Anglican Ordination of Women Bishops Ends Reunion Prospects

Welby and Francis

It was, of course inevitable, having ordained women to its “priesthood” that the Church of England, mother Church of the Anglican Communion, would in the end ordain women to its “episcopate” (I place the key-words in inverted commas, not to be insulting but to indicate simply that most Anglicans use the words to describe something very different indeed from our notions of priesthood and episcopacy).

The General Synod has now decided on women bishops. All the obstacles are down. The mystery was why it took them so long: in the Catholic understanding, if a person is a priest, he is, if suitable, eligible to be ordained bishop; perhaps the fact that the Anglicans thought that special legislative procedures were necessary to make such a thing possible for women is yet another theological indication of how different our ideas of what is involved in priesthood really are.

What we all, Anglicans and Catholics alike, now need to register clearly is that this brings definitively to an end any last remaining hope of ultimate corporate reunion between us. Even Cardinal Walter Kasper, as President of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, some time ago declared that the ordination of women to the episcopate “signified a breaking away from apostolic tradition and a further obstacle for reconciliation between the Catholic Church and the Church of England.” He also pointed to the internal disunity within Anglicanism, describing the protective legislation for those opposed to women’s ordination in the Church of England (“flying bishops” and so on) as the “unspoken institutionalism” of an “existing schism.”

The possibility that the reunion of Canterbury and Rome might still be possible has of course become ever more and more obviously delusional as the years have gone by. But still it has been fostered not only by Anglican ecumenists (most Anglicans have always thought that our doctrinal objections were preposterous, since they think that doctrine is intrinsically divisive, and best made up as you go along) but also by our own dwindling—but highly placed—band of Catholic ecumenists of the old school.

It was already clear that the whole delusion that unity, however distant, was an ultimate possibility, had collapsed. The great mystery was and remains this: why on earth do our bishops carry on feeding the delusion? They are doing it even now, even in the immediate aftermath of a decision which makes reunion definitively impossible forever. Archbishop Bernard Longley, co-chairman of ARCIC III, has issued a statement on behalf of our Bishops’ conference which ludicrously declares the following: “For the Catholic Church, the goal of ecumenical dialogue continues to be full visible ecclesial communion. Such full ecclesial communion embraces full communion in the episcopal office. The decision of the Church of England to admit women to the episcopate therefore sadly places a further obstacle on the path to this unity between us. Nevertheless we are committed to continuing our ecumenical dialogue….”

But WHY? WHY is it that “the goal of ecumenical dialogue continues to be full visible ecclesial communion” when it cannot now happen, EVER? How can that be the goal? Many of us have been asking the question for some time. “Why,” I asked last June, after the news had been announced that Archbishop Welby of Canterbury was to meet Pope Francis for the first time, “are we still going through the ecumenical motions with the Anglicans, for all the world as though they had (or had some possibility of gaining) the same kind of ecclesial reality as the Orthodox? Why does the Anglican Roman Catholic International Commission (ARCIC) still meet, as though Anglican ordinations to their episcopate of openly gay men living with their partners, and also of women to their priesthood and episcopate, despite the warnings of successive popes of the fact that these steps would erect insuperable barriers to unity with the Catholic Church, why do we still carry on with the farce of behaving as though these insuperable barriers just did not exist at all?”

The continuing existence of ARCIC is an endless source of misunderstanding: but it is worse than that, for it is a misunderstanding that has already vastly undermined our own teaching on the meaning of priesthood and the Eucharist.

It freezes in stone a theological understanding rooted in the hostility to tradition of the “Spirit of Vatican II.” Take the ARCIC document misleadingly entitled “The Anglican-Roman Catholic Agreed Statement on the Eucharist,” significantly dated 1971, a decade before the JPII/Ratzinger counter-revolution. This is the first sentence of the silkily written section on the Real Presence: “Communion with Christ in the Eucharist presupposes his true presence, effectually signified by the bread and wine which, in this mystery, become his body and blood.*” But what does that mean? Here, that asterisk, leading to a footnote, has to be followed up. This is what the footnote says: “*The word transubstantiation is commonly used in the Roman Catholic Church to indicate that God acting in the Eucharist effects a change in the inner reality of the elements…. In contemporary Roman Catholic theology it is not understood as explaining how the change takes place.” In other words Anglicans can believe what they like and so can Catholics: THAT was the whole basis of this now notorious agreed statement: “contemporary Roman Catholic theology” in 1971 was basically that what we used to believe, we don’t necessarily believe any longer, so we can agree what we like. The CCC, however, on transubstantiation, simply gives the wording of the Council of Trent and reaffirms it.

That is what the Catholic Church has always believed: but not ARCIC. And the fact is that massive damage has been done by the whole ARCIC mentality, which was and remains essentially reductionist. The indifferentism of those dreadful decades did massive damage to the faith of the Catholic man and woman in the pew: and the continuing existence of ARCIC is perpetuating it. I think THAT is almost unforgivable.

ARCIC III is a snare and a delusion, which is now seriously undermining an important part of the legacy of Benedict XVI. For, the fact is that for the many people within the Church of England who long for reunion with the Catholic Church, but who wish that it could happen in a cultural Anglican context, a means already exists for them to have what they long for: I refer, of course, to the Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham, whose reaction to the decision on women bishops can be found here. THAT is where the true locus of Anglican-Roman Catholic ecumenism is now to be found, not in the derelict and crumbling structures of ARCIC III, which have become positively dangerous and should be demolished immediately in the interests of the health and safety of us all. For now, in the words of Mgr Steven Lopes of the CDF, “The Ordinariate is ecumenism in the front row.”

He told the plenary session for clergy of the Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham, on Thursday June 19, that “the Ordinariate is ecumenism. It has at its heart the fundamental principle for the ecumenical movement: that the unity of faith which is at the heart of the communion of the Church can exist in diversity of expression.”

That was not at any time the fundamental principle of ARCIC, whose time has surely come. I never thought I would end a blog by quoting Oliver Cromwell, but here goes: “You have sat too long for any good you have been doing lately…. Depart, I say; and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!”

Editor’s note: This column first appeared July 17, 2014 in the Catholic Herald of London and is reprinted with permission. (Photo credit: Alessandra Benedetti / Corbis.)

Dr. William Oddie

By

Dr. William Oddie is a leading English Catholic writer and broadcaster. He edited The Catholic Herald from 1998 to 2004 and is the author of The Roman Option and Chesterton and the Romance of Orthodoxy.

  • OneTimothyThreeFifteen

    I’m no expert, but isn’t, ‘The word transubstantiation is commonly used in the Roman Catholic Church to indicate that God acting in the Eucharist effects a change in the inner reality of the elements…’, consubstantiation, rather than transubstantiation?

    • Asmondius

      Essentially, ‘consubstantial’ here means ‘of the same’ whereas ‘transubstantial’ means ‘substantial change’.

      Jesus is consubstantial with the Father, which is a state of being. His real presence comes into the Eucharistic species via transubstantiation, which is a change. His presence is not the same as the bread or wine but has in fact replaced its underlying essence.

