Watching the death of a Church?

I have to ask….

Is there anyone in the Anglican Communion really thinking that the Church of England, etc., will be taken more seriously if they consecrate woman as bishops?

The theologicai hermeneutic for the Anglican Communion seems to be the latest social trend.

When the next thing comes along…. say… polygamy or blessing pedophilia.  

As the social trends push on them, they cave in and nothing in Scripture in going to hold them back from caving in? 

Is this how they are going?

Like astronomers watching a sta go black, are we watching the death of a Church?

As I muse on these things, I open my mail to see the following from our friend, Fr. Dwight Longenecker:

As a former Anglican priest I am covering the Anglican crisis in some detail on my blog.

I have just posted advice for Anglican priests seeking to convert. I have included a free offer of my book, The Path to Rome–Modern Journeys to the Catholic Church. This is a book of mostly Anglican conversion stories.

To help in this ecumenical and evangelistic endeavor would you please put something about this on your blog? I know a good number of traditionalist Anglicans read your blog and it might offer them some encouragement and help.

Dictum factum.

 

 

FacebookEmailPinterestGoogle GmailShare/Bookmark

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in SESSIUNCULA. Bookmark the permalink.

93 Responses to Watching the death of a Church?

  1. Steve K. says:

    We are in fact watching the steady implosion of a church. I believe the Lord has abandoned the AC in part as a sign to the rest of us – we all know the sorts who reduced the AC to this state, as we have like-minded people in the Church who have been trying to change the Church so it resembles something like what the AC is becoming.

    Just to preempt the inevitable comments about what gave birth to the AC in the first place and how some might think they had it coming – seeing any Christian faith community, no matter what defects, become twisted into an apostate, pagan group is a sad day. Remember, these folks still present themselves as Christians, so their potential of deceiving many is great.

  2. Thanks Fr. Z. Your observations about the Anglican Church are interesting. The answer to the first question is, “Yes, liberal Anglicans do think that this gives their church more credibility.” One of the main reasons they say they want these innovations is to show that the church can relate to the modern world. Of course, this is the flawed assumption at the root of all modernism. Secondly, mainstream Anglicanism has always followed the trend of the society in which it found itself. In the eighteenth c. an amazing number of Anglican priests were deists and freemasons. Enough. I could go on. I expect your other commenters will. Thanks for your help.

  3. pseudomodo says:

    We are not watching the death of a church..

    Remember, it’s an ecclessial community! This is what we are watching the death of. The C of E is not a church.

    Pope Leo already recognized that: No Ordination Rite = No Bishops = No Priests = fewer sacraments = no confessions = no eucharist = nothing worthwhile. A woman priest or bishop is a contradiction in terms.

  4. James M says:

    The C of E owns vast amounts of property/investments. These, not doctrine, prop it up. The future of the Anglican community is not a spiritual question but a worldly one. It was created by government and when government has done with it (which might be soon) then I guess it will disintegrate utterly. And how much harm has been done to souls in all this! God have mercy on us.

  5. CTrent1564 says:

    pseudomodo:

    As a general principle, you are correct. Pop Leo (1896) stated that Anglican orders were not valid. However, some of the Anglicans, i.e. those who were part of the Oxford Movement (Tractarians) and saw themselves as Anglo-Catholics whose goal it was to bring England back into Communion with Rome in a corporate manner had their orders regularized by some of the Old Catholic Bishops who did not accept the canons from Vatican I. Of course, in the last 20 to 30 years, the Old Catholics also began to “ordain women” following the lead of the Church of England, Lutheran, and other Protestant confessions. Still, one has to recognize that it is possible that some of these Catholic leaning Anglicans “may have valid” orders and because of that, I think former Anglican Bishop of London, Graham Leonard, who is now Monsignor Graham Leonard, was ordained “conditionally” since his orders were traced back to an Anglican whose orders were regularized by the Old Catholic Bishops before the Old Catholics fell into the mondernist heresy of radical feminism, i.e. abortion, women clergy, etc, etc,.

    In summary, all of us cradle Catholics would do well to read St. Luke’s Gospel about the prodigal son (c.f. Lk 15:11-32) (or as Pope Benedict calls, the 2 brothers: See Jesus of Nazareth) and act welcome back the Anglicans to the family as oppose to acting like the Older brother in the Gospel before his Father corrected him.

    Pax et Bonum

  6. Geoff says:

    I don’t think our Anglican brethren see it in terms of being taken seriously; they taken themselves and their “prophetic” mission quite seriously enough for all of us. Indeed, they are in the worst of conditions: Convinced they are doing God’s will while working (far too often) diametrically against it.

  7. Steve K. says:

    CTrent,

    Amen.

  8. I am not Spartacus says:

    1399 The Eastern churches that are not in full communion with the Catholic Church celebrate the Eucharist with great love. “These Churches, although separated from us, yet possess true sacraments, above all – by apostolic succession – the priesthood and the Eucharist, whereby they are still joined to us in closest intimacy.” A certain communion in sacris, and so in the Eucharist, “given suitable circumstances and the approval of Church authority, is not merely possible but is encouraged.”238

    1400 Ecclesial communities derived from the Reformation and separated from the Catholic Church, “have not preserved the proper reality of the Eucharistic mystery in its fullness, especially because of the absence of the sacrament of Holy Orders.”239 It is for this reason that, for the Catholic Church, Eucharistic intercommunion with these communities is not possible. However these ecclesial communities, “when they commemorate the Lord’s death and resurrection in the Holy Supper . . . profess that it signifies life in communion with Christ and await his coming in glory.”240

  9. RBrown says:

    In summary, all of us cradle Catholics would do well to read St. Luke’s Gospel about the prodigal son (c.f. Lk 15:11-32) (or as Pope Benedict calls, the 2 brothers: See Jesus of Nazareth) and act welcome back the Anglicans to the family as oppose to acting like the Older brother in the Gospel before his Father corrected him.
    Pax et Bonum
    Comment by CTrent1564

    I’m not a cradle Catholic, and so your authority as self-appointed spiritual master to doesn’t apply to me.

  10. RBrown says:

    Pope Leo already recognized that: No Ordination Rite = No Bishops = No Priests = fewer sacraments = no confessions = no eucharist = nothing worthwhile. A woman priest or bishop is a contradiction in terms.
    Comment by pseudomodo

    For about the zillionth time here, I’ll point out that is not what Leo XIII said. He said that it was a combination of the defect in rite AND defect in intention that zapped Apostolic Succession among the Anglican.

  11. Jason says:

    No, we are not watching the death of a Church but the death of an ecclesiastical community.

  12. RBrown says:

    .The C of E owns vast amounts of property/investments. These, not doctrine, prop it up. The future of the Anglican community is not a spiritual question but a worldly one. It was created by government and when government has done with it (which might be soon) then I guess it will disintegrate utterly. And how much harm has been done to souls in all this! God have mercy on us.
    Comment by James M

    My understanding is that many of those properties have fallen into disrepair.

  13. RBrown says:

    As one who was raised an American Episcopalian, let me say that despite the nullity of their orders, to a great extent Episcopalians (and I assume Anglicans) have maintained a certain decorum in liturgy. I don’t think it ever became the McLiturgy usually fed to starving Catholics.

    And their churches are almost never of the bowling alley/airplane hangar design that has appeared in American suburbs.

  14. Romulus says:

    These, not doctrine, prop it up.

    Not to be overlooked is the potent appeal of the Anglican “brand”. For many it satisfies the natural inclination to piety. For others it satisfies social aspirations.

    It’s decades since any material number of people approached the Catholic Church in search of aesthetic satisfaction — centuries since social advancement was a motivator.

