CJ
“To make matters worse, the Catholics insulted Rowan Williams” Pretty much everyone has been and will be insulting Rowan Williams. I also believe this has gone on since childhood. Doesn’t he strike you as the teacher’s pet who passed out the exams but was bullied on the play ground? When they were choosing up sides for cricket/rugby or whatever they play in English schools, he was probably the last person selected. pity.

“… if the Vatican continues to insist anew on dusty decrees of a bygone era…”

You mean dusty decrees like, “Thou shalt not bugger the livestock?” “Thou shalt not drag other Christians into court?”

Sorry, Bishop, but if you want to be treated like a Christian denomination, then you need to act like one.

Sure it follows the *words* of Vatican II. But what about its spiiiiiiiiiiiirit????

You took ALL the good talking points, Christopher! But having nothing new to say never stops me, eh!

Seriously, there is absolutely no problem with Abp. Williams and (this Whalen fellow, either) saying that Catholics should become more like Anglicans, with ordained women and all. It’s really refreshing, in fact. Ecumenical relations don’t progress by things like the ARCIC statements, which are overmatched in any case by the repeated Anglican violations of what they claim to want.

Because what they really want is good feelings and hearty fellowship with the Catholics, not Communion.

The bottom line: Catholicism and Anglicanism are two different religions and can’t be reconciled. One must become like the other if they are to become one religion. There is no “happy medium” or “via media”. It’s a choice, made more complicated by the fact that Anglicanism itself is at least three, and maybe more religions.

“……..the archbishop called our sister church back to order.” The sheer arrogance of that statement indicates such a quality of superiority that it can only derive from and reflect the British Imperial view that God is an Englishman. After all the Church of England was “Made in England”. If the 5 century old 80 million strong Anglican Church has changed teachings and practices that are 2 millennia old it is up to the the 2 millennia old, 1.2 billion strong church that has to change and follow. Talk about the tail trying to wag the dog!!!

“…Vatican II[peace and blessings be upon it]…”

He writes like a muzlim!

Actually, I added those words because of the veneration Protestant and Catholic liberals have for Vatican II.

Lucky Pierre, like most Liberals, is a worthless prig who has no business questioning how/why the RCC governs itself. Among other things, it seems glaringly clear that Anglicanism does not understand Salvation the same way the RCC does. Heck, you can’t even get Anglicans to agree among them selves. What a buggering twit!

The really tragic thing is that ecumenical progress was being made, until the Western Anglicans began going off the rails. I don’t want to reopen the whole argument once again, but surely even the uninvolved observer can see that the placement of women in the ordained leadership and the advance of the modern sexual agenda, with easy divorce, easy abortion and homosexual activity, have marched forward together. To say that the two groups agree on “first-order” things is no longer true, since genuine belief in those things leads to behavioral modification, ruling out the modern sexual agenda.

The current RC sexual abuse scandals are a different matter (being a lack of commitment plus episcopal malfeasance) from the Western Anglican aberrations, which are a failure of belief.

N.B.: This is offered only as personal opinion based on personal observation and not as incontrovertible fact:

My limited experience of the Convocation has led me to conclude that it is even more morally and spiritually rotten than TEO. They are so desperate to get some paying members (as opposed to just tourists passing through) into their pews that they will accept just about any moral or doctrinal deviations without question, criticism, or hesitation. The ones that I have visited are in many cases very beautiful buildings, but they seem to be more expatriate clubs and concert venues than vibrant expressions of a living faith.

WTF and FWKen – given the number and nature of the religions thate make it up here’s a new motto – “The Episcopal Church…it’s name is Legion!”

the veneration Protestant and Catholic liberals have for Vatican II.

To be precise, libs venerate the spirit of Vatican II, ginned up by interpreting the actual texts as a disruption in the Church’s life. If the current pope has his way, they will be (accurately) interpreted in continuity with the Tradition, not as a radical break with it.

Wow! I didn’t know that you get that good a grade of ganga in Pierre’s neighborhood! The pipe dreams he’s playing aren’t that good without some major s**t.

“SNACKERAL MAPPERS”

Come to the Dark Side. We know where the cookies are.

C’mon FW Ken.

Respectfully and fairly speaking, how can you guys go on continually arguing from the position that the RCC is perfection itself (or herself) and The Supreme Majestic Spiritual Doctrinal Exemplary Church Authority?

It’s tiring, boring and untrue.

The claim of Petrine primacy? Where did that long-ago pope get such a notion anyway – the angel Moroni?

There are a number of other singular, self-authenticated, self-vaunting doctrines that the RCC holds were adopted outside the council of the global Church.

Then there is the covering up of abuse by pedophiles Ireland, the US, Alaska, etc.

There are rebels, greedy, immoral, syncretists, superstitious, goof-balls and heretics galore, even among the religious and in the universities.

Sorry, but the Pope needs to get off his throne when he greets the Metropolitans and other Church leaders, for he is but a peer, a mere Brother in Christ.

[BTW - the music that day in the NYC Cathedral was horrible. Even Benedict looked like he was going to either scream, get up and run, or swat the choir director after the 7th or 8th off-key repeat of allelulia. No self-respecting Anglican choir would have been so embarrassing.]

Please, dear RC brothers and sisters lay off the fantasy of ‘my church is the perfection from which all others may be compared’ and especially the ‘my church has the right to judge, validate or reject all other churches’ blarney.

The RC needs to get a dose of heavenly humility and reality and submit herself to the rest of the Body of Christ in the fear of God and the rest need to submit to each other. (Ephesians 5:21)

It is high time for judgment to begin in the household of faith.

