It appears that Rome is bending the rules a bit to lure in some Anglicans:Pope establishes structure for Anglicans uniting with Rome
I wonder how the Traditionalists that Rome is also wooing will feel about this development:
Vatican announces start of dialogue with traditionalist group
Posts
23 comments:
It hurts you to see people moving away from heretical Protestant teachings and towards the real Church doesn't it? Soon we will see large numbers of Anglicans accepting Catholicism. Praise be to God! I think we will know more when the Apostolic Constitution comes out. It may be wise to refrain from speculating on the issue too much until it is released. Here are my thoughts on the issue.
http://catholicchampion.blogspot.com/2009/10/pope-benedict-makes-wise-move-for.html
"Soon we will see large numbers of Anglicans accepting Catholicism."
Out of the frying pan and into the fire.
An informative discussion of this can be found on Rev. Paul McCain's blog http://cyberbrethren.com/ , for today's date. The first of the comments explains which type of Anglicans are addressed by this.
Nice one, EA.
Curious how conversion to the "one true church" is somehow better than conversion to Christ.
Nope. Doesn’t hurt a bit to see one church that ordains homosexuals joining another that does the same thing. Birds of a feather, you know.
But lest anybody gets overly excited about this, the issue of property ownership will stop any Anglican church from becoming a Roman church. The fact is that the Anglican Church owns the real estate, and not local parishes. And the AC is clearly on the record as not ceding property to departing congregations (which has been upheld by secular courts, as well). Some individuals may leave, but that’s no different than what goes on right now. Nobody will be changing the sign on the outside of St. George’s Episcopal Church to read Our Lady of Perpetual Motion anytime soon.
Outside of the US (i.e. Africa and the “southern church”) Anglicanism is enjoying a strong resurgence to Biblical Protestantism. So much so that that leads to serious discussions about a split between the aberrant US Church and the more doctrinally conservative, Protestant oriented Anglican Church in other parts of the world. While U.S. non-biblical Anglicanism is dying, biblically based Anglicanism in other parts of the world is exploding.
So it is doubtful that Rome’s ploy, while brilliant from a marketing perspective, will have any traction. And if it does, it will be to attract individual Anglicans from a part of the world where their church has preached “another gospel”, not from parts of the world where Anglicans hear the real Gospel. (In Africa, more sermons are preached in Anglican churches from the book of Deuteronomy than any other book of the Bible!)
One fascinating aspect of this is what pressure it will put on Rome to return to a married priesthood. Since Rome has had a married priesthood for longer than not, and since it now approves of converted Anglicans being married why can’t loyal, indigenous Catholic priests marry? That will be very interesting to watch. Maybe the Protestant trained, Anglican priests’ influence will actually grow as more disgruntled RC priests leave. Anglicans are, after all, Protestant in doctrine and Catholic in liturgy. Maybe more Roman Catholics will hear that good ole Protestant doctrine.
God surely works in mysterious ways. May He always be praised!
Peace.
It is simple, the one Church is Christ's Church. How difficult is that to understand?
Blogger Matthew Bellisario said...
Constantine says, "One fascinating aspect of this is what pressure it will put on Rome to return to a married priesthood. Since Rome has had a married priesthood for longer than not, and since it now approves of converted Anglicans being married why can’t loyal, indigenous Catholic priests marry? That will be very interesting to watch."
What are you talking about? Once an ordination has taken place marriage is out of the question. Nothing interesting to watch concerning this subject. Also celibacy has never been a strict rule in the Catholic Church. Learn your history before you start making all of these wild-eyed speculations. Celibacy is a disciplinary decision made by the Church. The Church can change it at any time for any Rite. Making sweeping generalizations like this proves once again you should not be engaging in any topics concerning Catholicism. You simply do not understand how the Church works, nor the history of celibacy in the Catholic Church. Marriage has never been strictly forbidden in Catholicism concerning the priesthood.
Also celibacy has never been a strict rule in the Catholic Church.
This is true. Look at all the past popes who had children with their mistresses.
"Also celibacy has never been a strict rule in the Catholic Church."
ROFL
If priestly celibacy is a discipline that can be changed “at any time for any Rite”, why is marriage after ordination “out of the question”? Wouldn’t that be “at any time”? A slight logical lapse, perhaps.
Yes, but once a marriage has taken place, an ordination is not out of the question except for Latin Rite Catholics. Lutherans, Anglicans and Eastern Rite Catholics can marry and then be ordained as Roman Catholic priests. Interestingly, about 20% of the world’s priests who owe allegiance to Rome are married, today.
You are incorrect, sir, to say that your Church can change the doctrine. The Church cannot change it anytime it wants because to do so would be to admit it has been wrong for centuries. Even though it has been wrong, to change the doctrine would admit a mistake of magisterial proportions – something of which Rome – while engaging in with great regularity - would never admit. And there are other issues, even more tantalizing:
“According to Rene Laurentin, the problem of a married clergy for Latin America and other areas, along the lines of the Eastern discipline, had been before the Holy See since the days of Pope Pius X, but the Roman authorities had always felt that any concession here would inevitably lead to reconsideration of the status of those living in clerical concubinage in Italy and other countries, estimated variously in the thousands, and this they were not prepared to face.” “Xavier Rynne,” Vatican Council II (Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1968), p. 520.
Admitting error and giving up your concubines – ain’t gonna happen anytime soon!
Peace.
"...to change the doctrine would admit a mistake of magisterial proportions..."
Coming up next; a REALLY interesting harangue regarding the difference between "doctrine" and "discipline" according to the Church of Rome.
Stay tuned.
Cue Matthew...
I know that Catholics sometimes use the doctrine/discipline distinction in rather convenient ways, but we all know that priestly celibacy is not a doctrine within the Catholic church. I don't think it is fair for us to pretend that the distinction doesn't exist in this case. Of course, I am open to correction from James, Carrie, TF, or any of the other participants here. That is, if I am missing something please let me know. However I do think that we would be being unfair to Mr. Bellisario to insist that the distinction between discipline and doctrine is not clear in this case.
Andrew, I'm impressed. That certainly is a responsible approach.
"I do think that we would be unfair to Mr. Bellisario to insist that the distinction between discipline and doctrine is not clear in this case."
I was anticipating a boilerplate argument and admonition from a Catholic e-pologist stating the oft-heard clarification regarding the differences between discipline and doctrine. It was intended to be humorous.
I apologize.
EA,
Very funny. My strategy has been exposed.
I'm surprised the harangue has not yet begun!
Peace.
Modern Roman Catholicism certainly does make a distinction between doctrines and disciplines.
Of course, they provide no infallible canon of which things fall in which category.
This provides a helpful technique for going against tradition when one wants to.
That is nice Turretinfan, but how does it concern this particular case seeing how there are priests who are also married?
TF, I agree that the distinction is less than helpful if you can't be 100% certain which is which. My only point here is that it is very clear that the the distinction applies in this case. Since it is clear in the case of priestly celibacy we should proceed accordingly without arguing as though there was some kind of question about it. The case for reformed christianity is strong enough. We don't need to argue in such ways.
By the way: I'm not trying to start anything with my Protestant compatriots here. I'm just making what I think is a valid and necessary point.
Well, let's say that for the moment, the Romanists are unwilling to argue that celibacy must be mandatory for doctrinal reasons. As such, there are more profitable avenues of discussion. I wasn't trying to argue with you, just to note some of the complexity of the situation.
That is nice Turretinfan, but how does it concern this particular case seeing how there are priests who are also married?
Post a Comment