  15. Jack Regan says:

    *The C of E owns vast amounts of property/investments.*

    Indeed. Along with the NHS and Oxford & Cambridge Universities, the CofE is the largest property owner in the UK.

    Of course, as far as I know the NHS and the universities didn’t steal their land from the Catholic Church!

  16. Deusdonat says:

    At the risk of repetition (since I already posted this on another blog) I’ll repeat it again here:

    What to Incan sacrificial sites, Greek temple prostitutes and the Anglican church have in common? They are all vestiges of backwards, errant state religions which have faded into the annals of history. The Anglican church is for the most part dead, and fading before our eyes. Church attendance in the CofE within the confines of Brittain is laugible, while Catholic and Evangelical churches in London are often overflowing. The Grand Druid of the Anglican church has already resigned to let the Islamic Shari’a into Brittain, as has the pittiful “head” of the CofE, the all-but-nominally Mohammedan, Prince Charles.

    The Anglicans have already dug their grave. They can either jump into it with their leaders, or come penitently into the One True Church and live eternally.

  17. CTrent1564 says:

    RBrown:

    In all fairness, I don’t think I wrote you but since I respect the 1st amendment and freedom of speech (and of course, this is not my blog to boot), I welcome your “ad hominem post” in stating that I proclaimed myself as a “self-appointed spiritual master.” So may I ask where in fact did I “appoint myself as spritual master”.

    The facts of my post are dead on, and whether you like them, or don’t like them (which is your right), doesn’t change the fact that what I posted is in fact “fact”. Msgr. Graham Leonard was ordained “conditionally” in 1994 because his orders were in fact regularized. This ordination took place during the pontificate of Pope John Paul II and while Pope Benedict was head of CDF as Cardinal Ratzinger. Based on all accounts that I have read about, Cardinal Ratzinger was very involved in the large group of Anglican clergy who reconciled to Rome back in the period from 1992 to 1994. This number, according to Fr. Geldard and Prof. William Oddie who both have appeared on Marcus Grodi’s EWTN show in the last 2 months and who are both former Anglican clergy, is about 750, of which some 450 were ordained, and some 150 of those were ordained as married clergy. Again note that only Msgr. Leonard was ordained “conditionally” but that tells me at least, and should tell you, that it is possible that there are some other Catholic leaning Anglicans who can trace their orders back to the Old Catholics, who Rome considers had valid orders “back in the day” so to speak, before that group went against Apostolic Tradition with respect to women clergy, etc,

    For the record, I think perhaps another Anglican clergyman a Fr. John Jay Hughes, and Anglican who was received into the Catholic Church in Germany, was also conditoinally ordained. Now, in 1998 then Cardinal Ratzinger did say that Pope Leo’s (1896) statment on Anglican orders was to held as defintive, but not dogmatic, and thus still requires assent of the “mind and will” for all Catholics. So again, the normative practice is that all Anglican clergy are “unconditionally ordained” as Catholic priests. Still, I have provided you with one clear and documented example (Msgr. Graham Leonard) which challenges the notion that all Catholic leaning Anglicans have invalid orders.

    If you don’t like what I posted, challenge it on the principle and merit of my argument rather than resulting to the classic marxist-decontructionist tactic of leveling a personal attack.

    Good day to you

  18. Deusdonat says:

    RBROWN – I’m not a cradle Catholic, and so your authority as self-appointed spiritual master to doesn’t apply to me.

    Maybe not, but it doesn’t mean we can’t subtly point out that your surly demeanor and ad hominem remarks are hardly charitable (you being a convert doesn’t make you are exempt from Christianity 101 : )

  19. Ire says:

    Where is the Queen in all this?
    Isn’t she the head of the “ecclesial community”
    in England?

  20. TJM says:

    The Queen is probably shocked by the idea of women “bishops.” Tom

  21. CTrent1564 says:

    Rbrown:

    I in no way meant to distinguish between those of us “cradle Catholics” and Catholics who came into Full Communion with Rome from other Christian Confessions. I for one work with my local RCIA parish and find a love for the Catholic faith among those who enter the Catholic Church refreshing and a great source of orthodoxy for the Catholic Church.

    I interpreted, incorrectly I see, that you were also a cradle Catholic acting uncharitable towards Catholic leaning Anglicans. I am a Catholic who supports the papacy to the core and believe the Catholic Church is the Church founded by Christ, but recognize that we share much in common with Anglicans who embrace the Oxford movement, a movement that produced Cardinal Newman, Fr. Ronald Knox, Fr. Gerald Manly Hopkins, S.J., G.K. Chesterton, among others.

    If my post came across as trying to distinguish among Catholics, I sincerely apologize and I meant no offense.

    Regards

  22. Simon Platt says:

    CTrent1564 provided us with one example (Msgr. Graham Leonard) which “challenges the notion that all Catholic leaning Anglicans have invalid orders.” That’s a bit strong – conditional ordination implies that the previous “orders” were at best doubtful.

    I’d be interested to know how many examples there have been of conditional ordination of anglicans. Does anybody know? I mean really know.

    I think I know how many former anglicans serve as catholic priests without having received at least conditional ordination.

  23. Deusdonat says:

    IRE – Where is the Queen in all this?
    Isn’t she the head of the “ecclesial community”
    in England?

    As someone who lived in the UK, my take on it is the Queen is simply not bothered by it. Her role in civic live has been radically and severely diminished, as has her role in religious life (this may in fact be due to the diminishing role of the C of E in British society in general).

    As I mentioned, Prince Charles spends most of his religious study-time among Mohammedans studying Islam (I’m not joking). When speaking with Mohammedans, he often uses the “we”, and not in the royal “we” but in the “I am one of you” version. He is still nominally Anglican purely due to the laws of succession. But if Parliament and/or the C of E disallows him to take the throne due to his marriage to Camilla, he’ll be publically wearing a turban and prayer beads before you can say “Allah-u Akhbar”.

  24. CTrent1564 says:

    Simon Platt:

    I agree my language was “a bit strong”. Still, given Pope Leo’s (1896) statement that Anglican orders were “invalid”, the “conditional ordination” of Msgr. Leonard implys that in his case, Rome would not say definitively that his orders were in fact “invalid” Perhaps a better rendering would Rome could not say defintively that Msgr. Graham Leonard’s orders were in fact “invalid”, but would not say they were valid, hence the “conditional ordination” This is perhaps, somewhat similar, to baptisms that are done “conditionally” whereby a person comes from a Protestant confession, one that still uses the Trinity, but can’t provide documentation that they were baptized. In those cases, the person is “conditionally baptized”.

    Of course, while both priestly ordination and baptism are both sacraments, the comparisons of “conditional ordination” and “conditional baptism” may be totally off base. Of course if it is, I am sure I will be corrected, although hopefully in charity.

    Regards

  25. pseudomodo says:

    Thanks, my Brothers!!

    It is what I have taught in RCIA that some Anglicans have ventured out into Apostolic waters to a certain extent but I am under the impression that some or few converts in this category are ‘conditionally’ ordained. For my own edification can you think of at least ONE convert who had his ordination accepted without condition?

    I’d rather go with Leo on this one!!

  26. Londiniensis says:

    It is a sorrow to me, that Bishop Tom Wright of Durham, a respected (by Catholics as well) New Testament scholar, a truly learned, wise and holy man, was and is in the forefront of support for these changes. Corruptio optimi pessima.

  27. Marcin says:

    Yes, Anglo-Catholics tried to regularize their orders by means of Old Catholic but I see it rather as injecting expensive medicine into dead body. Rather wasteful and hopeless treatment.