It is high time for another global church council to unify Christ’s Church before He comes.

The more I read of this story the more the Episcopalians sound like little girls.

“…isolate the Roman Church from other Christians…”

…as a thick fog in the Channel used to isolate the Continent.

“Sister church” ? What an idiot. The Presbyterians and Lutherans may be “sister churches” to The Episcopal Church, but Rome is our Mother.

Also, what makes this gasbag think that his invitation was anything but a nice gesture to the little guy down the block? I am sure that whatever the blessed John Paul II said to him is filed away with the declarations of appreciation for barristi, street cleaners, supermarket union secretaries and the pastor of the Methodist Church in Ostia. It is not a papal encyclical.

Wow. Anglican-types should do use a lot of words to say, “WAAAAAAAAAAAAA…!”

Who knew that whining required so many subordinate clauses.

Fr. Philip, OP

(being a lack of commitment plus episcopal malfeasance)

Katherine, I generally agree with you, with one caveat. Behind the institutionalist factors, failure of moral will, and societal factors, there really is a failure of belief. Men like Abp. Rembert Weakland didn’t just give into their homosexual impulses at a moment of loneliness: they are homosexualist ideologues completely on board with the New Thing. They don’t say it as boldly because they would lose their status, but it creeps out from time to time. The true predators among the accused priests – Shandley and Kos I know for sure – were homosexualists as well as being homosexually inclined. Certainly the Episcopalian wing of the Catholic Church in America is quite comfortable with “full inclusion of our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters”.

Whitestone, If your purpose in life is to run down and declare damnation upon the RCC your too late for that gig.

But you could probably do a great job printing out some tracts complete with diagrams of the tunnels under the Vatican and the lurid line drawings of nuns seducing virginal innocents and Catholic lay people drooling idiotically after the relic of some saint. For just that right touch of Christian brotherhood why not add in a child dying of AIDs because of the prohibition on condoms. A bloody hanger with a blood stained rosary next to the supine form of a woman who died from an illegal back alley abortion would be a wonderful emphasis on the Church’s continuing misogyny and patriarchal suppression.

“It’s tiring, boring and untrue.”

Much like that post.

“Sorry, but the Pope needs to get off his throne when he greets the Metropolitans and other Church leaders, for he is but a peer, a mere Brother in Christ.”

Well, he actually does that, you know.

“[BTW - the music that day in the NYC Cathedral was horrible. Even Benedict looked like he was going to either scream, get up and run, or swat the choir director after the 7th or 8th off-key repeat of allelulia. No self-respecting Anglican choir would have been so embarrassing.]”

Whitestone, we had a guy write a book on that, Why Catholics Can’t Sing. Fortunately it is largely limited to Anglophone Catholics.

“The RC needs to get a dose of heavenly humility and reality and submit herself to the rest of the Body of Christ in the fear of God and the rest need to submit to each other. (Ephesians 5:21)”

If only the rest of the Body of Christ, which we still outnumber by around two-to-one, would make up its mind about what that means.

“It is high time for judgment to begin in the household of faith.”

And the judge should be?

“It is high time for another global church council to unify Christ’s Church before He comes.”

Who should chair it? Why him?

You know, it’s said that after two twisted jokes I felt I had to rebut something.

Ed, Whitestone does that to one.

I keep being reminded of the Scripture passage in which the then-king of Israel (IIRC) taunts the then-king of Judah with an allegory about a thistle threatening a giant cedar, with all sorts of bluster and bravado.

I shall say no more….

Whitestone, you write, “There are rebels, greedy, immoral, syncretists, superstitious, goof-balls and heretics galore, even among the religious and in the universities.”

Absolutely true! However, the difference btw the Catholic rebels, goofballs, etc. and their Anglican equivalents is that ours (the Catholics) aren’t in charge of the asylum.

Fr. Philip, OP

I’m still trying to figure out why my name is on Whitestone’s comment, which responds to nothing I wrote above it. I pointed out that Anglicanism and Catholicism are different religions and won’t be melding into one, whatever ARCIC fantasies one indulges. That’s controversial? Then I made a comment that really doesn’t bear on Anglicanism at all (the whole “spirit of Vatican II” think is intra-mural Catholic for sure).

In fact, the closest thing to Catholic triumphalism in this post is in the post itself, not in the comments. The last I checked, Christopher Johnson is not a Catholic.

W.A. Whitestone (alias Mr.Chick) No, we do not need you or anybody outside the Catholic Church to tell us poor, dumb, uneducated, brainwashed, exploited, poverty stricken, sexually deprived/repressed, child burdened, barefooted Katliks (see we can’t even spell)what to do. Again the Imperial British arrogance you and fellow Anglicans display is appalling. Obviously you either have not read or you refuse to accept Matthew 16: 13-19.If that’s the case: your problem not the Catholic Church’s,its leadership or its Magisterium or teaching authority. These were bestowed not by Moroni (now that is a learned reference there!),nor by Henry VII for that matter, nor by any Archbishop of Canterbury or by any of the Anglican Bishops in the Historic Sees. Even these had been established by the Catholic Church as Catholic Sees well before the advent of Anglicanism. The Catholic Church has the mandate and the promise which it can through to Peter and therefore they are from Christ Himself. Therefore There is no need for any “Global council” to revisit that issue. BTW I suppose you are aware that ALL the “Global Church Councils”, pre Reformation (which all Christians claim to accept) and All those Post Reformation, the latest being Vatican II, were called by the Catholic Church and all the participants were Catholic Bishops. Representatives of other Churches in modern times were only observers not contributors.

Henry VIII, of course.