      • Mme_Chantal

        con·sub·stan·ti·a·tion

        ˌkänsəbˌstanCHēˈāSHən/
        noun
        CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY
        the doctrine, especially in Lutheran belief, that the substance of the bread and wine coexists with the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist

        Hence, I would have to agree with OneTimothyThreeFifteen.

        • Asmondius

          Speaking Catholic here. The original Greek word means ‘being the same’ as a state, not ‘co-existing’ as the result of a transformation.

        • winston.andersson

          1 Tim 3, 14 : Imposition of the hands. Practiced today in the Catholic Church for the ordination of priests. Since the Apostolic succession is preserved in the Church of Rome, the gesture can be traced all the way back to this passage.

  • Fred

    I find it odd that so much devisive energy is devoted to administration oriented issues. Rather than focus on selfish oriented concerns we would all do well to think about Christ’s ministry and devote our talents outwardly to focus on others rather than ourselves and whether our needs are met. Those who seek to be first will be last I read somewhere.

    • GaudeteMan

      “Self oriented concerns” vs. “administration oriented issues”? Please elaborate.

    • fredx2

      It is a bit surprising how quickly everyone returned to their corners after a quick trip to New Evangelization-ville.

      You are, of course, 100% right. The church is not an NGO, nor does it exist simply to work out which liturgy to use, etc. Those are not unimportant matters, but there is always a danger that we become engrossed in lesser issues. Arguing over those issues is, quite frankly, a lot more fun than working in a soup kitchen. Maybe we just need to hold ourselves to a standard: for every liturgical debate we allow ourselves to become engaged in, we must also do some work for the poor, or for the little old lady down the street who needs her grass mowed.

      The church exists so that we can go out into the world, and model Christs behavior. All else is secondary.

      • Fred

        Amen I say to you, exactly my thoughts … too.

      • Mme_Chantal

        I agree that we need to avoid being inwardly focused, and must go out into the world and serve our neighbor. But the nature of the ministerial priesthood isn’t merely an “administrative oriented issue”. It touches the core of our identity as Catholic Christians. It’s part of the fourth mark of the Church: “Apostolic”.

      • Shawn McElhinney

        Yours is my favourite comment on this thread…well said! :)

    • Asmondius

      Through His own ministry, Christ did not choose female Apostles. Only the needs of contemporary culture (of any age) are served by deviating from His example.

  • somnipod

    What a crisis we are in. Our Lord is allowing this madness to happen, only to separate out the wheat from the cockle… who knows?
    Either way, I’ve found myself clinging to the cut and dry, black and white faith of my grandparents.
    The Roman and catechism of Trent have been printed out and the church fathers are being consulted now, instead of the mass confusion coming from Rome now.
    I’m educating my nephew with the Baltimore Catechism.

    • ForChristAlone

      funny that just yesterday I picked up a copy of the BC that my parish was tossing out thinking that someday I will need it for my grandkids

  • fredx2

    Why do they continue to try? The answer is simply “never say never”

    I remember when the church used to pray after every mass for the conversion of the Soviet Union. I always thought, what a waste, the Soviet Union is never going to change, in fact, they seem stronger than ever.

    Then suddenly the Soviet Union was no more.

    • ForChristAlone

      but we never considered that the solution lay in halving the differences…we knew what the soviet union was and we surely knew who we were

    • Catholic pilgrim

      Justin Bieber also says “never say never”, even though when he says his phrase he’s technically breaking his phrase’s promise. Kidding aside, considering how Russia is returning to Christianity after almost a century of Soviet Marxist slavery, in accordance to our Lady’s promise that if we prayed for it (& we did at Mass), God would make it happen, we need to seriously consider adding a Lepanto-like prayer at the end of Mass for relief for the Eastern Christians & the stop of the spread of Islam.

  • russell snow

    When I was in an episcopal seminary in the 1970’s It was very clear that the Episcopal Church was not serious about reunion with Rome. Many of the professors declared that those of us who opposed the ordination of women were “toxic.” In the diocese I was in the Bishop was against it, but when the General Convention voted on it, he caved. He said to me, “the General Convention has spoken.” Although I have finished my training in which my reading of the Church Fathers and the Blessed Mother were leading me into the Catholic Church, I decided not to become ordained and eventually was received about 30 years ago.

    • ForChristAlone

      Glad you’re here.

  • Hamiltonian

    ARCIC is like a wheel that keeps spinning without an axle. It provides
    some good dinners and foreign trips for participants, and that is all.
    Since the Episcopal Church began ordaining women, it has lost 40% of its
    membership and the accelerating attrition will soon take care of the
    rest. – More than forty years ago my former Rector, Father George William
    Rutler, predicted that ordination of women, being a gnostic heresy,
    would end any chance of unity with the Catholic Church, and logically
    would also pave the way for same-sex “marriage.” Many at the time said
    such a notion was absurd – it would never happen. For a retrospective, Google Father Rutler’s address at the Portsmouth Institute 2010 Conference: “Fr. Rutler, 6/11/2010 – The Fellowship of Saint Alban.

  • Assyrian Church of the East

    William Oddie’s sentiments and remarks about the dangers and confusion generated by Catholic-Anglican ecumenical projects such as ARCIC serve as a good lesson for Catholics to understand how many in the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches, as well as in the Assyrian Church of the East, who still take the doctrines of their respective churches seriously, feel about Roman Catholic ecumenical overtures towards them.

    The fact is that the doctrinal differences separating Roman Catholicism from all three ancient Eastern communions are both many and profound. The stridency with which the more conservative elements in these communions have long opposed Roman Catholic ecumenical overtures bespeaks exactly the same fears and concerns on their part that William Oddie here articulates vis a vis the ARCIC project.

    And in truth, the complete confusion that reigns supreme in post-Conciliar Catholicism regarding just what Roman Catholicism stands for is such that the fears of Eastern Christians regarding Catholic ecumenical gestures are no less justified than William Oddie’s fears and concerns regarding ARCIC.

    • Aaronwall

      An ecumenical step forward was taken when Cardinal Ratzinger as Prefect of the CDF recommended that St. John Paul II declare that the Anaphora of Addai and Mari is valid. However, the Nestorian history of the Assyrian Church of the East keeps the Orthodox Church from communion with it. The Nestorians, through the influences of monks such as Bahira of Bosra and Waraqah ibn Nawfal, bear the burden of letting their heresy shape and encourage the world’s largest heresy known as Islam. Unlike Christian heresies such as that of the Antiochenes which keeps splitting into smaller sects (case in point: the fragmentation of the Assyrian Church of the East), Islam continues to grow, although it may be nurturing the seeds of its own destruction

      • Assyrian Church of the East

        Yes, but you missed my point. Let me rephrase it, using myself, and Cardinal Ratzinger’s approbation of the Anaphora of Addai and Mari as an example: As an Assyrian Christian, I see the same type of threat in Ratzinger’s overtures towards my church (which I believe to be the True Church) as William Oddie sees in the ARCIC with regard to the Catholic Church.