    I can’t believe that someone would accepts the notion that some clergy in CofE is real and some just pretend, or that some receive real Communion, and some just wafers, depending on which church day they stepped in on a given Sunday. I hope, the fact that the former Anglican Bishop of London was ordained conditionally have stemmed from better reasons than “maybe he wasn’t ordained, or maybe he was, and if he was it might have been valid or maybe not”. It gives me chills when I write it. Horribile scriptu…

  28. CTrent1564 says:

    pseudomodo:

    I am not aware of any. Glad to be of help and I am enjoying the dialogue and discussion here. On a related note, the Catholic Herald has a front page article by the Anglican Bishop-Rev. Burnham calling for Catholic leaning Anglicans to work to enter communion with Rome. So, it appears that he has made up his mind to enter full communion with the Catholic Church.

    The article confirms what Damian Thompson reported, or alluded to, that another one of the so-called “Flying Anglican Bishops” was in Rome discussing his desire to enter full Catholic Communion.

    All I can say is the papacy of Pope Benedict keeps getting, more, and more, and more, interesting. Man I love it.

    God Bless

  29. pseudomodo says:

    Thanks CTrent1564,

    While I’m going with the Pope, I also invoke Papa Ratzingers observation that The Anglicans are not a Church. No Bishops = No Church. That’s basically his reasoning. This is why the Orthodox are Churches.

  30. CTrent1564 says:

    Marcin:

    I understand your concerns, but I have to respectfully disagree. I think Catholic Doctrine on sacraments is very clear, proper form, matter and intent as well, have to be present. I remember here recently that some Catholic priests in Australia were using a functional formula for Baptism (old modalist heresy), i.e. Creater, redeemer, sanctifyer, etc. and Rome and Cardinal Pell, I think it was, told the parents of such baptized children that there children were not validly baptized due to lack of orthodox Trinitarian form.

    I think what Msgr. Leonards case represents is the high theology that the Catholic Church has for sacraments and certain sacraments, baptism, confirmation, Holy Orders, can only be done once.

    Regards

  31. Geoffrey says:

    “The Queen is probably shocked by the idea of women ‘bishops.’”

    I was wondering about this too. What are the chances that Her Majesty renounces the title of Supreme Governor of the Church of England and joins the traditional Anglicans and comes home to Rome? I suppose I can dream… and pray!

  32. CTrent1564 says:

    pseudomodo:

    Yes, I agree that it is the clear teaching from Rome that the Eastern Orthodox have valid Apostolic Succession, thus valid Holy Orders, thus a valid Eucharist and other sacraments, and thus a Church in the proper sense. I think this also applies to the Oriental orthdox Churchs of the East that split from Rome at the time of the Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD. I think recently, the Patriarch of the Armenian Eastern Church, which is not in communion with Constantinopile, and is one the Oriental Churches of the East that rejected the Chalcedonian Christological definitions (they have since signed on to them), was in Rome and spend Petecost with Pope Benedict. Who knows, perhaps here soon the Church of Armenia will be fully reconciled back to Rome (we can surely pray for that).

    While The Anglican Communion does not fall under the same category as the Churches I described above. I do think Rome viewed the Anglican Communion somewhat differently than the Lutheran, Presbyterian and other Reformed confessions, and after Vatican II when Ramsey was the leader of the Anglican Communion (he was part of the Oxford movement and thus wanted to bring in the Anglican communion corporately back to Rome), there was clearly a thought that corporate reunion was possible. Of course, the Anglican communions move to ordain women in the 1970′s started them on a path to where they are today and thus corporate reunion is now just not going to happen.

    Regards

  33. Joe says:

    “When the next thing comes along…”: Muslim lady Wpiscopal priests! http://geoconger.wordpress.com/2007/07/14/muslim-anglican-priest-is-banned-in-seattle-cen-71307/ Who will win? the Christian lady Episcopal bishop who bans her for one year, or the Muslim lady Episcopal priest who says “I’m not going to go willingly”. ps for those who like such things, OF COURSE she is teaching (Scripture!) at a Jesuit college.

  34. jacobus says:

    RE: HRH Prince Charles.

    He’s more Orthodox than Muslim, thank goodness.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2004/may/12/monarchy.helenasmith

  35. Jordanes says:

    CTrent1564 said: Of course, the Anglican communion’s move to ordain women in the 1970’s started them on a path to where they are today and thus corporate reunion is now just not going to happen.

    Reaching back further, one can rightly say that their move to allow contraception in 1930 started them on the path to where they are today . . . and of course Henry VIII appointing himself head of the English church started them on the path to where they eventually allowed contraception. These doctrines logically overlap, and a religion that allows contraception and divorce cannot long object to homosexuality and priestesses and bishopettes.

  36. Deusdonat says:

    Jacobus,

    Sorry, but that is sadly not the case. Check the links I posted. They are more recent than 2004 and reflect his current state of “spirituality”.

    Joe,

    that is simply disgusting. There is absolutely no way to reconcile Christianity with Mohammedanism. The two are incompatible in theology, eschatology and morality. The ONLY people I could see even attempting to make such an attempt, would be either Quakers (they believe in basically anything so long as it comes from an “internal light”) or the Anglicans/Episcoplas, since they arleady try to reconcile Catholicism and Calvinism in the same religion.

  37. Sid Cundiff says:

    Are we writing the death certificate of of Anglicanism, at least in America, too quickly? Consider the following: “Liberal” Catholics are discovering that under Benedict their ideology is no longer kosher – if it ever was. When it comes to the point that these “Liberals” feel besieged, in the US of A they’ll depart in droves, clergy and laity, and become “Whiskeypalians”, to use some Baptist lingo, and “Junior Varsity Catholics”, to use some Methodist. But I’m guilty of crystal ball gazing yet again.

    I mean no disrespect to Anglicanism. In fact I’m a bit saddened to see it set adrift. It gave us the sermons Andrewes, the polity of Hooker, the poetry of Herbert and Donne, the music of Marbeck, and the prose of Cranmer (however objectionable his theology). Later it gave us the Oxford Movement and with it the beginning of modern Patristics. In the first half of the 20th C it gave us Ralph Adams Cram, Charles Williams, C. S. Lewis, and Eliot. Anglicans who became Catholics have often been distinguished: Crashaw, Dryden, Newman, Gerard Manley Hopkins, Chesterton, Dawson, Benson, Ronald Knox, Merton, Waugh. The Road to Rome has often had Canterbury for a gas station. For myself it was in an Anglican circumstance that I was awakened from my “Skeptical Slumbers” (but then I read Newman). The world will be poorer with no Anglo-Catholic liturgy (united with Rome). Sic transit …

  38. CTrent1564 says:

    Jordanes:

    I have to agree with you on the contraception, once that becomes accepted, then human sexuality gets reduced and thus the differences between the sexes gets distorted. From the acceptance of contraception comes all of the radical femnist project, abortion on demand, same sex marriage, women’s ordination, etc, etc.

    Good philosophical link between miltant securalism’s demand that abortoin, same sex marriage, all flow from the promotion of a contraception culture.

    Regards

  39. Jordanes says:

    Deusdonat said: Sorry, but that is sadly not the case. Check the links I posted. They are more recent than 2004 and reflect his current state of “spirituality”.

    The story about Prince Charles’ undeniable interest in Greek Orthodoxy dates from the same period of time as the reports about his undeniable interest in Islam. Religiously, Charles is rather the eclectic and the flibbertygibbet — rather like a lot of Anglicans, I fear — but there’s no more evidence that he has secretly converted to Islam, or in heart is a Muslim, than there is that he has secretly converted to Orthodoxy. “Conversion” would imply a degree of spiritual and religious conviction and commitment that the man who wishes to be the “Defender of faith” rather than the “Defender of the Faith” has never shown much evidence of.

