So, is the Ordinariate dead? (Pope-related)

  • Thread starter Thread starter Indifferently
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I

Indifferently

Guest
Bishop Gregory Venables says, of the new Pope, reportedly a close friend:

"…He is much more of a Christian, Christ centered and Spirit filled, than a mere churchman. He believes the Bible as it is written. I have been with him on many occasions and he always makes me sit next to him and invariably makes me take part and often do what he as Cardinal should have done. He is consistently humble and wise, outstandingly gifted yet a common man. He is no fool and speaks out very quietly yet clearly when necessary. He called me to have breakfast with him one morning and told me very clearly that the Ordinariate was quite unnecessary and that the church needs us as Anglicans. I consider this to be an inspired appointment not because he is a close and personal friend but because of who he is In Christ. Pray for him.”

This is hugely encouraging for Anglicans. Does this mean that the Ordinariates are dead? They will sort of disappear without much fanfare anyway, having not really got off the ground, and having no or minimal support from the Roman Catholic hierarchy in England anyway (don’t know about the situation in the States).

Also, when Venables says the Cardinal “invariably makes me take part and often do what he as Cardinal should have done” is this a change in attitude? Of course, the Pope has yet to experience - at a guess - the heresy and apostasy prevalent in Anglicanism in certain developed countries (which might serve to change his mind) but this is a very positive thing indeed.

Have we any reason to assume Bishop Venables is not telling the truth?

Thoughts?
 
I hope this isn’t what it sounds like; we don’t need them as Anglicans anymore than we need them as Muslims or Buddhists.
 
Indifferently said:
Have we any reason to assume Bishop Venables is not telling the truth?
Click to expand...
He is an Anglican “bishop” claiming that the sitting pope has taken part in the sin of indifferentism and presumably has not repented. Forgive me if I assume the pope is innocent until proven guilty.
 
Hmm, not entirely sure what this could mean… though my first thought upon reading it was that he meant he wants the *whole *Anglican church back in full communion with Rome… not just a small part with a different name.

There are so many possible interpretations, however, that it is difficult to speculate on what impact this might have in the future.
 
Inego_de_Loyola said:
He is an Anglican “bishop” claiming that the sitting pope has taken part in the sin of indifferentism and presumably has not repented. Forgive me if I assume the pope is innocent until proven guilty.
Click to expand...
How charitable.
 
Indifferently said:
How charitable.
Click to expand...
The most charitable act one could possibly perform towards your fellowman is to bring him into the fold of Christs church. There is no higher good. If anyone should preach a gospel besides that which we have received, even if he be an apostle or an angel from heaven, let him be anathema.
 
Inego_de_Loyola said:
The most charitable act one could possibly perform towards your fellowman is to bring him into the fold of Christs church. There is no higher good. If anyone should preach a gospel besides that which we have received, even if he be an apostle or an angel from heaven, let him be anathema.
Click to expand...
Yes, I have heard all this before, but thank you anyway.

This topic is actually about the future of the Ordinariate and relations between the Roman Church and the Anglican churches. If you are interested in that I would love to hear what you say. It’s more analysis than the standard Ultramontane stuff that we get on this forum every couple of minutes.
 
The Ordinariate seems to be doing quite well in the U.S. Why would it be dead?

I recall when Ratzinger was elected Pope how people predicted “God’s Rotweiler” would be going after anyone and everyone, excommunicating people left and right.

That’s not what happened. Francis is the Pope now. It’s a different office with a different purpose. There’s no need to scour back over everything he ever said or did and try to interpret it as some tell-tale sign that he is going to make a drastic change in course.
 
Indifferently said:
They will sort of disappear without much fanfare anyway, having not really got off the ground, and having no or minimal support from the Roman Catholic hierarchy in England anyway (don’t know about the situation in the States).
Click to expand...
I am not sure where you are getting your information, but the ordinariates seem to be doing quite well to me.
ordinariate.org.uk/groups
usordinariate.org/communities.html
anglicanuse.org/Links.htm
Also, when Venables says the Cardinal “invariably makes me take part and often do what he as Cardinal should have done” is this a change in attitude? Of course, the Pope has yet to experience - at a guess - the heresy and apostasy prevalent in Anglicanism in certain developed countries (which might serve to change his mind) but this is a very positive thing indeed.
Click to expand...
Have we any reason to assume Bishop Venables is not telling the truth?
Click to expand...
Thoughts?
Click to expand...
Its hard to know what to make of these statements, though I agree they are disturbing to say the least. Hopefully the Holy Father will clarify them in the coming months so that these things can be sorted out.
 