        Ratzinger’s acknowledgement of our Anaphora as valid – which, by the way, we did not need him to give; we have been fully aware of its validity since earliest Christian times – contradicts the dogmatic Catholic requirement of the Council of Florence (circa 1449). That Council lays down for Catholics the allegedly infallible requirement that the words of institution be explicitly be present for a Eucharistic liturgy to be valid. But the liturgy of Mar Mari and Mar Addai, the oldest extant liturgical rite in all Christendom, as it may be traced back all the way to the 2nd century, lacks this institution narrative, and has always done so.

        Ratzinger’s deviation from the dogmas of his own faith in making this ecumenical overture toward my Church are one of many reasons why I regard such overtures as a threat to the True Faith my church professes.

        Many in the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches feel similarly regarding Catholic ecumenism. Within Eastern Orthodoxy, for example, the Athonite Republic of Monks in Greece has long been a stronghold of fierce opposition to Ecumenical dialogue with Catholics. And they are not alone; perhaps the majority of Orthodoxy’s 15 or so autocephalous Patriarchs would tend to agree.

        Ratzinger’s cavalier approach to the dogmas of his own Church promote confusion, and also imply bad faith on the part of Catholic ecumenists insofar as they fail to hold themselves accountable to the kind of fidelity on the teachings of their own church that, however, they seem to require of its members on a whole host of controversial issues.

        • Shawn McElhinney

          [Ratzinger’s acknowledgement of our Anaphora as valid – which, by the way, we did not need him to give; we have been fully aware of its validity since earliest Christian times – contradicts the dogmatic Catholic requirement of the Council of Florence (circa 1449). That Council lays down for Catholics the allegedly infallible requirement that the words of institution be explicitly be present for a Eucharistic liturgy to be valid.]

          Um, not exactly. Florence stated the following on the issue: “The form of this sacrament are the words of the Saviour with which he effected this sacrament. A priest speaking in the person of Christ effects this sacrament. For, in virtue of those words, the substance of bread is changed into the body of Christ and the substance of wine into his blood.” This does not preclude variations in the specific wording of the Institution, as should be evident from the fact that such variations exist among valid orthodox rites, even to the extent in some cases (i.e. The Anaphora of St. Xystus believed to have been formulated by Pope St. Sixtus II of Rome circa 251 AD) where the Institution is recounted in the third person.

          One of the particular Churches reuniting with Rome at Florence had previously accepted no ecumenical synods after Ephesus and the Bull or Union involving them includes explicit acceptance of Chalcedon and the other such synods. As there was for those reasons a question of sacramental validity, it was decided for the sake of expediency for that church to adopt the form used by the Roman Church. Florence did not however define the precise verbal formularies of the Roman Church as the only word forms for sacramental validity -proof of this is the various Churches that reunited with Rome prior to and after Florence whose consecration word forms varied from that of Rome and where Rome never questioned their validity thereof. In short and with all due respect, you did not represent correctly the intention of Florence -though I have no reason at present to presume said misrepresentation on your part was intentional.

          • Assyrian Church of the East

            “The form of this sacrament are the words of the Saviour with which he effected this sacrament.” Right, exactly so – that is the dogma of Florence.

            Now show me where in the Liturgy of Mar Mari and Mar Addai these words of Our Savior are to be found. In point of fact, they are NOT present, and as such, Cardinal Ratzinger’s document does not record them.

            Instead, the document, which I believe was actually drafted by Jesuit Fr. Robert Taft, merely asserts the presence of the Words of Institution (which is to be identified with Florence’s “words of the Saviour with which he effected this sacrament”) are present in the Assyrian liturgy “Euchologically.”

            What the heck is that word supposed to mean?? It is not defined in Ratzinger’s statement. in fact, it is meaningless. The use of this meaningless adverb is meant to provide the thinnest of veneers to conceal the fact that Ratzinger’s approbation of our liturgy as valid on Catholic terms glaringly contradicts the dogmatic requirement of the Council of Florence.

            As such, to repeat, NO ATTEMPT IS MADE by Ratzinger to demonstrate the actual presence of the Words of Institution in the Anaphora of Mari and Addai, as the dogma of Florence requires.

            It is no wonder that the Catholic Church is in such disarray when those who claim to be orthodox promoters of Vatican II habitually treat the first 20 Ecumenical Councils of the Catholic Church (of which Florence is the 17th) with the same casual relativism with which they constantly reproach Catholic “liberals” for treating the texts of Vatican II (the 21st).

            • Shawn McElhinney

              It helps to read with greater care as the decree from Florence says at the outset the following:

              “[F]or the easier instruction of the Armenians of today and in the future we reduce the truth about the sacraments of the church to the following brief scheme.”

              In other words, Florence was providing a “brief scheme” or a “Cliffs Notes” version of events and thus by its very nature what folowed would be very generalized and leave out a lot of theological nuance. Thus when the decree says that “[t]he form of this sacrament are the words of the Saviour with which he effected this sacrament. A priest speaking in the person of Christ effects this sacrament.” However, as I noted earlier “none of this does not preclude variations in the specific wording of the Institution, as should be evident from the fact that such variations exist among valid orthodox rites, even to the extent in some cases (i.e. The Anaphora of St. Xystus believed to have been formulated by Pope St. Sixtus II of Rome circa 251 AD) where the Institution is recounted in the third person.” And thats the problem: you are making more out of the decree than was manifestly expressed. The decree of reunion was with a particular church and Rome, it had no bearing on the other Churches in communion with Rome. What was outlined in the scheme was the Roman discipline which was being assigned to the Armenians because while the latter had a faith previously suspect, no Catholic of any Church in its communion questioned the orthodoxy of the Church of Rome. And while the Chu3ch of Rome

      • Objectivetruth

        Exactly.

    • Catholic pilgrim

      It’s Catholicism, just that, Catholicism (not Roman). It’s the Holy Catholic Church, composed of the Roman-Rite or Latin Church (which is the largest) & Eastern Catholic Churches as well as some other Churches Sui Iuris in Italy (specifically Milan & Greek Catholic Sicily). All these Catholic Churches in communion with the Patriarch of Rome (pope in popular language). There’s the Holy Catholic Church & the Eastern/Oriental orthodox Churches (unfortunately under schism). Assyrian, I know you’re trying to be offensive by constantly saying “Roman Catholic”. Constantinople was established as (& was even given the title of) “New Rome”. Would that make the Greek Orthodox, New Roman Catholics?

      • http://shyanguya.wordpress.com/ @FMShyanguya

        Quite Correct: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

    • Objectivetruth

      Yawn. You’re back?

    • Objectivetruth

      Why are you here? Do you have a desire to come in to the Catholic Church, or not? You keep popping up representing a heretical faith. What’s your goal here…..to just take potshots at the Church with your false dribble?