  40. jane in memphis says:

    God bless all Anglicans considering the trek to Rome. You have been through much and I will be praying for you.

  41. Deusdonat says:

    Jordanes – I respectfully beg to differ. The key is in the degree of conversion. In Orthodoxy (as in Catholicism), one cannot simply walk up to a priest and say, “I’ve converted, now baptise me”. Yet in Mohammedanism, all you need to say is the Shahada (declaration of faith) in front of 2 witnesses. Easily done.

    Now, whether he really believes this or is doing it as a manner of expediency to appease his ever-growing Mohammedan constituency is almost irrelevent, since Islam is a political force as well.

  42. Warren Anderson says:

    1. As a married (former Anglican now Catholic) priest friend of mine has said, there is already a means by which anyone and everyone may enter the Church, i.e., the catechumenate, a.k.a. the RCIA. It is important that anyone entering the Church, and I say this as a convert myself, should conform their lives precisely to what the Church teaches. No one should become a Catholic thinking the world now revolves around him/her. Indeed, a person brings their gifts in service to the Church, but humble submission is the appropriate posture when approaching Holy Mother Church.

    2. If Anglicans want to become Catholic, let them not wait a minute longer. Visit a Catholic parish and begin the process. If we’re talking whole Anglican parishes entering – the Anglican Use parishes in the USA are fine, but in England, it could be a problem. The Church has enough on Her hands renewing the OF Liturgy, and the EF must be given time too. To add into the mix the establishment of Anglican Use parishes could divide the strained attention of the Catholic Church in England. Prudence necessitates much prayer and careful consideration of the possible courses of action. Bottom line, however, there is already an English Catholic Church and hierarchy, and there is already a Latin Rite Mass in two forms (EF & OF).

    3. I find it fascinating and disturbing that Episcopalians (of the Jefferts Schori ilk) so often approach Anglicans in the developing countries with condescension and disdain. Their (TEC) rhetoric typically runs something like this (…minus the sugar coating): “Oh, we’re more enlightened in the West. The developing countries will soon catch up to our way of thinking. In the meantime, we’re not waiting for their medieval attitudes to change. We’re going to do whatever we vote to be right because we know better.” In listening to traditional Anglicans/Episcopalians voice their concerns, I hear the complaint that the only argument the liberals have is “we know better than you”, and it frustrates the heck out of the traditionalists. I cannot understand why the traditionalists waited so long to leave.

  43. Jordanes says:

    Deusdonat said: Yet in Mohammedanism, all you need to say is the Shahada (declaration of faith) in front of 2 witnesses. Easily done.

    Even so, I doubt Prince Charles possesses that degree of religious convinction to be able to make the Muslim confession that there is no God but God and Muhammad is His prophet.

  44. Cathguy says:

    For those shocked at the conduct of Tom Wright, I offer this humble observation.

    Re-read his work, and look at his interviews. He is, essentially, an anti-Catholic.

    Look at the facts. He holds himself above his fellow protestants, constantly calling their view of St. Paul immature and inaccurate. In this he has enjoyed some support from fawning and easily impressed Catholics, even though his view of St. Paul is essentially devoid of the riches of Catholic tradition.

    He holds himself above Catholics and the Pope, frequently issuing criticisms of the Holy Father. He also mocks Marian devotion, and purgatory. (See his recent dust-up with Fr. Neuhaus of First Things)

    When one reads a text critically, one is looking for the hand of the author at work. When I read Tom Wright critically one word comes to mind: Narcissism. Who but a narcissist would hold himself out as an authority above all who would dare disagree with him (including the successor of St. Peter!)? Wright will never submit to any authority other than himself. In this, his evangelical critics and his traditional Catholic critics are both spot on.

    Pride goeth before the fall. I think it is time for faithful Catholics to ignore so called “Bishop” Tom Wright.

    Conversely, let us greet those Traditional Anglicans who seek entry into Christ’s Church with open arms and with a humble heart.

  45. Deusdonat says:

    Jordanes – Even so, I doubt Prince Charles possesses that degree of religious convinction to be able to make the Muslim confession that there is no God but God and Muhammad is His prophet.

    Not to belabour this conversation, but you are assuming Charlie has any convictions whatsoever (aside for his passion for architecture, childhood flings and his eventual ascension to the throne). He has thus far shown himself to be essentially devoid of any morality to speak of. Thus, “convictions” in his case could be no more than strong feelings. In which case, I could absolutely see him taking the shahada either to prove a point, to seize some sort of perceived moral high ground, or to garnor favor with the Mohammedan world.

    In other words, how much “conviction” does it take to utter a hand-full of words for someone who has no convictions? Seems pretty effortless to me. And the returns for the gesture amongst those he was courting seem significant. It is rumoured that most likely he did this on his visit to the great mosque in Turkey. Who knows if it is true or not. But as Our Lord says, by their fruits shall they be known.

  46. Woody Jones says:

    Dear Friends, when you post on this topic, please remember that Anglican clergy and laity leaving the Anglican world will have more than just Rome to consider. The Orthodox Western Rite is thriving (more so than our own Anglican Usage in the Ctholic Church, I regret to say), and so in many places are the Continuing Anglican Churches.

    Not everyone will make choices based on working out all the theology with Napoleonic intensity (pace von Balthasar). Do you really want to be a source of discouragement for those who are no doubt somewhat tentatively looking across the Tiber?

  47. RBrown says:

    In all fairness, I don’t think I wrote you but since I respect the 1st amendment and freedom of speech (and of course, this is not my blog to boot), I welcome your “ad hominem post” in stating that I proclaimed myself as a “self-appointed spiritual master.” So may I ask where in fact did I “appoint myself as spritual master”.

    It happened when you said “All of us . . . should”. If you wanted to recommend the parable of the Prodigal Son, fine. If you want to reference it, that’s also fine.

    And so it only seemed ad hominem because you invoked yourself as an authority.

    There’s much too much of the “Everyone should” in the Church today.

    If you don’t like what I posted, challenge it on the principle and merit of my argument rather than resulting to the classic marxist-decontructionist tactic of leveling a personal attack.
    Comment by CTrent1564

    It was neither Marxist nor De-constructionist.

  48. CTrent1564 says:

    RBrown:

    Fair enough. I modify my previous statement to state in my
    humble opinion, St. Luke’s story of the prodigal son is a rellevant Gosepel that speaks to me regarding this situation. Perhaps? it also
    speaks to others. How does this sound?

    Also, you are correct, I am by no means part of the Ordained Ministry in the Catholic Church and thus should not act as if I am.

    Nevertheless, I think Fr. Longeneker’s blog Standing on my head has a nice reminder for us to act in charity and as I remember reading about the last mass conversion of Anglicans into Rome, then Cardinal Ratzinger stated to teh Cardinal Hume, be generous.

    It is my hope that all Catholics will do the same and welcome those Anglicans who may be about to come into communion with Rome.

    Regards

  49. RBrown says:

    CTrent,

    I forgot to respond to the rest of your comment.

    1. I am well aware that Graham Leonard was conditionally ordained. I am also aware that he set two conditions: Rome would accept the validity of his ordination; and he would be a bishop. Rome answered negatively to both.

    2. Rome did not recognize the validity Graham Leonard’s Orders. If there had been recognition, Rome would not have ordered an ordination. By ordination sub conditione Rome was not saying that his Orders were valid–nor invalid. Were they possibly valid? Yes, but that’s not the same as Sacramental validity, for which there must be moral certitude.