Yes, FW Ken, I see what you mean. However, I don’t think the failures in my church call me to point at how bad others are, too. It doesn’t help mine. As you know, I’m not converting anytime soon, for reasons both theoretical and practical. However, I didn’t even have the heart to click on the threads at Stand Firm about the Irish Catholic scandal. The whole thing is degenerating into “Oh yeah? Well so are you!” childishness. When we see the Lord face to face, we will know all we need to know. Until that time, we will be in an imperfect world and in an imperfect Church, no matter where we are.

Whitestone, like I like to say “The Catholic Church: Getting It Wrong Since Pentecost” (as many of our separated brethren like to point out when discussing when exactly the pure primitive church went off the rails and all these accretions were ladled on).

Heck, we started going wrong with the first Pope, who was told “Retro me, Satanas!”

Christopher, I’m sorry, I really tried to be charitable and ecumenical and nice especially seeing as how this is Advent and all, but the snark was strong with this one:

“The Vatican can rest assured that we Anglicans will not create “Roman-rite jurisdictions” for unhappy Roman Catholics!”

But Bishop, I thought that was the whole point of the foundation of the Church of England: disgruntled ex-Catholics declaring their own jurisdiction and telling the Pope where to get off while maintaining parts of the liturgy and the praxis?

Who should be the judge, Ed the Roman? Ephesians 5:21 says, ‘Submit yourselves to one another in the fear of God.’ The church is to submit to and to judge one another with the help of the Holy Spirit and the Scriptures.

FW Ken, I was responding to your presumption that the RC is the arbitor and lodestone of Christianity and your snide remark about several ‘religions’.

LaVallette wrote, “BTW I suppose you are aware that ALL the “Global Church Councils”, pre Reformation (which all Christians claim to accept) and All those Post Reformation, the latest being Vatican II, were called by the Catholic Church and all the participants were Catholic Bishops. Representatives of other Churches in modern times were only observers not contributors.”
Yes, sadly, that is the case…the RCC does not submit herself to other counsel nor recognize any other authority but herself. That is dangerous. And, Henry VIII was no more influential over the Anglicans than Constantine was over the church and her structure, governance and traditions much earlier.

Rome proclaimed herself sovereign over all other churches. (through a slanted misreading of Scripture, by fudging the first several decades of Church history, by murder, bloodshed, with the help and by deals with worldly powers) It is her conceit. She has operated under that presumption for centuries despite the evidence of the fruit and power of the Holy Spirit to the contrary.

The Holy Spirit has gifted other church bodies and borne much fruit, spreading the Gospel to many nations, yet the RC still persists in her vanity, exclusiveness and continuing to judge all other churches, excommunicating and issuing papal bulls, inventing new doctrines and dogmas as she herself sees fit. (the RC version of Anglican fudge). She continues to purport that her and only her very own interpretations of Scripture are valid. This is the RC default presumption and she does not recognize any disagreement with it. (nor do any of you esteemed RC commentors)

This Whalon is a real scream; either a fantasist, a fool or a liar — and possibly all three. “Them’s fightin’ words,” I know, but in this case I can esaily justify them.

Consider, for example, this statement by our pauvre petit Pierre:

“According to Cardinal Walter Kasper, head of ecumenism for the Roman Church, the target in particular is groups of dissidents who separately founded small churches beginning in the ’60s, which have come together under the banner of “The Traditional Anglican Communion.” They are made up of people who for different reasons left the Anglican Communion: the revision of the Book of Common Prayer, the admission of women to Holy Orders in some churches of the communion; and the inclusion of gay and lesbian people. Outside this little assembly of churches, there will certainly be some individuals who, for reasons of conscience, will accept this new offer by the Vatican.”

It would have made a great deal of good sense (not least as regards ecumeniacal diplomacy) for Cardinal Kasper to have said this, but in fact he seems to have said precisely the opposite (see the four paragraphs below; paragraphs 2 and 4 are my comments; paragraph 3 is what the good Cardinal actually said):

“The cardinal said that while the TAC leaders asked the Vatican two years ago to find a way for them to join the Catholic Church, they did not participate in the conversations that led to the pope’s recent provision.”

What conversations? They wouldn’t have participated in the intra-Vatican conversations that led to the Ap. Con., but neither would have any other Anglicans. But if he’s referring (and I don’t know that he is) to the conversations in Rome in April 2008 with some FIF/UK bishops and the January 2009 conclave in Vienna, than it’s a peculiar thing for him to say, since all of these things worked together for the good of all, rather than tripping things up, or strewing banana skins all about. Actually, I am inclined to think that FIF/UK’s getting in on the act accelerated things rather a good deal, but, still, it was an addition onto the foundation laid by TAC.

“‘Now, however, they are jumping on a train that already has left the station. If they are sincere, OK, the doors are open. But we cannot close our eyes to the fact that they have not been in communion with Canterbury since 1992 and therefore are not technically leaving the Anglican Communion to join the Roman Catholic Church,’ he said.”

This is the key passage; it seems senseless and to lack clear meaning (or perhaps any at all). If “they” means the TAC, certainly the passage is perfectly incomprehensible, and why pull 1992 out of the air? I don’t know when the TAC presence in England began (as I recall, TAC as an entity only began in, when, 1991?), but there was some kind of Continuing Anglican presence there ever since the CofE began to “ordain” women to the diaconate in 1987. The whole passage seems to be laboring to convey the sense that since the TAC has not been in communion with Canterbury for some years, therefore if it manages to “jump on the train” they will be lucky if the conductors don’t push them off at the next stop, since there are no suitable “third class cars” for the likes of them. One would think that Kasper would want to say the opposite, that all remains fair weather (“Always look on the bright side of life …”) between Rome and Canterbury; we’re just rescuing a few “strays” who haven’t been in communion with Canterbury lo these many years, and so Canterbury shouldn’t be upset with any of this, and if a few stray “kosher Anglicans” get on board, we won;t let that get in the way of our tea party. But to twist the passage to make it say that would be a real triumph of Newspeak. Perhaps something was “lost in the translation.”