      From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

      “466 The Nestorian heresy regarded Christ as a human person joined to the divine person of God’s Son. Opposing this heresy, St. Cyril of Alexandria and the third ecumenical council at Ephesus in 431 confessed “that the Word, uniting to himself in his person the flesh animated by a rational soul, became man.”89 Christ’s humanity has no other subject than the divine person of the Son of God, who assumed it and made it his own, from his conception. For this reason the Council of Ephesus proclaimed in 431 that Mary truly became the Mother of God by the human conception of the Son of God in her womb: “Mother of God, not that the nature of the Word or his divinity received the beginning of its existence from the holy Virgin, but that, since the holy body, animated by a rational soul, which the Word of God united to himself according to the hypostasis, was born from her, the Word is said to be born according to the flesh.”90 (495)

  • LT Brass Bancroft

    Reunion happens every time an Anglican becomes Catholic.

    • almarsh

      Or a papist is converted to the Christian faith

      • Objectivetruth

        Tell us…….what is your definition of “the Christian faith.” I’m guessing it claims some divinely ordained “exclusivity”, just like the 35,000 other heretical communities out there?

        I always enjoy when someone refers to Catholocs as “papists.” It’s such a 19th century Ku Klux Klan-ish sound to it.

        • wyclif

          Technically, there’s nothing improper about the word “papist.” So I think I’ll continue to use it in the classical sense, thanks very much.

          • Objectivetruth

            Technically, there’s nothing wrong with the words”Mic”, “Nigger”, “heretic” or “slant.” So i think I’ll continue use them in the classical sense, thank you very much.

            • wyclif

              Except for the fact that “papist” isn’t an ethnic slur. It’s not a pejorative, you know. Perhaps you should consult a lexicon before popping off.

              • Objectivetruth

                A slur…..none the less.

                • wyclif

                  No, it isn’t. It simply means “Of, relating to, or associated with the Roman Catholic Church.” There’s nothing intrinsically pejorative about it.

                  • Objectivetruth

                    Great. I’ll remember your wonderful sensitivity when I see my Chinese neighbor and call him a “Chink.” When the Ku Klux Klan uses the word “papist” to attack the Church, I don’t think they’re tossing rose petals.

                    • wyclif

                      I think I’ll accept the OED definition of the word as authoritative over yours, if you don’t mind. Again, since you can’t seem to wrap your head around what I was getting at about “pejorative”: I meant that there’s nothing inherently insulting about the word “papist.” It is a matter-of-fact proper adjective with no ethnic or cultural bigotry attached to it. It is no different in that way to the word “Protestant” as a descriptive.

                    • Objectivetruth

                      Try to explain to an African American that the reference to “Nigger Jim” in Twain was just the vernacular of the times, and had nothing to do with a prejudicial, bigoted attitude.

                      As a cradle orthodox Catholic, I’ve never taken as a respectful compliment “you papists.” It was always followed by a subsequent ignorant attack on the Catholic Church.

                    • wyclif

                      You sure do love the N-word. Fascinating.

                      But you still don’t get it. Your interpretation of a word doesn’t determine its meaning. The fact that you cannot understand this simple concept makes me wonder where you were educated, or if you were educated.

                      Either that, or you have some kind of self-loathing and are not proud of your Church affiliation and somehow embarrassed about being a follower of the Pope, which again is what the word “papist” means.

                    • Objectivetruth

                      Pompous, much?

                    • wyclif

                      I’m pompous because I know what a dictionary is? Wow.

                    • Objectivetruth

                      From the American Heritage dictionary (online):

                      “Papist:
                      n.
                      Offensive Used as a disparaging term for a Roman Catholic.”

                      Are we through here?

                    • wyclif

                      The American Heritage Dictionary online. LOL.

                      “Are we through here?” I don’t know, are you?

                    • Objectivetruth

                      “British Empire” LOL.

                    • wyclif

                      The word “papist” originates in 16th-century usage, from French “papiste” or modern Latin “papista”, from ecclesiastical Latin “papa” ‘bishop (of Rome)’.

                      So describing someone as a follower of the bishop of Rome isn’t pejorative in and of itself unless it is decontextualised and twisted to serve some other purpose.

                    • Objectivetruth

                      Under your logic, my calling you a “heretic” is not offensive. That is what you are…..nothing “pejorative.” You’ve chosen to follow a man (Henry VIII) whose whole reason to leave the Catholic Church was to justify his sin of adultery. And the sad unraveling of the “church” started by King Hank has continued up to our present time. Very sad indeed.

                      So you can call me a papist, I won’t be offended. But for the same reason I’ll call you a heretic. I’m sure you’re not offended. It’s just a fact.

                      Have a good weekend…..Mr. Heretic.

                    • wyclif

                      Oh, please! The entire Anglicanism is a result of Henry VIII’s adultery” canard is as old as the yonder hills. It’s laughable! It also doesn’t give me much hope to think that papists know their history: http://conciliaranglican.com/2014/07/30/ask-an-anglican-are-anglicans-schismatics/

                    • Objectivetruth

                      Thomas More, I believe, would disagree with you.

                    • Objectivetruth

                      Christ certainly didn’t start the Anglican Church………

                    • Objectivetruth

                      I read your link and it’s the biggest piece of hogwash I’ve seen in awhile. Obviously, an Anglican website will nevvver be biased, will it?! I like how it describes the Roman Catholic Church as behind “schismatic.” Seriously??!!

                    • ForChristAlone

                      You are hereby declared: SHUNNED.

                    • ForChristAlone

                      Let’s not forget that henry – the founder of the CofE – not only was an adulterer but that he murdered his former wives. Quite a track record for founding a religion.

                    • wyclif

                      Henry VIII died a faithful Roman Catholic.

                    • Athelstane

                      As I recall, he died an excommunicate.

                    • John Fisher

                      Yes excommunicated, adulterer, murderer, thief, desecrator, perjurer, gluttonous heretic. Any man in the street knows he was a tyrant!

                    • ForChristAlone

                      and who determined that?

                    • Objectivetruth

                      From Wikipedia:

                      “Papist is a (usually disparaging) term or an anti-Catholic slur, referring to the Roman Catholic Church, its teachings, practices, or adherents.”

                    • wyclif

                      Sorry, but the OED trumps Wikipedia. You do know that Wikipedia isn’t authoritative, don’t you? :-O

                    • ForChristAlone

                      Get off this website since you persist in maligning the one true faith of Jesus Christ.

                    • Objectivetruth

                      From a Protestant website, “Christianity:”

                      “From my own reading of Luther, Calvin, etc., papist is a derogatory term referring to any Roman Catholic who accepts the Pope as a legitimate authority from God during the time of the reformation.”

                    • wyclif

                      So a community-edited webpage is more authoritative to you than the Oxford English Dictionary, the final arbiter in scholarly terms of the meaning of English words?

                      Do tell. I shall go fetch the popcorn.

                    • Catholic pilgrim

                      The OED was written by people who live in an Anglican Protestant country where for centuries (until about the 1870s or so) Catholicism was banned by law & there was a very (& in many English communities it continues to be) active Anti-Catholic sentiment. In England as well as by the Protestant invaders of Northern Ireland, the term Papist was very often used to negatively refer to Catholics. I’m not surprised the OED, Oxford being an official Anglican university as all UK government institutions technically are, would use that term which when used by Protestants is meant to be offensive. I don’t know why you insist in your error.