    3. I’ve mentioned here before that one of my Roman classmates was retired clergy of the Episcopal Church of Scotland who was using his pension to study for the priesthood at the Angelicum. I once broached the question of whether his Orders were valid, and he answered, “I don’t want to think about that now.” When I asked about the move to the Catholic Church, he told me that while reading Newman, he said it was obvious that he wasn’t in Christ’s Church.

    4. One other point: One of my profs at the Angelicum and a bit of a friend (a Swiss who’s now dead) was an expert in the Anglican problem and was still teaching in 1994. As a consultor to both the SCDF and the Sac Cong of Rites, he had more than a bit of input into the Graham Leonard question.

  50. RBrown says:

    Maybe not, but it doesn’t mean we can’t subtly point out that your surly demeanor and ad hominem remarks are hardly charitable (you being a convert doesn’t make you are exempt from Christianity 101 : )
    Comment by Deusdonat

    A few days ago after you insisted that the Filioque was “stuff and nonsense”, I referred you to St Thomas’ famous phrase from the Ia pars, verbum spirans amorem, and made a few of my own comments, most of which were taken from Fr Santiago Ramirez op (perhaps the Thomist of the 20th century). After I referred you again to the same matter, your reply was that you didn’t want to waste your time.

    And now you’re saying that I’m surly and need Christianity 101?

  51. CTrent1564 says:

    RBrown:

    Thanks for the post. And I agree, I never stated that I thought Anglican orders were valid. I just raised the question that some of them “may be valid” and you are correct, certaintity of the Sacrament is paramounts. I think I posted the situation regarding some of the children in Australia were bapizes in the heretical functional formula, Creater, Redeemer, etc, and thus had to be Baptized, as they were never Baptized to start.

    I gather from your post that you are a former Anglican who is studying for the priesthood via pastoral provision. Is this correct?

    Regards

  52. Woody Jones says:

    Perhaps this will help set the tone, courtesy of the Met:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHmqBCoE8xs

  53. Trevor says:

    The Anglican Communion is becoming the Church of the Modern World. It is permissive enough to permit anything and everything. Even “Bishop” Spong can still be a “good Anglican” with his “innovative” take on the Bible.

  54. Deusdonat says:

    RBROWN – I didn’t want to waste my time with YOUR posts on the subject, as I did not appreciate the tone or rhetoric. Charity is a virtue and from the types of feedback you are getting from several posters on here, it is something you may wish to exercise more frequently in your interactions here online as in life. You may take this comment for a grain of salt, which is your want. But when you hear it repeatedly, you might want to consider it may have a ring of truth to it.

  55. Spiggle says:

    As for what the Queen thinks, you never know, she’s very careful about that. I have no idea at all what she thinks about ‘ordained’ women but I suspect she is deeply saddened by this turn. The ABC may have some questions to answer when they talk…

    Unthinkable she could come to Rome though, it would be a flat breach of her coronation oath which she takes seriously on its terms. (As would either countenancing disestablishment or corporate union with Rome of the CofE.)

    Property, not so much the investment property but the churches, is going to be an interesting debate, particularly when the other shoe drops at Lambeth. Anglican groups that come over are going to want their buildings, which would be nice but I doubt Rome would have any appetite to become involved in property litigation…

    The role of Western Orthodoxy may become interesting. While it would be preferable, from our point of view, that all come home to Rome, for those Anglicans who cannot accept everything we say it’s arguable, I think, that Western Orthodoxy would be better than nothing. At least they and their liturgical traditions would find a home in something which we can accept as a church.

    I do feel that there’s a certain amount of lack of charity around already. And no, I’m not and never have been an Anglican, I just have friends who are and who are in serious spiritual crisis. Smugly informing them they were wrong all along anyway hardly helps, whatever I may think about it.

  56. Phil says:

    Deusdonat: thank you. I stopped posting here after having been vituperated at by RBrown (“know-nothing”, etc.).
    Phil

  57. Sid Cundiff says:

    re: Wright. I’m not quite so sure about Wright, but the founder of the New Perspectives on Paul view, E. P. Sanders (Paul and Palestinian Judaism) destroyed the Protestant view of Paul (both Classic Protestant and Evangelical), and thus destroyed the foundation of Protestantism itself. Paul’s central point is not something called “justification by faith alone”, still less sola scriptura and sola gratia. With that foundation destroyed, and the Bible no longer in support of Protestantism, Protestants have two choices: (1) Liberal or (2) Catholic.

  58. EnglishCatholic says:

    I absolutely agree that whatever our misgivings about details,
    we should take the father’s attitude to the prodigal son,
    and not the elder brother’s.
    But one thing I do hope comes out of all this is a reassessment
    of where the Church’s ecumenical energy and resources go.
    I have always been puzzled why so much of it was spent on Protestants.
    This slap on the face from the Anglicans does rather give the impression
    that it was all a waste of time and energy.
    Leave the door open to dialogue, always; but let’s put all our
    ecumenical effort and resources where it matters: the Eastern Church(es).

  59. Ed says:

    I read this about Anglo-Catholic Bishop Burnham on CWN today. He’s, perhaps, equally running from and to. In true English fashion, I’ve used single-quotations first, then double within.

    ‘Bishop Burnham acknowledges, in his Catholic Herald column, that Anglican dissidents should not view the Catholic Church simply as a refuge. “You become a Catholic because you accept that the Catholic Church is what she says she is and the Catholic faith is what it says it is,” he writes.’

    On another note, in response to a post by Sid Cundiff–Well said, but for one thing: my understanding (and I could be wrong!) is that John Donne was Catholic but more-or-less forced to become Anglican. Perhaps he wasn’t as staunchly Catholic as Alexander Pope (whose Catholicism made him ineligable for university) or as those martyrs who came just before him.

  60. Deusdonat says:

    Phil, sorry to hear it. Father Z has IMHO one of the most interesting and insightful blogs on the internet concerning church issues from an orthodox stance. I wouldn’t let one member stiffle your opinion or ability to comment. Let his ad hominem and vitriol become white noise.

    Spiggle, I agree with what you say regarding Orthodoxy. They would be much better becoming Orthodox than nothing at all, if those are the choices. But to be honest, I think culturally they have much more in common with Roman Catholicism, given the history of England.

  61. Oliver says:

    The Queen merely rubber stamps whatever her ministers decide. She is utterly nominal which is not hard for her and her family. Unfortunately, they have little depth but can look serious and intense giving one the false impression they do have depth. Monarchs of old actively ruled and went into battle, although Prince Harry was once seen playing with a gun in Afghanistan or was that a film set? In a way, the Church of England has the same characteristics. Superficially grand, morally bankrupt, powerless, contradictory, entertaining but doomed. Much like the modern Catholic church.

  62. The Anglican Communion has been ordaining women to the “episcopate” for years (e.g., Canada and the US). So, frankly, I don’t know what the “true Anglicans” in England are getting all hot and bothered about. Have they proposed breaking off relations with the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada?

    At least, *IN PRINCIPLE* some conservative Anglicans are willing to accept the ordination of women-bishops — they just don’t want to see, hear, be ordained, or governed by them. Otherwise, they would not remain in a Church with clearly-invalid orders.

    On the contrary, many of them say, “We’ll stay; just, give us a male bishop to oversee us.” Since these so-called “conservatives” have been willing to commune with other Anglican clergy (like, from North America) some of whom were ordained by women-bishops, this all seems to me like one big distinction without a difference.

  63. Deusdonat says:

    Oliver, you had me then you lost me.