As to Mr. Whitestone, when his bloviations take on the color of factuality rather than fantasy, then he should be addressed, but until then his wild swings should meet only with a smile of silent amusement.

For Kasper’s words, see this:

http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0905080.htm

and for those of Pierre le Menteur (alias Petrus Mendax), see the link our host provides above.

FW Ken, The RC is as confusing a mix as Anglicanism. There are the superstitious, aparition-seekers, the saint and relic venerators, etc. that almost seem like a separate religion from the rest of Christendom and are just as ludicrous as the charismaniac gold dust folks in Toronto, Pensacola and Lakeland, FL. Like the Anglicans, the RC looks good on paper, but in practice, is not consistent, or better than any other Christian church body at producing the fruit and works of the Holy Spirit. The RC has often acted in behalf of the institution rather than for the sake of truth, shielding and shifting abusers and pedophiles, ignoring heretics, false teachers, making nice with Islam and tolerating Tony and Cherie Blair, Pelosi, Ted Kennedy, etc. And, through the centuries, she has operated coldly, shrewdly and politically at times, not stopping at murder to amass wealth and power to use against her opponents and other Christians.

The RC assumption of primacy is an act of schism that has separated her from the wider body of Christ, present and past.

When anyone challenges or disagrees the RC doctrine of Petrine primacy, they are attacked personally, labelled Jack Chick, called a bigot, etc.. No one can challenge any RC theological construct without being attacked or derided.

This kind of identification with a ‘team’ or group is a false and immature method of identity formation…but that seems to be the case with the more rabid RCs I have encountered. It is unhealthy to venerate or exalt one’s organization, its doctrines and leaders, to make them the foundation of one’s identity, to intentionally blink at their failings, to pretend they are infallible…to deny the truth in their behalf.

God did not cover up the sins, doubts, misdeeds, mistakes, failures of Moses, David, or any other human or institution, patriarch or matriarch. God alone is good. The rest of us need to submit to one another in the fear of God. Submission was designed by Jesus Christ to guard and keep His Church in healthy humility and the sanity of reality and rationality. The only worship (infatuation, dependency and excess of emotion) permitted Jesus permits His Bride is toward Himself.

You know, I get awfully tired of people claiming that the customs of peasant Catholics is “superstition” or warmed-over paganism if it differs in any way from the milquetoast practice of genteel Americans who think being Christian is reading books featuring an air-brushed, blue-eyed Jesus. And since when does the distinct minority become the defining locus of “Christendom”? Would it not be more accurate to say, “Our iconoclastic congregation of Good Taste seems like a different religion when compared to the vast majority of Christians, both now and throughout history”?

James G

The Vatican can rest assured that we Anglicans will not create “Roman-rite jurisdictions” for unhappy Roman Catholics!

Well ya *did* manage to attract the likes of Matthew Fox, the ‘orthodox’ Ms Kaeton, and various and sundry Catholic nutjobs, mais oui? In fact the whole flippin’ denomination, save for a few dioceses like San Joaquin and Fort Worth (oh, wait…), seems to look like an amusement park to the cafeteria crowd.

Don’t cry, Pierre, the ones you’re losing are exactly the ones you’ve been so careful to let know you could barely tolerate.

Whitestone,

Spoken like a true son of the 19th century American Know-Nothingism of Klu Kux Klan.

Will you be telling us next that nuns secretly hide their aborted babies under the convent? Or that the Jesuits have a plan for global domination using the Masons and the Bilderberg Group?

Fr. Philip, OP

Please do not put words in my mouth, James G.

I do not hate the Roman Catholic Church.

I am not accusing her of paganism, etc.

I admire the many virtues and gifts of the RC. I pray every blessing and the peace of Jerusalem for her and for the rest of Christ’s Church.

However, I am not prepared to exalt her above other churches or to deny her sins, faults and mistakes.

(continued)

While the RC has preserved valuable portions of the faith, she has done herself and the body of Christ harm while under her own authority and recognizance.

You left out Voodoo and other Afrocentric religions that blended Catholicism and native spiritism in order to disguise their true nature from the Catholic slave owners.

You also forgot to mention the CCHD scandals both in the U.S and Canada. Or the fact that certain Catholic Hospitals did not obey Church teaching on abortion. Please mention the nun who was an escort at a abortion clinic. And she is not the only sistah who thinks vaccuuming babies is a right thing with God.

Oh gosh how can I mention the womyn with out exposing the whole Divine Feminine movement so popular amongst certain theologians and religious. It is no accident that such theology ties in very closely with eco spiritualism. “Earth Is Our Mother” You should be there when the devotees are told an image of the globe was seen in a vegetarian organic soybean burrito.

For a solid month they sacrificed a free range chicken every day at noon in hopes that Gaia herself would appear to them. The only think that did appear was the FDA inspector who fined them for running a slaughterhouse sans permit.

And I am not the only one who notices your “have you stopped beating your dog.” approach to arguments. You litter your posts with so many half truths, lies, misrepresantations that one would have to spend weeks correcting these before even being able to respond to what is factual in your post.