                    • Objectivetruth

                      Excellent. Spot on.

                    • ForChristAlone

                      excellent, indeed

                    • Objectivetruth

                      Actually, I’d like to see you fetch a Catholic Catechism! Before it’s too late!

                    • DE-173

                      “All language is subject to construction”.

                      One cannot simply resort to a dictionary and recite a formal definition; that may be just one meaning of a word, one has to understand context and meanings are often affixed to words through colloquial usage prior to recognition in dictionaries.

                      However, here’s two dictionaries that cite the word papist as “derogatory” and “disparaging”.

                      http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/papist?s=t

                    • John Fisher

                      Sorry Luther, Calvin were more important than popes because they claimed an authority to infallibly define the Christian faith without error. They of course contradicted each other but that did not matter. Rule 1 Hate the Papacy. Rule 2 Catholic Church Rule 3 Twist scripture to accommodate vice. Rule 4 Don’t worry about vice or sin just believe. Result individualism, rejection of Christ, war, chaos, corporate vice, atheism. Yeahhh

                    • ForChristAlone

                      And if you are not Catholic, those of us who are would appreciate it if you would apologize and henceforth refrain from referring to us as Papist. Just calling us Catholic would be fine with us. Yes, we do take offense at that name. So stop it.

                    • wyclif

                      I’m not going to apologise for the proper use of an English word. So get over yourself.

                    • DE-173

                      I wish some of these trolls would show their courage and enter boards dedicated to that “great religion of peace” and lecture its adherents.

                    • Objectivetruth

                      Bash the Catholics, who have the fullness of the Truth of Christ…..but no way am I going to attack a false religion like Islam!

                    • ForChristAlone

                      would i be foolish enough to assume that you are NOT a Catholic?

                  • ForChristAlone

                    you dream

                  • DeaconJohnMBresnahan

                    Linguistically those defending the use of the word “Papist” may be correct. Except that just about every history book that uses quotes from haters and bigots frequently records these as using the word as an insult directed against Catholics

              • Eamonn McKeown

                You might want to spend some time around northern Irish Free Presbyterians – it certainly isn’t a term of endearment for them.

                • DE-173

                  Or Welsh Congregationalists…

      • Dr. Timothy J. Williams

        Jesus would seem to be the original papist: “And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” (Matt. 16:18) But hey, maybe he really meant to appoint you as head of the Church…

        • ForChristAlone

          I shall order a t-shirt for myself that will read: “Jesus is a Papist”

          Thanks, Dr.

        • almarsh

          I am curious: what is your first language?

          • Dr. Timothy J. Williams

            I am curious, why do you ask?

      • Objectivetruth

        Christian faith = Catholicism.

        Protestant beliefs = heresy.

        • Dr. Timothy J. Williams

          One of things I found most wonderful about living in France and learning the French language is that almost all French people (believers and non-believers) just refer to Catholics as “chrétiens,” whereas the Protestants are always identified as “protestants.” The original meaning of the word has kept all or most of its force. Protestants are defined not by what they believe, but by what they are against. They are simply “protesting” something.

          • Objectivetruth

            In discussions with most Protestants, you here “you Catholics…..” followed by some baffling falsity of Catholic teaching. But when you reasonably bring up the question of authority and ask “how do you know you’re right, and the Catholic Church is wrong?”, a three Mississippi blank stare is returned and you are then lobbed a scriptural passage somehow they feel disavows the Church. But your question is never answered.

          • Bill

            Your comment “Protestants are defined not by what they believe, but by what they are against.” is not true!

            • DE-173

              Really? Then tell me then how my Methodist Aunt moves South and then begins attending a Baptist Church, rather than her husband’s Catholic Church.

              The sole thread of unity in those (and other wildly divergent doctrines) is opposition to Rome.

              • Objectivetruth

                Agreed. When the shiny new Presbyterian church building went up a decade ago in my area with plenty of parking and an expresso machine many people jettisoned their dieing and decaying Methodist, baptist, etc. buildings and started attending there. These Protestants have no idea about what the Presbyterians believe, only that the building’s state of the art and wifi enabled. But with the “newness” of the building fading, you’re seeing their parking lot become emptier on Sundays.

                • DE-173

                  Wesley and Calvin had very little in common.

              • ForChristAlone

                It’s just that there’s nothing doctrinal about Methodists or Baptists. I once worked at a major medical center in the South and would occasionally sit down for lunch with members of the chaplaincy office. Now there was a Baptist, a Methodist and a Lutheran. I loved to ask them the loaded question: “Now tell me, please, each of you comes from a different denomination. What exactly distinguishes each of your denominations from one another? For example, what do you believe that the others do not?” They would sit there and look at me as if to ask I just dropped in from Mars.

        • Bill

          Do you REALLY believe Jesus would say this? By speaking in this manner you are judging. That is what Adam and Eve began by consuming the fruit of the tree of good and evil.

          • Objectivetruth

            Christ only started one Church. Not 35,000. Do you REALLY believe Jesus would want “churches” falsely teaching in His name that abortion, contraception, gay marriage are A-OK?

            • The Truth

              The Catholic Church is the one True church. All 256 or more Protestant denominations came from the Catholic church. They all contain some truth but none contain all. Why? Because only the Catholic church was founded by Jesus Christ.

              • Objectivetruth

                Amen…..

              • DE-173

                It’s more like 30,000 plus than 256…

          • DE-173

            Matthew 10:35 -37

      • Alice C. Linsley

        Or an Anglican rejects such dangerous innovations and upholds the historic faith, which many are doing. This is a fight within Anglicanism.

        • Catholic pilgrim

          No Alice, you would still be a member of an officially & openly Heretical Communion. It’s dishonest to your conscience to pretend otherwise. It’s easier & more fulfilling just to come to the Personal Ordinariate & attend Anglican-Use Catholic Mass.

          • Alice C. Linsley

            Sorry! That’s not an option for me.

            • DE-173

              Then why are you here? I love all the people that just ignore the masthead and invade a space not meant for them.

              • Crisiseditor

                Actually, Protestants are welcome too. We are not here just to preach to the choir. Besides, it’s not a good business model to limit your market.

                • DE-173

                  I’m not questioning anybody, be they Protestant or some other tradition of good will. Occasional poster RK Ich isn’t Catholic and I believe “redfish” is Jewish. (I’ll stand corrected if I mixed up my pseudonyms).
                  Many come and contribute greatly to the discussion. Others come to vandalize with sentiments they know are unacceptable to the target audience and then find it vexing when the “Church Mlitant” responds.

                  Of course to write “This is a fight within Anglicanism.” is an attempt to limit the discussion marke.
                  PS, “business model” is a cumbersome neologism of the pop business literature, from the same folks that toss around terms like “synergy”. The better term is strategy, and in monopolistic or oligopolistic markets, due to the fact that the individual firm faces a downward sloping demand curve, that is the best strategy (not that Crisis is a monopoly).