    The church is not doomed in any way shape or form. God assures us of this.

  64. Boko says:

    England has not been blessed by the conduct of the past few generation\s of the Royal Family, but Bonny Prince Harry may emerge as an exception. To describe his service as “playing” says more about the commenter than about the Prince. I also find the nightclub antics a little easier to swallow if I imagine them as a scene from Vile Bodies.

  65. Tobias says:

    On the subject of demeanor, I must object to Deusdonat’s recurring use of the
    smiley face at the end of a critique or act of correction. While in most contexts
    a smile represents good spirits, in the context of a rebuttal or critique it
    often projects contempt for the other person. When saying something serious and
    negative about another person, it is better to seem sober and serious, not
    flippant, coy, cheerful, or smug, etc. Whatever you mean by it,
    Deusdonat, a smile out of place can mean those things.

    So, go ahead if you wish, I’m totally exposed — write some ironic response and
    end it with a smiley face. That may be your wont. But remember what you said to
    RBrown: “But when you hear it repeatedly, you might want to consider it may
    have a ring of truth to it.” Well, a number of people objected to the manner in
    which you discussed the Filioque there. It seemed flippant and smug: “stuff and
    nonsense,” etc. And the use of the smiley-face at the end of criticisms reinforces
    the impression.

  66. Tobias says:

    Phil, I know that feelings can be hurt on blogs (believe me!). But remember that
    before RBrown said anything to you, you claimed that he was being hypermodernist
    and that he was picking and choosing among facets of Tradition. I quote: “>> I think there are just wars, but I also think that the criteria used for deciding such are
    >> obsolete.
    >> Comment by RBrown — 14 June 2008 @ 9:58 am

    Oh yeah! And you know better than the Aquinate. I love must admit that I am impressed. And would you please make us the pleasure to explain us what the new criteria are? And while you are at it, can you also please tell us what else in the Tradition is obsolete? Maybe the TLM as well ?

    It is incredible how some folks can be “traditionalist” on some issues, and hypermodernist on some others. I guess it all depends on the direction of the wind.

    Phil”

    It seems that you threw the first stone in vituperation, even if RBrown
    subsequently went further than you did. But Deusdonat’s advice is absolutely
    true: “I wouldn’t let one member stiffle your opinion or ability to comment. Let
    his ad hominem and vitriol become white noise.” I just think that RBrown might
    have seen your own post as “ad hominem and vitriol.” Maybe he should have
    ignored it instead of responding in kind (and then some). It just goes to show
    how we must watch our language in these disputes. Heck, on another post I referred
    to Deusdonat with an expletive! (For which I apologized then, and apologize now.)

  67. RBrown says:

    RBROWN – I didn’t want to waste my time with YOUR posts on the subject, as I did not appreciate the tone or rhetoric.

    But, as I pointed out, MY posts weren’t really my thoughts. They represented not only the thought of St Thomas but also that of a man who may very well have been the greatest Thomist of the last century (not to mention another under whom I studied at the Angelicum).

    Charity is a virtue and from the types of feedback you are getting from several posters on here,

    I count two. After I explained myself to one, he responded “fair enough”. That leaves one. You.

    On the other hand, when you wrote that the Filioque was “stuff and nonsense”, at least three people objected to it.

    it is something you may wish to exercise more frequently in your interactions here online as in life.

    So we have someone who rejects the Latin tradition of the Filioque (which can be traced back to Pope St Leo I), calling it “stuff and nonsense”, now giving spiritual advice.

    You may take this comment for a grain of salt, which is your want. But when you hear it repeatedly, you might want to consider it may have a ring of truth to it.
    Comment by Deusdonat

    Hardly repeatedly. See above.

  68. Brian Mershon says:

    Father Longenecker said: “In the eighteenth c. an amazing number of Anglican priests were deists and freemasons. Enough. I could go on.”

    The same holds true for the upper echelon in the Catholic Church in the 20th century. But many call that a “conspiracy theory.”

    Of course Cardinal Ottaviani’s predictions for the shortcomings of the promulgation of the Novus Ordo Missae, outlined in the “Ottaviani Intervention” came just as true, but moreso, in its predecessor missal of Henry VIII and Cranmer’s Godly Order, covered so well by the late Anglican convert, Michael Davies. http://www.catholictradition.org/Eucharist/protestantism2.htm

    Some call that a conspiracy theory and dismiss the overwhelming evidence there as well.

  69. RBrown says:

    Deusdonat: thank you. I stopped posting here after having been vituperated at by RBrown (“know-nothing”, etc.).
    Phil
    Comment by Phil

    I never called you a know-nothing.

    Your comment:

    Oh yeah! And you know better than the Aquinate. I love must admit that I am impressed. And would you please make us the pleasure to explain us what the new criteria are? And while you are at it, can you also please tell us what else in the Tradition is obsolete? Maybe the TLM as well?

    It is incredible how some folks can be “traditionalist” on some issues, and hypermodernist on some others. I guess it all depends on the direction of the wind.
    Phil
    .

    My response:

    I have noticed how often people who post on the Internet assume that others know as little as they do.

    http://wdtprs.com/blog/2008/06/president-bush-meets-with-pope-benedict/

  70. RBrown says:

    BTW, the last time I was in Rome (97) I met a man studying for the priesthood who had been Anglican clergy. But it was surprising that he had been part time–worked in a bank during the week but acted as clergy on Sunday.

  71. Tobias says:

    Well, as I intervened on behalf of RBrown, it’s only fair to add that he later
    wrote this:

    “BTW, the only reason to feel sorry for me is that now and then I have do deal with hard-headed know-nothings.”

    No doubt Phil thought that referred in part to himself.

    But I’ve clearly come to the defense of a man who needs no help in his own
    defense. Sorry to have butted in, gents!

  72. Deusdonat says:

    RBROWN once again (and for the last time), I was not dismissing those you were quoting from but I WAS dismissing the tone of your posts. They are petty, ad hominem and uncharitable. Regardless of the content, you display some very obvious personality defects when posting. and you now have 4 people wwho have pointed this out.

    This reminds me of a woman who had a gold “support our troops” ribbon prominantly displayed on on the back of her station waggon. As she was weaving in and out of traffic, cutting people off and talking on her cell-phone, someone from behind angrily honked at her, to which she shouted, “Why am I always being followed by people who are so un-patriotic!?”

  73. Please be sober in your comments about Anglicans; the very thing you accuse them of has run rampant in the Catholic Church for some decades. Name a Jesuit University that is truly Catholic, or the theology departments that don’t have some profs denying the cardinal doctrines of the church, or fostering the ordination of women. Let us work together as brothers to restore beauty and theological sanity to our world.

  74. KOM says:

    *Watching the death of a Church?*

    Why capitalize “church”?

    Henry VIII was a drunk lecher, and the first head of this “church.” As we read Evelyn Waugh’s “Edmund Campion,” Catholics were drawn and quartered by the evil regime which followed Henry’s disassociation with the Church.

  75. Deusdonat says:

    KOM very sad but true. Why does this horrible past seem to be overlooked by most scholars and historians? Meanwhile, whey do we hear about the Inquisition at every turn?

  76. Deusdonat says:

    Hieromonk Gregory – Name a Jesuit University that is truly Catholic, or the theology departments that don’t have some profs denying the cardinal doctrines of the church, or fostering the ordination of women. Let us work together as brothers to restore beauty and theological sanity to our world.