Indifferently said:
Yes, I have heard all this before, but thank you anyway.

This topic is actually about the future of the Ordinariate and relations between the Roman Church and the Anglican churches. If you are interested in that I would love to hear what you say. It’s more analysis than the standard Ultramontane stuff that we get on this forum every couple of minutes.
Click to expand...
I. It is hardly ultramonatism to suggest that the church of Rome, by reason of its preeminence, is the church to which all churches must be in accord.

II. I do not predict that a pope so pastoral as Francis would cast these faithful out on their ears or cease to accept others who wish to join the fold.

III. I am disinclined to believe the account of Mr.Venables, but if it is true I don’t think it would be wise to interpret it in a way that contradicts point two.
 
I suspect the historical error of Apostolicae Curae will not be reconsidered (alas). However, let us hope that some progress will be made.

The Ordinariate in Britain has I think only managed to attract a paltry 1000 parishioners, which was hardly the mass exodus that the Roman Catholic media in Britain (Catholic Herald, Daily Telegraph) were predicting. Not only that, but antipathy towards the whole thing from English Roman bishops has been pretty obvious from the start. I think most people saw through the promises about keeping some alleged ‘patrimony’, where actually what was required of them was total submission and nothing else.
 
Inego_de_Loyola said:
III. I am disinclined to believe the account of Mr.Venables, but if it is true I don’t think it would be wise to interpret it in a way that contradicts point two.
Click to expand...
I know you think you are being incredibly clever by not extending Bishop Venables the courtesy of his title, but Roman Catholic ecumenical norms are such that you ought to, as the official organs of the Roman Church do so these days. But yes, I suppose yawn you are showing us true charity with your mode of expression (I’ve only been posting here a few months but it is wearisome).

As for this statement, you are ‘disinclined’ to believe him. Fair enough. But what reason would he have for lying?
 
Indifferently said:
I suspect the historical error of Apostolicae Curae will not be reconsidered (alas). However, let us hope that some progress will be made.
Click to expand...
The whole of Christendom in council at Florence agreed that intent to do as the church does is necessary for the confection of a sacrament. The only true ordinations in the Anglican faith have come through infusion from the “Old Catholics” and perhaps other apostolic churchs.
 
Inego_de_Loyola said:
The whole of Christendom in council at Florence agreed that intent to do as the church does is necessary for the confection of a sacrament. The only true ordinations in the Anglican faith have come through infusion from the “Old Catholics” and perhaps other apostolic churchs.
Click to expand...
The Church of England is an apostolic church. This is an historical fact. And the Council of Florence of the 15th Century is not an ecumenical council. But, that is of course where we differ, and the topic is not about this.
 
Indifferently said:
I know you think you are being incredibly clever by not extending Bishop Venables the courtesy of his title…
Click to expand...
It is not cleverness, but propriety not to call a man who is not ordained a bishop. I extend him the title of human respect of “Mr.”, but it would be a betrayal of conscience to provide him the title of apostolic respect “bishop”.
Indifferently said:
As for this statement, you are ‘disinclined’ to believe him. Fair enough. But what reason would he have for lying?
Click to expand...
Would you describe him as being opposed to the ordinariates?
 
Inego_de_Loyola said:
I think you know in detail why we disagree on this point.
That’s a new one on me. How is the council of Florence not Ecumenical?
Click to expand...
The last ecumenical council properly speaking is the Second Council of Nicaea in 787. This was the seventh ecumenical council of the universal Church. The councils following the Great Schism simply do not have that authority, because of the divided nature of the church.
 
Indifferently said:
The last ecumenical council properly speaking is the Second Council of Nicaea in 787. This was the seventh ecumenical council of the universal Church. The councils following the Great Schism simply do not have that authority, because of the divided nature of the church.
Click to expand...
:tiphat:
I. Are you aware that the eastern schismatics were represented at the council of Florence which principally was meant to reunite the churches? It almost succeeded too. It was the rebellious flock that greeted the eastern bishops upon their return that prevented it from having the intended result.

II. why do the councils from Chalcedon onward count as ecumenical? After all the church was divided when the oriental orthodox entered into schism.
 
Indifferently said:
The Church of England is an apostolic church. This is an historical fact. And the Council of Florence of the 15th Century is not an ecumenical council. But, that is of course where we differ, and the topic is not about this.
Click to expand...
How can it be an apostolic church? It was beget by the disobedience of Henry VIII?

And which apostle is it connected to?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top