all mad at us for not doing what we were supposed to while he was on lunch break

 

[Lepanto]

A very important development…

mail.google.com/mail/?shva=1#inbox/11b766876ada46ed

Vatican Considering Union Request From Anglicans
Cardinal Says Congregation Giving Proposal “Serious Attention”

VATICAN CITY, JULY 30, 2008 (Zenit.org).- The Holy See is following with “serious attention” the request from the Traditional Anglican Communion for “full, corporate, sacramental union” with Rome.

This was affirmed by the prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal William Levada, in a July 5 letter to the primate of the Anglican group, Archbishop John Hepworth.

The letter was written before the beginning of the Lambeth Conference, the once-a-decade gathering of Anglican leaders that is under way in England through Aug. 4. The Lambeth Conference is facing unprecedented controversy, and some bishops boycotted it altogether.

The conflict within the Communion has arisen over debate about the possibility of ordaining homosexual bishops and blessing homosexual marriages. A synod decision this summer to pave the way for the episcopal ordination of women has further alienated some Anglican leaders, many of whom were in disagreement with the Communion’s decision to ordain women as priests.

According to Cardinal Levada’s letter, “over the course of the past year, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has studied the proposals which you presented on behalf of the House of Bishops of the Traditional Anglican Communion during your visit to the offices of this dicastery on Oct. 9, 2007.”

“As the summer months approach, I wish to assure you the serious attention which the congregation gives to the prospect of corporate unity raised in that letter,” the cardinal added.

The Traditional Anglican Communion states that its aim is “to recall Anglicanism to its heritage, to heal divisions caused by departures from the faith, and to build a vibrant church for the future based on powerful local leadership.” By some counts, it has about 400,000 faithful. If the request for “corporate union” is deemed possible, it would imply the entrance of entire parish communities into communion with Rome.

Cardinal Levada acknowledged that “the situation within the Anglican Communion in general has become markedly more complex” since the Traditional Anglican Communion’s request was originally made.

He affirmed that “as soon as the congregation is in position to respond more definitely concerning the proposals you have sent, we will inform you.”

The Anglican primate received the letter via the apostolic nuncio in Australia last Friday.

He immediately made public a note expressing his gratitude for the Vatican message.

“It is a letter of warmth and encouragement,” he said. “I have responded, expressing my gratitude on behalf of ‘my brother bishops,’ reaffirming our determination to achieve the unity for which Jesus prayed with such intensity at the Last Supper, no matter what the personal cost this might mean in our discipleship.”

“This letter should encourage our entire Communion, and those friends who have been assisting us,” Archbishop Hepworth added. “It should also spur us to renewed prayer for the Holy Father, for Cardinal Levada and his staff at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and for all our clergy and people as we move to ever closer communion in Christ with the Holy See.”