    Ugh. Too true. I went through Jesuit University in the 90′s and boy was that a liberal bubble. Almost all the history, poli-sci, sociology and civics professors were JEWISH. And I mean culturally Jewish, since many of them were in fact atheists. The Jesuits were busy championing their “Liberation Theology”, which was the most offered religion course available (yup, Itook it). Interesting reading in that it showed what life was like in places of the world I would not be visiting anytime soon, but theologically unsound (to say the least). I remember my professor the year I graduated looking so dejected when I stumbled across him between classes. After we talked for a few minutes, he confided me the LT courses were to be taken off the curriculum completely. The Iron curtain had fallen a few years prior and the climate was simply not conducive to this line of “reasoning” anymore. It was a wild ride for those Jebbies tho…

  77. RBrown says:

    “BTW, the only reason to feel sorry for me is that now and then I have do deal with hard-headed know-nothings.”
    No doubt Phil thought that referred in part to himself.
    But I’ve clearly come to the defense of a man who needs no help in his own
    defense. Sorry to have butted in, gents!
    Comment by Tobia

    Look at the thread. I made a reasonable comment that the Just War theory is obsolete.

    He responded with an insult.

    I responded reasonably, listing some academic qualifications as well as a concrete example of a problem with Just War theory and Modern Warfare.

    Once again, he responded with an insult.

    It seems to me that according to Just War theory, my mention of having to dealwith hard-headed know-nothings was a proportionate response.

  78. Fr. Angel says:

    Deusdonat:

    I enjoy RBrown’s posts very much. I learn from them and find in their content clear statements of adhesion to the faith of the Church and not ideology.

    Not everyone may grasp some of his points or the dry humor he conveys on occasion. You have reacted to his posts because of their tone, stating: “Regardless of the content, you display some very obvious personality defects when posting. and you now have 4 people wwho have pointed this out.”

    My suggestion is that we stick to the topic at hand. In the case of RBrown’s posts, we should address the particulars in the post, and not attempt a diagnosis of him personally, e.g. that he has “personality defects.” Is that appropriate? Is it charitable or constructive? And who said we should start taking votes as to the defects of the posters on this blog? I find it much better to read of the details of the Anglican controversies and the suggestions that these separated brethren need our prayers and the outstretched hand of welcome.

  79. Deusdonat says:

    FR ANGEL,

    I am so happy you find enjoyment and comfort on this blog, and in particular from the posts or certain members. Isn’t it nice that the internet can provide this for us? As for me, I will respectfully disagree with your opinions regarding a certain poster. The first post he ever gave to me was this:

    Oh, boy, another anti-intellectual. Are you Protestant?

    Comment by RBrown — 29 June 2008

    Now, you may not think that is uncharitable. And you might certainly dismiss this as his special brand of dry humor which you enjoy. But I see it for what it is. As I am neither anti-intellectual or Protestant, this is not only ad hominem (it had nothing to do with the topic at hand and it is in fact against the 10 commandments, since calling me a Protestant is bearing false witness (even if it is merely insinuated by use of the interrogative). Now, had RBROWN been a man or a good Christian and later said, “Oh, I’m terribly sorry for offending you and insinuating you were a Protestant. Now, tell me, how did you arrive at your opinion?” then this would be a different matter. Wouldn’t it? So, maybe you can now turn your attentions to RBROWn and let him know that ad hominem does not help the conversation. To the contrary, it puts it off track and simply makes the poster look like he has some sort of issue or defect. Wouldn’t you agree?

    So, back to the topic at hand: welcoming Anglicans. Yes, I concur, Father. I believe they should indeed be welcomed with arms should they decide to join the one true church. Do you agree as well?

  80. miminno says:

    How disappointing that an important discussion has disintegrated into
    some fellow Christians acting uncharitably towards one another.
    Please, may we keep the posts on the topic at hand?

  81. trooper says:

    I stopped reading comments after things got a tad overblown. But, let me assure my stalwhart Catholic brothers and sisters that most Anglo-Catholics now prepared to make the swim are facing with a stunning moment of clarity. “for now we see through the glass darkly,” Yes? First, you start reading, then some moments of illumination into your sin, then some penance and pain, then real joy at realizing that you can find where you are supposed to be, then unspeakable joy at getting there. But the time between that first moment of clarity and your confirmation are painful and embarrasing. So, unless you’ve never been wrong about something, even something deeply felt, you need to back off and learn that prodigal son lesson. Aren’t all converts in need of sympathy and welcome? I almost raised my kids in TEC, for goodness sake. It’s kind of nice to know that most people on the other end of your confession are willing to accept that the penance has been done and the reconcilation complete.

  82. Deusdonat says:

    TROOPER, very interesting thoughts and observations. There’s an Italian saying: piccole bugie, grande bugiardo (roughly “little small lies, big liar”). It’s meant to convey that even though lies may be very small, the overall effect is that the perpetrator is still very much a sinner. This is absolutely how I view the Anglican church. It was born out of some very “small” lies (and by small, I mean small enough such that they were pallatable to the majority of the citizenry). The lies then started creeping in and in and in and before you know it, the entire religion is completely off-course. All from the first little lie: that the King had authority over the church and not the pope.

    If the Anglicans were told “the king is God on earth” or “God is a space alien named Bob” then of course this would have been much more difficult (unless they were Mormon). But because the lies were so “small”, it was then easy to build on them and create more “small” ones. It is only at the breaking point that certain traditional Anglicans now see how far these “small” lies have taken them from the truth. This really must be a harsh awakening for them. I really sympathise, especially after reading your post.

  83. Fr. Angel says:

    Trooper:

    Yes, the Anglicans are faced with a moment of clarity. Their communion has now voted to allow the ordination of women bishops. Beyond that, I am not sure how they will progress and to what conclusions. Even traditional Anglicans will still have some worries and caveats about going to Rome. The papal primacy is more attractive than ever as a corrective for the deviations from orthodoxy.

    However, there is the issue of our bishops in England. Will they hinder more than help? Will they stonewall papal magnanimity? Are the traditional Anglo-Catholics expected to give up all their liturgical and artistic heritage in favor of the Roman liturgy as it is in practice, a free for all? Are the Roman parishes truly a refuge of orthodoxy for them, or will they have the smorgasboard of cafeteria Catholicism stuffed down their throats? Does the present day life of the Roman Church really show evidence in Europe that it is the sure answer? Will the Romans welcome them with respect, or gloat with unholy joy at the problems of Anglicanism from which they depart? I can see where there will be hesitation, and where some Anglicans, although wishing to join the Roman Church, will find in Eastern Orthodoxy a more palatable option. In the Roman church, we as well as they are at a moment of clarity. Quo vadis Roma? We do indeed have to ask ourselves if we are the prodigal father or the elder brother in these times.

  84. Fr. Angel says:

    Deusdonat:

    Yes, I would agree with you, that ad hominem comments from any person who is posting does not help the conversation.

    In regards to your other post, I personally would not speak of the Anglicans having their origin in “lies,” big or small. Yes, the Church of England has its origin in King Henry’s denial of the papal primacy because of his divorce question. However, I don’t know that any Anglican who is coming to Rome is thinking, “I’m converting because Anglicanism is built on lies.” That sounds not only harsh but also lacking some accuracy. The Roman Church possesses the fullness of truth, but Anglicanism also possesses numerous truths in their confession of Christianity mixed with doctrines which are a departure from orthodoxy.

    It is precisely because Anglicanism is rich with many facets of Catholicity that it would be thinkable for them to now see the Roman Church as an option for complete faithfulness to Apostolic Tradition. When Anglicans approach Rome, this is what we should focus on–our desire to see them live out Tradition in all its faithfulness to the Apostolic deposit, not tell them “see, we told you so; we have truth and you have lies.”