      • LT Brass Bancroft

        Yeah, a “Christian” faith that goes back about 1/4 of the way to the time of Christ.

      • John Fisher

        Is that because being in constant state of protest you shape Christianity to suit yourself (as so many do) and still think you are a Christian? So Christian is a plastic word that moulds to conceal vices and discourage virtue!

  • clintoncps

    The 1971 statement on the Eucharist sounds like Scientific Materialism couched in spiritualized vagueness. Thanks be to God that our Lord Jesus Christ was completely clear: we must eat his flesh and drink his blood to have life. Embarrassing stuff for those who find it to be a “hard saying”, but the Bread of Life itself to those whom the Lord calls.

    Let’s pray that the Lord will penetrate the hardened hearts and darkened minds of so many who prefer the voice of Scientific Materialism to the Voice of our Creator and God.

  • RC

    What concerns me most is that it seems there are certain elements (Religious and Lay) in the Roman Catholic Church who are always looking to compromise. This compromise always seems to involve watering down our Theology, The Mass or Buildings to be more pleasing to those we are seeking to re-unite. The past 50 years should be proof of how this does not work.

    If they want to rejoin the Roman Catholic Church, they should be willing to do so as we are!

  • BXVI

    I would say that we should rather be at the work of converting Anglicans to the One True Faith. But then again, we are now told that proselytism is solemn nonsense and the worst thing we can do is speak openly with someone about our desire to convert them, much less argue, dispute, exhort or implore them to see the Truth, as St. Peter did on with the crowds on the morning of Pentecost and at Solomon’s portico in the Temple or as St. Paul did throughout the synagogues of Asia minor.

    • ForChristAlone

      I am tempted to write directly to Archbishop What’shisname of Canterbury encouraging him to convert to the One and Only True Church of Christ which is the Catholic Church. Whadya say we get a petition going and we’ll cc/ the Holy Father.

      • Annamenuensis

        The proper term is Archlayman of Canterbury.

        • Catholic pilgrim

          Or in “Brave New World”, Archsongster of Canterbury. And yes if you start that petition, give me the website, I’ll sign it & have a bunch of people sign it too. (I’m not kidding, it’s a good idea.)

      • Shawn McElhinney

        Yeah THAT will work. Let me ask you something: when was the last time someone of a different religion or viewpoint did that to you and you went “oh gee, you are right. I am going to drop my deeply held beliefs like they were nothing and just accept what you are telling me?” My guess is you would say it never happened and yet somehow you think it will work with others that you would approach in such a way? Two thoughts come to mind if you actually believe this and the most charitable would be to say you are very naive if you actually think this idea would work. More could be noted but that suffices for now.

        • Guest

          Indifferentism, faux ecumenism, and false unity have worked out well so far, right?

          • Shawn McElhinney

            When you decide to drop the strawmen and discuss things seriously let me know.

        • ForChristAlone

          Shawn calm down….you’re getting your panties all in a twist.

    • Catholic pilgrim

      And to Gentiles too. Jesus our Lord commanded: “go ye, & preach the Gospel to all creation (including birds & fish, like the great St. Francis of Assisi & St. Anthony of Padua) & baptize them in the name of the Father, Son & Holy Ghost!” He didn’t not say: “go ye, it doesn’t matter if you baptize them or not, nor if you even want to preach the true Gospel or not, as all this baptizing in the name of the Holy Trinity & preaching of true Gospel could be viewed as proselytism & even offensive… so just as long as you talk to them about the Weather is all that matters. Hooray!” As much as I like talking about the good weather with people, we also have a joyous obligation to talk about things that will last for Eternity. Unless we want a shrinking Church, we must proseletyze (& by that I mean to spread our religion by good means, not bad means like force, extortion or bribery).

    • Shawn McElhinney

      You forgot to mention the miracles that St. Peter and St. Paul wrought to accompany their preaching: having recourse to the supernatural is a pretty nice trump card to have in ones deck.

      As far as conversions go, you will never convert anyone, period and the sooner you come to grips with that, the better off you will be. And yes proseltysm is nonsense because it involves ulterior motives which is not a very Christian attitude to have. Would you only talk to someone or befriend them if you thought you could “convert” them? If so, what kind of “friend” would you really be? What if someone flat out told you that they were not interested in what you were trying to push on them and never would be, would you still be their friend or would you find a way to dump them from your life either overtly or covertly?

      If you are a genuine Christian, you would not let their differences of view get in the way of being friends with them. If you are however just one of those who uses friendship as a ruse to shove your religion at them then you are no true friend and certainly not a genuine Christian because if you were, you would show it in your conduct and how you treat others.

      • Guest

        Where are all these Catholics sneaking up on people pretending to be friends so they may secretly ” convert” them? Where?

        • Shawn McElhinney

          A tip: when responding to someone, it helps to actually read what they say rather than just give it a quick scan, m’kay? That way you do not miss the forest for the trees.

          • ForChristAlone

            Guest asked a reasonable question. I was looking forward to reading your reply.

      • BXVI

        Straw man. I have many non-Catholic friends. My family are Baptists and we get on grandly and love each other. Caring for people and developing relationships despite our differences is critical for happiness and for a healthy society. To imply that I wouldn’t talk with someone or be their friend except for the ulterior motive of trying to convert them isn’t fair and it isn’t true. You have assumed quite a lot without knowing me. But…that doesn’t mean we must avoid trying to bring people to the True faith at all costs. In fact, the ultimate cost will be great if we shirk that responsibility.

        • BXVI

          And something to think about. Jesus did say to the disciples he sent out, if they don’t accept your teaching, shake the dust from your sandals as you leave that town. St. Paul said / did the same. That’s a hard saying, but it is Biblical.

  • John Grondelski

    Any Anglican who is committed to Christian principles rather than current tastes should realize that far more divides him from his “Church” than from Rome.

    • Dr. Timothy J. Williams

      Any Anglican committed to Christian principles left the CoE long ago.

      • wyclif

        I wholeheartedly agree as an Anglican clergyman. The centre of Anglicanism is no longer Canterbury—it is folly for layfolk to continue to act as if this fiction still holds. The sad fact is that the CofE has been warned for decades what would result if they continued to defy both Holy Scripture and Catholic tradition. Now the result has come to pass. It is highly delusional for Abp Welby to act as if ARCIC is still a going concern.

        Outside of the CofE, conservative and traditional Anglicanism of the Reformed and Catholic sort still exists. The Reformed Episcopal Church, for instance, does not ordain women to any of the three offices, and the Anglican Continuum continues to hold the line on holy orders.

        • Shawn McElhinney

          And the Anglican Ordinariate does not allow for women bishops, priests, or deacons and never will.

          Just some food for thought :)

  • je

    A man going to confession to a woman – this may help us better understand the priesthood.

    • Guest

      Why?