This is the last thing I will say to you. And if Christopher decides to delete it I understand. You should be ashamed of yourself. The Catholics who comment on this board have been extremely supportive to the Episcopalians who are in real grief over the direction there church has taken and is taking. Most of us understand the very real theological and personal barriers converting to a non Protestant church has for many of them. So we have always encouraged them to find a church home that will nourish their faith and one that is true to Scripture. When they find that in the Catholic Church we rejoice for them. But when they do not, we do not scorn them or belittle them. And we often remind them if they think being Catholic means escaping controversy or suddenly never hearing heresy uttered again they will be in for a harsh wake up call.

Many people on this post do not agree with what the Church teaches. But you are the only one who consistently spews vitrol on her. You take no care to separate truth from falsehood or to find out what the Church truly teaches on the matter. Your hatred has blinded you. And I for one am tired of your distortions and self righteous priggishness.

To repeat (as you have proved) when anyone challenges or disagrees the RC doctrine of Petrine primacy, or any RC doctrine, dogma or practice they are attacked, derided, accused, labelled Jack Chick, called a bigot, or worse.

I rest my case.

To bring things back on track (could someone please get the door?). Bp Whalon was the priest at my inlaws parish sometime ago. One thing that may set the tone of his arguments is the fact he is a convert from Catholicism.

I do not think many members of the parish were happy with his tenure there. But I will say that when my FIL had a triple bypass then Father Whalon was extremely supportive and showed great empathy and kindness to our family. I think he would be very well suited to be a hospital or military chaplain. As such work would bring out the best in him. His elevation to this post however does not seem to allow the flowering of grace. Instead it brings out those traits which do not reflect well on him or the church at all.

Well no, Whitestone, when people like Fr. Thomas Hopko or Met. Jonah or even our dear Rowan Williams challenge Roman doctrine, they don’t get derided or called Jack Chick or a bigot or what have you, because they make their cases intelligently and tactfully, and they know what they are talking about.

Look, Whitestone, get a grip on reality. The Roman Catholic Church claims to be “the one true Church,” precisely that “One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Chuch,” faith in which is professed in and by one of the articles of the Nicene Creed. The Orthodox Church(es) — or perhaps I should write the Communion of churches that constitute the Orthodox Church — professes precisely the same thing about itself, as do(es) the Oriental Orthodox (non-Chalcedonian) Church(es). This is a simple fact.

Another such “simple fact,” although one more arguable, since it concerns the interpretation of historical evidence, is that the phrase of the Nicene Creed “One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church” meant, to those Fourth-Century Church Fathers and bishops who framed it prior to its adoption by the Council of Constantinople in 381, meant by it not some “invisible Church” that was comprised by the “collectivity of all Christian believers in all ‘denominations’” — a concept that was wholly unknown to Christians before the 17th Century — nor “the number of the Elect,” that is, those who at any particular point in time might not be members of the Church or even Christians (just as all those who were members of the Church at ant point in time might not be true members, because they would ultimately not be numbered among the Elect). No, the phrase “One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church” meant, by those who framed it, “us” or “our church,” no more no less. It was meant to exclude Arians, Donatists, Novatianists, each of whose churches themselves claimed to be the “one and only” church, as well as various Gnostic and “enthusiastic” groups (like the Montanists) who rejected to a greater or lesser extent the Catholic idea (and reality) of “Church” itself.

I don’t want to do you an injustice, Whitestone, but behind most of your criticisms of Catholic views and Catholic ecclesiology lurks the notion that Catholics should adopt a Protestant denominational ecclesiology. At times, you focus on “the Roman Catholic doctrine of Petrine Primacy,” which to reject doesn’t in itself constitute a Protestant or denominationalist ecclesiology, for the Orthodox (by and large) reject it as strongly as do any Protestants, and yet the Orthodox are, if anything, more unqualifiedly insistent that the Orthodox Church is “the one true Church” than Catholics. At other times, however, you deploy vague phrases of uncertain content, such as “the council of the global Church” or “The RC needs to … submit herself to the rest of the Body of Christ” and the like, which make perfect sense on Protestant “denominationalist” or Anglican “branch theory” ecclesiological conceits, but which are simply neither Catholic nor Orthodox not Patristic. You might just as wll require the Catholic Church (or the Orthodox or the Oriental Orthodox) to adopt a Mormon or a Witness ecclesiology, as a Protestant or Anglican one. It’s not going to happen.

One thing that may set the tone of his arguments is the fact he is a convert from Catholicism.

I see a remarkable difference in the attitude and demeanor of those converting from Catholicism to Anglicanism than that of those doing the opposite. It makes me wonder…

“The RC needs to … submit herself to the rest of the Body of Christ”

This phrase in particular either means “start doing what the rest of us tell you” or it means nothing in particular.

FW Ken, I was responding to your presumption that the RC is the arbitor and lodestone of Christianity and your snide remark about several ‘religions’.

Well that was stupid of you. There is nothing in my comments about your first point and, as far as Anglicanism being several religions, that was neither snide nor a particularly Catholic saying. I learned it as an Anglican from Anglicans, who admit readily to the presence of Anglo-catholicism, evangelicalism, and the “broad church” cultural religion. That that I would add “liberal/modernist Anglicanism”, which was less of a factor at the time I became a Catholic.

Whitestone, you have put words in my mouth and then damned me who saying them (although I didn’t). You have born false witness against me and I leave you to God.

Katherine -

The monks have a saying, when one of their brothers dies: Now he knows more theology than all of us. And they speak truly.

As to the Irish situation, I feel exactly about that as I do about the American problems: God is blessing us greatly with a long-overdue house cleaning.