  85. RBrown says:

    RBROWN once again (and for the last time), I was not dismissing those you were quoting from but I WAS dismissing the tone of your posts. They are petty, ad hominem and uncharitable.

    You were the one who set the tone by saying the Filioque was “stuff and nonsense”. And you did it without manifesting the slightest insight into the theological consequences. When three people tried to point out your error, your response was to call them “unscholarly and ignorance”.

    And now you want to say someone else is petty, ad hominem, and uncharitable.

    Regardless of the content, you display some very obvious personality defects when posting. and you now have 4 people wwho have pointed this out.

    So in the matter of a few days, you’ve moved from a theologian campaigning to dump Western Trinitarian theology that goes back to Pope St Leo I to a adolescent version of Dr Karl Menninger making diagnosis on the Internet.

    Oft wrong, never in doubt.

    This reminds me of a woman who had a gold “support our troops” ribbon prominantly displayed on on the back of her station waggon. As she was weaving in and out of traffic, cutting people off and talking on her cell-phone, someone from behind angrily honked at her, to which she shouted, “Why am I always being followed by people who are so un-patriotic!?”
    Comment by Deusdonat

    Ever hear of Psycological Projection?

  86. RBrown says:

    Now, you may not think that is uncharitable. And you might certainly dismiss this as his special brand of dry humor which you enjoy. But I see it for what it is. As I am neither anti-intellectual or Protestant, this is not only ad hominem (it had nothing to do with the topic at hand and it is in fact against the 10 commandments, since calling me a Protestant is bearing false witness (even if it is merely insinuated by use of the interrogative). Now, had RBROWN been a man or a good Christian and later said, “Oh, I’m terribly sorry for offending you and insinuating you were a Protestant. Now, tell me, how did you arrive at your opinion?” then this would be a different matter. Wouldn’t it? So, maybe you can now turn your attentions to RBROWn and let him know that ad hominem does not help the conversation. To the contrary, it puts it off track and simply makes the poster look like he has some sort of issue or defect. Wouldn’t you agree?
    Comment by Deusdonat

    It was hardly insulting–I was alerting you to the fact that you were venturing into anti-intellectualism and/or Protestantism.

    1. As I pointed out earlier, there is a link between the Filioque and the intellectual life of the Church.

    You can see it in one of Walter Kasper’s books, in which he posits the need for a real distinction between Christology of the Logos and Christology of the Kenosis: He thinks a choice must be made between one or other, a thesis I wholeheartedly reject.

    In fact, during the time I was reading this Kasper book while researching the doctoral dissertation, I mentioned it to an Argentinian Dominican friend who was a confessor at Santa Maria Maggiore. His reply: “Hasn’t he ever heard of Verbum spirans amorem ?” (which, as I noted earlier, is a theological expression of the Filioque).

    The rejection of the Filioque was aptly described on the other thread as leading to Pneumatic Christology. PC has been effectively used to undermine the excellence of Christ’s Knowledge, which in turn undermines his priesthood.

    2. From the very beginning the Protestant Reformers rejected the notion of doctrinal development, under which the addition of the Filioque obviously falls. And appropriately enough to this thread on Anglicanism, such a rejection was the occasion for Newman’s book.

  87. Deusdonat says:

    FRANGEL so you don’t think that the original claims agaisnt Papal primacy by the Anglican church is a lie? Hmmm. Odd coming from a Catholic priest.

  88. Fr. Angel says:

    Deusdonat:

    We are in agreement. The difference is that Anglicanism and Anglicans today are in material heresy, and this is not the exact same thing as telling “small lies.” Telling lies happens when you understand the truth and yet spread untruths with the intent to deceive. Material heresy is embracing error with the sincere belief that you are adhering to the truth.

    Perhaps this is hair splitting, but using terms like “errors” or even “material heresy” would be more accurate than “lies.” It was the reference to their denomination being built on lies and then more small lies that struck me as a harsh tone to take with them.

  89. Deusdonat says:

    FRANGEL – what is heresy but lies? I guess there is a disconnect here.

  90. “3. I find it fascinating and disturbing that Episcopalians (of the Jefferts Schori ilk) so often approach Anglicans in the developing countries with condescension and disdain. Their (TEC) rhetoric typically runs something like this (…minus the sugar coating): “Oh, we’re more enlightened in the West. The developing countries will soon catch up to our way of thinking. In the meantime, we’re not waiting for their medieval attitudes to change. “

    Something to understand about the TEC and its influence on Africa and the Global South?

    $$$

    The carcass has golden bones!

    Follow the money – the endowment money.

    What is left to fight for but the good real estate and perhaps Billions (as dad might say “That is with a capital “B”, son!”) of dollars in endowment money.

    Prime real estate, cash and the name The Episcopal Church™… We don’t take TEC seriously anymore, but most of the mainstream press doesn’t know or care what is going on – it still has the luster of prestige, and so it is still a brand name worth having, and a treasure chest worth fighting over. Some of the endowments – which date back a century to robber barons. Let’s say that one of the wealthy Piskies of the Robber Baron era left $1M in a bequest to his beloved Church… in 1898. If it was invested well with $1K added a year until today…. Anyone able to do the math in their head?

    $97,698,542,341. That is 97 BILLION, son.

    It may be more, it is probably less, but old money sitting around in the right investment breeds better than rabits.

    Understand that is how a church with under 1.5M members and hemmoraging fast can have the following reported: $151,986,107 proposed budget for the 2007-2009 triennium at the end of its meeting in Des Moines, Iowa, on January 12.

    (cf. http://www.episcopalchurch.org/3577_70841_ENG_HTM.htm)

    Where in the hell do people think all that money is coming from for just the NATIONAL church – that is the national budget, not diocesan, not parochial. Maybe they are collecting 58¢ a week from 1.5M members and doing so religiously… I doubt it!

    That carcass has bones of pure gold, and there will be infighting to control it until the end. They don’t care about members or even parish churches. Honestly, the fewer of them they need to spend money on, the better!

    At this point, with the hemoragging of members, the TEC is sitting pretty to have more greenbacks for the idealogues to press their agendas on places where money is needed.

    And THAT is how they influence the global South Anglicans… You know, the ones whose bishops go to Lambeth on TEC’s dime. That is right, massa is generous, but massa wants something in exchange.

  91. Father Yohannes says:

    Having spent a long time among Anglicans of various bents as “Ecumenical liaison” for my Bishop, I can tell you that in the end, it all comes down to either Faith or Furniture, to quote an old Priest friend. I’ve seen and known numerous Anglican Clergy who talk and talk about returning to the Church of the Apostles, yet in the end can’t bring themselves to leave the external trappings and financial security that so many of them enjoy. I honestly believe and would wager that when it is all said and done; few will be able to give up the Furniture for the Faith. Those who have chosen the Faith over the Furniture will understand my remarks completely. God bless them for making the right choice!

  92. Hey Father Yohannes,

    Excellent comment! I remember a priest who went as a missionary to small-town USA some decades ago. There was a ranch sign over the main street at each end of the town which said, “This is a clean town: No trains, No Catholics, No Niggers”. Within 25 years he had them praising Catholics for protecting Scripture throughout the ages, and serving those who had been marginalised among them. Still no trains though! True story.

    When the other ministers in the town, including Anglicans, were asked about believing everything the Catholic Church believed but not converting, the answer was, “What would our congregations think? How would we live? What would we do?”

    It’s like the rich young man in the Gospel. The Anglicans began with money taken from Catholics, now they have to reject mammon. Some do reject mammon, don’t get me wrong. Those who do may well be on their way to becoming Catholic.

    Cheers!