  • billlang

    Many of our bishops believe as do the Anglicans, and some as do Unitarians. They’ll stand strong for everything but our Catholic faith. More proof of the supremecy of our Pontiff.

  • Joey8283

    Huh? Why does one extra heresy end reunion prospects? It’s not like they weren’t heretics before. They reject papal judicial and doctrinal authority, they reject Catholic sacred tradition, they accept birth control, they don’t have valid ordination for men or women (according to Catholic teachings about apostolic succession). What’s new? It’s just a longer list.

  • jacobum

    Not surprising. They say “nice” and do “nasty”. Net effect is the official COE continues to sink farther and farther into heresy. All the “dialogue” has gotten just that..”more dialogue”.

  • Yankeegator

    Pray that all serious Christians that are Anglican will now come home…

    • DE-173

      I will in 20 minutes as I attend Mass at St Thomas More in Scranton Pa…

      • jonnybeeski

        Shoot! We were down at the mission in Bath for Sunday night Mass. My son serves on the altar both there and in Scranton.

        • DE-173

          When I was walking in, a guy asked me if I was there for Mass and I said yes, he explained that this was Catholic and asked me if I was familiar with the Anglican Ordinarate. He introduced himself as Phil.

          The funny thing is I’d been there quite a bit when it was St. Joseph’s and some group used to have a train display in the old school adjacent to the building.

          There were some things that were different of course, Father Rojas wearing a beretta and discussing his daughter in the homily. The old English words “vouchsafe” and “spake”, and the communion rail.

        • DE-173

          It was quite an interesting experience. Father Rojas wore a berretta for brief part of the Mass and often faced the altar like the Latin Mass. He discussed his daughter during the homily, some of the words (vouchsafe, and spake) were definitely things I had to think about, there was Communion by intinction and the communion rail, but all the elements were there and familiar with a little thought.

          As I was walking in, a man asked me if I was going to Mass and when I said yes, he explained it was the Anglican Ordinariate and asked if I knew what that was-assuring me it was authentically Catholic and satisfied the Sunday obligation.

          The funny thing is, I was there many times before when it was St. Joseph’s, and I think at one time, some group was running model trains seasonally in the school building adjacent to the Church.

  • Dr. Timothy J. Williams

    The truly distressing thing about all these developments is that we cannot predict the reaction of Francis. It is quite possible that he will make some crazy concession to the Anglicans. Just today, he apologized to the Pentacostals for the Catholics’ sin of “inhibiting conversions” to their “church”!!! While throughout S. American, the Pentacostals have grown by more than 50% in the past decade, as the Catholic Church continues to decline! Just what does he think his job is as Vicar of Christ? And yesterday, interviewed about his personal “secrets to a happy life,” Francis did not once mention Christ. People, we are in serious trouble. In recent months, I have had private discussions with a couple of well-known, well-respected theologians (whose names would be recognized by most readers of Crisis) who are no less alarmed than I am. They were trying to explain to me the highly nuanced circumstances in which a pope can indeed teach heresy. To say I was floored would be an understatement. Unfortunately, we have not heard the last about women priests, bishops… I only wish we had heard the last from Francis.

    • Catholic pilgrim

      I haven’t heard much from Dr. Scott Hahn lately, I’m getting a little worried now. From what I’ve studied, popes can personally hold to heresies but (because of the guarantee of the Holy Spirit) can NEVER formally teach heresy.

      • Dr. Timothy J. Williams

        The key word appears to be “formally,” “ex-cathedra,” whatever you want to call it. I almost always regret posing a question to a theologian! Now, back to the Rosary…

    • ForChristAlone

      The Cardinals’ first mistake was voting for a Jesuit. What WERE they thinking?

    • wyclif

      If you want to see a prime example of something that should worry Roman Catholics—the exact sort of thing I suppose you are referring to—try this one on for size: http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2014/07/let-your-yes-be-yes-and-your-no-no.html

    • Daniel P

      Where you see aimlessness in Francis, I don’t. If Francis apologized for inhibiting Pentecostal conversions, I expect it was because he thought the Pentecostals in certain areas had more share of the truth of Christian revelation than the “Catholics”. Moreover, it is surely wrong for me (as a Catholic) to prevent people not under my authority from, say, encountering Lutheran theology.

      I haven’t seen Francis come within a mile of heresy. I have noticed that he is daring, and I admire that trait a great deal.

    • Guest

      I have wondered if we could hear the thoughts and private words of some orthodox cardinals and bishops if we would hear things much different than the public words meant to plaster over the nonsense. I am betting many are saying things in private much much different than the public relations job we get.

    • Shawn McElhinney

      [The truly distressing thing about all these developments is that we cannot predict the reaction of Francis]

      Yes we can. He has already said the door is closed on female ordination. The pope will make some attempted statement to try and paint some silver lining for future dialogue but he knows the Anglicans have finally gone over the line and without renouncing this latest stunt they have destroyed ecumenical ties with all four Churches that trace their ecclesiastical and spiritual foundation to the Apostles. (I referr here to the Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Oriental Orthodox Church and the Assyrian Church of the East: none of which will ever accept women priests.)

    • Pope Gregory the Great

      Dr. Williams,

      So what exactly are the concerns regarding Pope Francis of these well-known and well-respected theologians to whose thoughts you are privy?

      • Dr. Timothy J. Williams

        Pope Gregory, they will remain private until the theologians in question decide to publish them. It is my understanding that a book is indeed in the works. But is it really necessary? Anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear must be quite alarmed by your successor.

        • Pope Gregory the Great

          Do you have any idea when the book in question might be published? A

          Also, while we are on the topic, are you, or is anyone else aware of any books or monographs ALREADY published that comprehensively treat the problems Pope Francis is causing from an orthodox Catholic standpoint?

  • Mark

    Well, it’s unclear to me why women bishops ruin things any more than women priests already did.

    You’d think they’d be cautious/sensitive enough to always have at least one male co-consecrator for all bishops. But we’ll see…

    • ForChristAlone

      Any of our bishops with half a brain would having been speaking out about the impossibility of Anglicans and Catholics unifying when women were “ordained” “priests”.

    • Shawn McElhinney

      Women priests could always be walked back at some point theoretically. However, once Anglicans started consecrating bishops, that was a different kettle of fish because the episcopate is the acme of the priesthood and male priesthood is of common Apostolic Tradition of all four Churches that trace their ecclesiastical and spiritual foundation to the Apostles. (I refer here to the Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Oriental Orthodox Church and the Assyrian Church of the East.) Canterbury has just shattered any hope of eventual future communion with the other Apostolic Churches because none of them will ever accept what Canterbury has done. Of course for reasons that go beyond the usual myopic apologetics stuff ecumenism has always had better progress to be made with the Apostolic Churches who were not in the habit of putting more obstacles in the pathway than were already there but as the Anglicans maintained at least the appearance of having a structure more akin to a genuine church than a mere ecclesial community, they were at least treated as such in dialogue. However, that is no longer possible now and thankfully Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI put structures in place to facilitate the communion of those with traditional Anglican sensibilities who in conscience cannot abide by Canterbury’s recent (and frankly, arrogant) stride over the dogmatic Rubicon where the apostolic understanding of the episcopate is concerned.