As most people who’ve hung around here for a while know, I have, at the moment, serious problems with various aspects of Roman Catholic doctrine. And Roman Catholics have serious problems with various aspects of my doctrine.

I also think that the term “anti-Catholic” tends to be bandied about way too often. Disagreement with Catholic doctrine simply means that someone at that particular moment happens to disagree with Rome. To call principled disagreement “bigotry” is unfair.

Does that mean they will never agree with Rome? Of course not. They might, they might never. Does that mean they can’t go to heaven if they never agree with Rome? Of course not and I’m fairly certain that Rome doesn’t teach that.

The point of all this is that it is extremely dangerous to make these sorts of calls on this side of eternity. If you’re Protestant, Therese of Lisieux may be your tour guide when you get over there. And if you’re Catholic, Charles Spurgeon may be the one who shows you around.

Just sayin’.

Christopher, I have never had a problem with principled disagreement except when it comes from Cafeteria Catholics.

Forget Spurgeon, Christopher. I want Ruth Bell Graham. That’s a REAL saint.

Principled disagreement is just what Bishop Whalen is not giving. He lectures the RCs on what is first-order and what isn’t according to his own lights. Principled disagreement involves understanding the other’s point of view while not agreeing with it.

To clarify my post I mean except for when it comes to Cafeteria Catholics on matters which are binding on the faithful such as the belief that marriage is reserved for the union of one man to one woman for life.

But to me, any Protestant will disagree on certain Catholic doctrines. That is why they are Protestant. I don’t think they are bigots because of this as long as their disagreements are based on what the Church actually teaches.

Most non-Catholics here do show principled disagreement. And this allows for robust but respectful arguments. I wish other blogs had such a healthy approach to our diffrences.

Whitestone, I can understand you’re bothered by sarcastic comments, coming from us Catholics among others, towards some Anglican representatives. You love your church and it’s a healthy thing to defend your own family, where you received the gift of the Christian faith.

Please, consider we’re not mocking Anglicans in regard to our confessional differences. I think most of us is devoted to this blog because we share an anxiety for the future of Christianity in the western world; certainly because Christopher is able to inform and entertain all of us in a unique and funny way – and I appreciate humor a lot, as a sign of a sound faith. So no one here is happy to see the grotesque and dramatic events taking place in the Anglican world and I assure you I’m praying for all the sincere Christians enduring this pain.

Let me say one thing, however, and be patient: the arrogance you see in Catholicism is not so different from what a liberal sees in Christianity. “How dare you speak in the name of an improbable God, reading from an arbitrary piece of paper written 2000 years ago by unknown people”.
The fact is that the Roman Church has, and always had, authority: yes, the Catholic Church reads and believes confidently Matthew 16:17-19 according to its plain meaning – progressively understood in its consequences and significance under the guide of the Holy Spirit. Arrogant? Otherwise it’s true.

Ciao, Paolo

For the record “anti-catholic” was not used on this thread, nor was “bigot”, except for Whitestone complaining he was called one (he wasn’t). Paula is the only Catholic who used the term, when she wrote:

I don’t think they are bigots because of this…

It’s important to keep in mind what people actually say (write), and not what we sometimes hear (read).

“The RC is as confusing a mix as Anglicanism. There are the superstitious, aparition-seekers, [sic] the saint and relic venerators, etc. that almost seem like a separate religion from the rest of Christendom…”

There are approximately 2.25 billion Christians in the world, 1.50+ billion of them are “superstitious, aparition-seeking saint and relic venerating” Catholics and Orthodox.

the protestants, with the sparse, bare sunday services that rarely amount to more than a moderately well-led Bible study, are the group that actually “seem like a separate religion from the rest of Christendom.”

Christopher, if Jean Cauvin is waiting on the other side for me with a big grin and a bouguet…

… then I’ll know I’ve made it to Purgatory. Whew! Relieved!

Okay, having read down through the article, there are one or two things I would like some clarification on.

First, can anyone tell me exactly what this means?

“In light of the progress of the past four decades and the permanent change of the theological modes of expression of the churches which have now come to hold in common the meanings of salvation and the identity and mission of the church”

What “permanent change in theological modes of expression”? What precisely is meant by “theological modes of expression”? And who are these churches that now hold in common the meanings of salvation and the identity and mission of the church – does he mean the constituent churches of the Anglican Communion, or is he referring to others, such as the Porvoo Agreement churches and the other Reformed churches on the Continent?

Secondly, there is this:

“One could think that after more than 40 years of common discussions, decisions and actions between the Anglican Communion and the Roman Catholic Church, that no one would allow himself to repeat the false propaganda that Henry VIII of England created a church for himself so that he could obtain a divorce.

That king founded nothing and certainly never asked anyone for a divorce. Those who continue to repeat this lie do so to harm the Church of England, which began through the efforts of missionaries in the second century after Christ. The Reformation had no influence on the monarch who had been granted the title of “Defender of the Faith” for his unwavering support of the papacy — a title that still appears on all British currency just above the portrait of the monarch. Then-Pope Clement VII would certainly have granted Henry the annulment (not divorce) of his marriage with Catherine of Aragon that he felt he needed, a favor which other loyal kings had received before, had Clement’s war against Henry’s wife’s nephew, Charles V, not failed. The defeated pope was Charles’ prisoner when Henry’s men arrived with their sovereign’s letters.”

I agree that the birth of the Church of England is more complicated than a king wanting a divorce, but it did start with Henry (however encouraged and manipulated he was by the devotees of the New Learning and those influenced by the continental Reformers). However, Henry had been searching for opinions favourable to the nullity of his marriage and grounds for an annulment amongst the universities and canon lawyers since at least 1527, so he was certainly asking someone for a divorce.

I agree that Clement VII was under political pressure from Charles V, nephew of Queen Catherine, but on the other hand, there had originally been a dispensation to permit Henry to marry Catherine as the widow of his brother, and so grounds for annulment on the earlier marriage were not entertained. The Tudors had first argued that the Pope could give a dispensation for the marriage and now were arguing that the Pope couldn’t do so, which strikes me as wanting to eat your cake and have it too.

Here is what Thomas Cranmer had to say:

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/cramner-hen8.html

“And first as touching the small determination and concluding of the matter of divorce between my Lady Catherine and the King’s Grace, which said matter after the Convocation in that behalf had determined and agreed according to the former consent of the Universities, it was thought convenient by the King and his learned Council that I should repair unto Dunstable, which is within 4 miles unto Amptell, where the said Lady Catherine keepeth her house, and there to call her before me, to hear the final sentence in this said matter. Notwithstanding she would not at all obey thereunto, for when she was by doctor Lee cited to appear by [the end of] a day, she utterly refused the same, saying that inasmuch as her cause was before the Pope she would have none other judge; and therefore would not take me for her judge. Nevertheless the 8th day of May, according to the said appointment, I came unto Dunstable, my lord of Lincoln being assistant unto me, and my Lord of Winchester, Doctor Bell… with diverse others learned in the Law being counsellors in the law for the King’s part; and so there at our coming kept a court for the appearance of the said Lady Catherine, where were examined certain witnesses which testified that she was lawfully cited and called to appear… And the morrow after Ascension day I gave final sentence therin, how it was indispensable for the Pope to license any such marriages.”

Thomas seems to think it was a divorce!

As for this gem of historical revision:

“Pope Pius V, being unable to remove her, instigated a war against Elizabeth led by her cousin, Mary Queen of Scots.”

I’m sure we all remember the stirring speech given by Mary of Scotland as she addressed her troops before they marched southward to invade England, that one about ” I know I have the body but of a weak and feeble woman; but I have the heart and stomach of a king” – oh, wait, that was Lizzie herself at Tilbury in 1588 and not Mary.

Still, I’m sure we all remember the famous Scots-English War of 1570? Or am I mixing that up with the Scottish Rebellion of 1560 deposing Mary, led by John Knox and supported by Elizabeth?

I do believe the good Bishop has been calling up the Spirit of Vatican II. I shudder at the thought as necromancy is the gravest of sins.

I have explained numerous times why Henry hadn’t the proverbial snowball in Hell’s chance of getting his marriage to Katherine of Aragon annulled. First, the originally annulment had covered all bases, and, second, Henry was clearly, explicitly and repeatedly demanding that the pope grant him the annulment on the grounds that “by Divine Law” no pope had the authority to grant a man a deisensation to marry his deceased brother’s widow (he even refused to allow his supporters and Canon Law advocates to argue for a decision that the 1503 dispensation had been invalid on “technical” grounds).

Although the political situation would have made it very difficult for the pope to grant Henry an annulment, Henry’s own arguments made it impossible — as the king himself had come to reciognize by the end of 1530, when he began to cast around for means to effect a “purely English” solution to his difficulties. One might argue that the endless willingness of Pope Clement VII to postpone giving any decision in Henry’s case, and especially not a decisive “no,” especially early on, was particularly reprehensible in the light of the eventual outcome.

The Pope may have had no right to do so, but eventually in 1907, they decided the Deceased Wife’s Sister’s Marriage Act and in 1921 with the Deceased Brother’s Widow’s Marriage Act that Parliament could do so!

“An Act to amend the Law relating to marriage with a deceased brother’s widow. [28th July 1921]

BE it enacted by the King’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows :-

1.-(1) Section one of the Deceased Wife’s Sister’s Marriage Act, 1907, shall be read and construed as after the words “deceased wife’s sister,” where they occur in such section, there were inserted “or between a man and his deceased brother’s widow.”
(2) Section three of the said Act shall be read and construed as though -
(a) in subsection (1) thereof, after the words “wives sisters,” there were inserted the words “or husbands’ brothers’ wives” ; and
(b) in subsection (2) thereof, at the end, there were inserted the words “or the divorced wife of his brother, or the wife of his brother who has divorced his brother, during the lifetime of such brother.”
(3) Section four of the said Act shall be read and construed as if at the end thereof there were inserted the words “or his deceased brother’s widow.”
(4) Section five of the said Act shall be read and construed as though at the end thereof there were inserted the words “and the word ‘brother’ shall include a brother of the half blood.”
The said Act as amended by this Act shall, so far as it relates to marriages between a man and his deceased brother’s widow, have effect as though it had been passed at the date of the passing of this Act.

2. This Act may be cited as the Deceased Brother’s Widow’s Marriage Act, 1921, and this Act and the Deceased Wife’s Sister’s Marriage Act, 1907, may be cited together as the Marriage (Prohibited Degrees of Relationship) Acts, 1907 and 1921.”

Ah, the ironies of history

And Henry appears to have jumped the gun, even before getting Cranmer and his tame theologians to pronounce the marriage with Catherine null and void:

“The wedding between Henry and Anne took place on 25 January 1533. On 23 May 1533, Cranmer declared the marriage of Henry and Catherine null and void. Five days later Cranmer declared the marriage of Henry and Anne to be good and valid.”