  • publiusnj

    A question for Protestants who claim to believe in Sola Scriptura: Where in the Scriptures does it say that Jesus founded a plethora of churches whose mandates extended to the borders of particular states? That is the incredible proposition upon which Anglicanism is based. And the silliness of any such organizing principle is established by examples like England, which used to control the Holy Island of Ireland, and therefore decided to set up a mini-me of the Church of England called the Church of Ireland as the Established Church of Ireland. Indeed, the hubris of the English founders of the C of I was so great that they even took away all the churches from the Catholic Church which always retained the adherence of the overwhelming bulk of the Irish, despite the draconian penal laws.

    Once England lost control over the island of Ireland, why did the Church of Ireland continue to exist? It had already been disestablished and almost no one belonged to the C of I. Or take the silliness of the King of the Anglican Church also being the King of the Scottish Kirk (although there his/her powers are far more constrained). Or to make the silliness even more apparent: which is the English Monarch’s church in Scotland: the Kirk or the Scottish Episcopal church? I even saw something about an Anglican Church of Poland? What is that bizarreness about?

    Ukraine is another example of the silliness of trying to chop up Christ’s Universal Church to fit within quotidian borders. Once Ukraine got free of the Muscovite dictatorship, why would the Ukrainian Church have any continuing obligation to follow the Moscow Patriarch?

    Anglicanism never made sense and continues to make less.

    • Tobermory

      Your knowledge of the origins and roots of the Church of Ireland in Ireland leaves a great deal to be desired.

      • publiusnj

        A mere ipse dixit. If you have specific exception, please lay it out. I’d love to see the proof that it really was protestants who built all those C of I cathedrals in Ireland..

        • Tobermory

          The onus is upon you to justify your claims. IPerhaps you can enlighten us as to who built Christ Church Cathedral in Waterford. When. The architect. etc etc.

          • publiusnj

            At the time (mainly the 18th Century) that the Church of Ireland was trying (woefully unsuccessfully, of course) to compete for the Native Irishmen’s adherence, it did build a few new cathedrals and Waterford was one of them. However,most of the large cathedrals of the C of I such as St. Patrick’s in Dublin, St. Patrick’s in Armagh, Christ Church, Dublin, or St Canice in Kilkenny were built by the Holy Catholic Church before the theft by Henry and his daughter Elizabeth.

            I mention St. Canice because it is one of the five other co-cathedrals beside Waterford of the combined diocese that the C of I has smushed together into the Combined Diocese of Cashel and Ossory. The reason there are six cathedrals for one diocese is because the C of I has too many churches and cathedrals (most stolen from Christ’s Holy Catholic Church) for the mere handful of adherents it has. It has barely 1/5 the number of adherents that my relatively small US diocese has, but my diocese manages to get along with just one cathedral.

            Thus, of the ten Irish churches listed as most worth seeing at this site–http://goireland.about.com/od/specialinterestholidays/tp/ireland_church.htm —
            three are C of I, and all three were built by Christ’s Holy Catholic Church and not by the Protestants who usurped them.

  • Catholic pilgrim

    What if local Catholic parishes (preferably with the priest as guide, but if he refuses, then without priest) went into the local Episcopalian parish & introduced them to what the Ordinariate & the Anglican Use Mass are? What are we afraid of? Let’s do it. And don’t say we would be kicked out of the Episcopalian parish as their new motto that they hang up in buildings is “All are welcome”. Catholics must be included in the welcome. If I were a priest (or a parish lay leader) I would personally walk into an Episcopalian parish & see who is interested in the Ordinariate/Anglican Use Mass.

    • ForChristAlone

      An excellent idea. Nothing to stop you as we are called to evangelize and God knows the Anglicans need evangelization. Evangelization is nothing more than preaching the Gospel. After all their “Church” support: abortion, contraception, divorce and remarriage, euthanasia, sterilization, active homosexual “marriages,” no Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist and, following their founder, having your ex-wives murdered.

  • John Fisher

    In the 1930’s my own family became Catholic leaving the C of E which we had been forced to be abandon because of Henry VII’s lust, schism and heresy. We English have been held captive and coerced by government errors for centuries ever since. When I asked my Grandmother why she converted she said “because the Catholic Church is the original Church from the apostles”. So I say to Anglicans you no longer have to belong to a state sect which has no link with catholicity and is simply an appendage of the State. It is a pet poodle of the state that squats in Catholic churches, cathedrals, parish churches, ruined abbeys all pilfered by the state. Why? Because the Church in opposition to the raw ruthless bloody power of secular rule. It is the same now as a spineless Judas C of E betrays Christ daily by seeking to the spirit of this world. It is a theological harlot and I feel shame and pity as it twists its caonscience to fit the siutaion!

  • JohnServorum

    This final dagger in the heart of the Catholic Church’s attempt to bring Anglicans into full communion with the Church further highlights the great wisdom of Pope Benedict’s establishment of the Anglican Ordinariates.
    In point of fact because of the blanket refusal of Anglican officials to recognize that their Protestant denomination is outside of the Church founded by Jesus Christ, ARCIC never really had a chance. It was always only a matter of time.
    Our Lord still calls men and women of faith to leave behind the false teachings of Protestantism and to come home to his Holy Catholic Church.

    “The Spirit and the bride say, ‘Come!’ And let the one who hears say, ‘Come!’ Let the one who is thirsty come; and let the one who wishes take
    the free gift of the water of life.”
    Revelation 22:17

  • Donald P Malin

    If the object of the Dialog is to continue, the Anglicans would have to repent of the ordination of all women, priest and bishop, and admit that they had erred. The full visible unity could be achieved. For that matter, they would also have to accept the Pope as the Visible Head and Vicar of Christ on Earth. Then they could ‘rejoin’ the Catholic Church as have numerous Eastern Catholics. With this in mind, Unity is possible.

  • Jacob Suggs

    I’m not sure I’d say reunion is impossible forever. Impossible so long as the Church of England holds what it does now, but they aren’t exactly known for being constant on their doctrine. I can’t see it happening any time in the near future, but who knows what will happen in the next five hundred years? Five thousand? Reunion seems unlikely, yes, but never is a long time.

    Obviously any attempts at union that try to compromise truth are stupid and harmful, but even if the door is closed now, there’s no reason not to keep the latch in good working order in hopes that future generations might make conditions amenable to opening it again.

  • John Fisher

    Now there is another reason ecumenism is dead! A vicar married his homosexual partner and is taking his “bishop” to Court because he did not receive a his bishop’s recommendation and so did not get a chaplaincy position. The C of E is in trouble!

  • monk_87

    This conclusion was reached by the Orthodox nearer to the beginning of the 20th century, when St. Bishop Raphael of Brooklyn clarified Orthodox intercommunion faith and practice in the mission of America.

    http://orthodoxhistory.org/2013/02/27/st-raphael-of-brooklyn-on-the-episcopalians/

MENU