Henry and Anne got married in January and Elizabeth was born on 7th September. That’s less than nine months, if anyone’s counting, so there definitely was a certain urgency in the matter; even Cranmer, in the letter I cited, mentions that Anne was visibly pregnant at her coronation. And there is again historical irony in that, when Henry was petitioning for the Papal annulment of his marriage to Catherine, he also put in that he should be free to marry “Henry also petitioned, in the event of his becoming free, a dispensation to contract a new marriage with any woman even in the first degree of affinity, whether the affinity was contracted by lawful or unlawful connection. This clearly referred to Anne.”

That is, by having made Anne’s sister Mary his mistress, by the understanding of the time “an affinity by unlawful connection” had been created between Henry and Anne, which he conveniently got scruples over when he wanted to annul his marriage to Anne herself; he got Cranmer to declare the marriage null and void – and this after Cranmer had done his part in declaring the marriage legal and valid in the first place! – and had Elizabeth declared illegitimate by act of Parliament.

So there was no novelty in Pope Paul V declaring Elizabeth illegitimate in his excommunication, seeing as how her own father had already done that beforehand.

Even in English law Elizabeth I was illegitimate to her dying day. When Mary became Queen in 1553, the statute I Mary c.1 not only recognized her as legally Queen and, as such, with all the powers and authority of a king, but went on to declare the marriage of Henry VIII and Catherine true and lawful, and Mary their true, lawful and legitimate daughter. By contrast, after Elizabeth I’s accession in 1558, I Elizabeth, c.1 merely recognized her as true and lawful Queen, and as having all the authority of a King. It said nothing about her legitimacy or otherwise, which was unnecessary, because she had inherited the throne due not to her legitimate birth (or otherwise), but due to the entail of the Crown created in and by Henry VIII’s will, in which (by act of Parliament in 1544) he had full statutory authority to bequeath the Crown in whatever manner he pleased to do so.

Hardly anybody ever alluded publicly in the course of Elizabeth I’s reign to her legal status as Queen, and yet illegitimate by birth. But when her greatuncle Sit James Boleyn died in 1561 an Act of Parliament had to be passed recognizing the Queen’s right to inherit from him as his next of kin, which would have been unnecessary and superfluous had their not been the uncertainty about her right to do so which the circumstances of her birth and the maritial status of her parents not been (silently) in the background.

FW Ken, I was referring to name-calling on several past threads.

Dr Tighe, Christianity in the UK does not depend upon either the British Crown, Parliament or Henry 8 and Elizabeth 1 or 2 for either identity, validity or power.

Non-Roman Christianity in the British Isles existed before Augustin was sent to Romanize her and will exist forever despite any political or religious interferences.

Contrary to your assertion above, there is a vast difference in believing in a universal ‘one holy catholic and apostolic church’ which is testified by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and by the fruit and life of the Spirit and ascribing to Rome’s claim of primacy and her doctrine of Petrine succession and her various other self-authenticated doctrines.

Christianity does not need authentication from nor owe allegiance to Roman Catholicism.

Rome’s claims broke with the tradition of mutually-submitted concilliar authority and created the real schism in Christendom. Through the centuries, Rome has employed various unseemly and ungodly means to try to make her claim a reality.

Rome’s holiest option is to get real, lay down her pride and enter into humble confession, repentance and reconciliation with the rest of Christendom.

There seems to be some hope of this in the present talks with the Orthodox and with the Manhattan Declaration. May the Lord’s will, Kingdom come destroying vanity, conflict, discord and building unity in His whole Church.

Dear Paolo,

Jesus built His Church and set the pattern for the progression of a life and growth of a Christian from Revelation to discipleship to evangelization/mission before He ascended and the Holy Spirit descended at Pentecost to empower His Church.

Jesus set out for us the essential necessary Spiritual components of the Church in the order they must proceed in the life of a convert (or else the church is dysfuntional and gives way to agenda and false teachers…and will die)…as we have seen in every expression and group who claim the Name of Jesus Christ – without exception.

1. Impartation and Revelation (a gift and act of God) that Jesus is Lord – (Peter’s statement to Jesus)
2. Devotion, First Love for Jesus Christ – (St. John and Mary, Icon of the Church at the foot of the Cross ‘Son, behold your mother’)
3. Education/Discipleship, Sanctification/maturation, Administration (The Lord says Feed, care for my sheep)
4. Evangelization/mission which is the fruition/reproduction of the prior stages of Christian growth (Saul accosted and interrupted on the Damascus Road.

It is possible to fail to fulfill Christ’s order of growth and to have leaders and members who are unbelievers and false teachers as Revelation 2-3 reveals and as we have seen in every church today.

I deal in history and facts, Mr. Whitestone; you appear to prefer fantasy and fiction.

I would have said “lies and slander”, Dr. Tighe, rather than “fantasy and fiction”. But whatever.

Sir, I am referring to spiritual facts and evidence as in Ephesians 6:12, not the machinations of Henry, Elizabeth or the Borgias and mere mortals in the temporal sphere.

The Roman church may have declared itself to be something in a certain year by its own council and that is a ‘fact’, but it is not necessarily a ‘Truth’.

While there is much to admire, physically and spiritually, about the Roman church, it is not the whole of Christendom, nor has the Holy Spirit granted the Roman church the exclusive franchise nor police/judgment jurisdiction, oversight over the whole church. Though some may believe this is so, that it is a false assumption.

Well no, Whitestone, when people like Fr. Thomas Hopko or Met. Jonah or even our dear Rowan Williams challenge Roman doctrine, they don’t get derided or called Jack Chick or a bigot or what have you, because they make their cases intelligently and tactfully, and they know what they are talking about.

Arguably, if they really knew what they were talking about, they’d cross the Tiber.

But the rest of your point stands. Thank you.