Reunification...

[gitlance]

Pope Benedict XVI outlined goals for his papacy Wednesday, including the unification of all Christians, continuing the reforms of the Second Vatican Council and reaching out to people of other faiths. "This successor of Peter knows he has been entrusted with the task of confirming his brothers ... with the intention of working to reconstitute the full and visible unity of all the followers of Christ," Benedict told cardinals gathered in the Sistine Chapel for his first Mass as pontiff.


There may be hope, yet...


:crossrc:

[Cjwinnit]

Funky.

[PaladinValer]

Perhaps there is hope. This does make my perception of Benedict XVI a bit brighter and my hopes have become slightly more optimistic, but I am still too weary.

[Iron Sun 254]

Don't be fooled. Any reunification would involve us submitting to his authority.

[Jamme]

Don't be fooled. Any reunification would involve us submitting to his authority.Sadly, I fear you are correct. :(
I have read some (though not all!) of Ratzinger's writing, and I would get the same impression as you.

However, his statements today have been encouraging so lets keep hoping and praying for a peaceful unification :pray:

[PaladinValer]

Highly, highly doubtful. There is no way an Anglican will accept Papal infallibility (speaking ex cathedra) as defined by Vatican I.

[SirTimothy]

Highly, highly doubtful. There is no way an Anglican will accept Papal infallibility (speaking ex cathedra) as defined by Vatican I.

Nor will our EO brethren.

Timothy

[pmcleanj]

Highly, highly doubtful. There is no way an Anglican will accept Papal infallibility (speaking ex cathedra) as defined by Vatican I.
I practice what I think of as "the Mohatma Ghandi" approach to reunification.

Ghandi peacefully and persistently encouraged people to act as though there were no more Raj. It wasn't so much "civil disobedience", as persisting in the belief that the Raj had no authority to which anyone needed to be obedient.


I persistently hold that there is only one Church, and that our Roman Catholic brothers and sisters are part of it. They are welcome at our Table, we recognize the fullness of their Christian experience, we consider their orders valid. What more reunification is needed?

True, they have hierarchies that purport to hold their flock apart from the rest of the Church. But since those hierarchies don't have the authority to divide the church, their opinion is irrelevant. Yes, I know it's a sophistry. But it's a sophistry that provides more hope for the unity of the church than does hoping for Rome to drop its authoritarian stance.

[Jamme]

Highly, highly doubtful. There is no way an Anglican will accept Papal infallibility (speaking ex cathedra) as defined by Vatican I.
Agree :) This is false ecumenicism.
Unity of the church is not the work of a man, but of the Holy Spirit.

[PaladinValer]

However, your church will not budge on it; the reason being that Papal infallibility is now a dogma in your church. If it were to drop it, it would have to recognize that it hasn't held Truth since Pentecost c. 33 ce.

Unfortunately, the chances of this (or its like in any church or denomination) anytime in my lifetime are so utterly remote that it is more likely that I were to be approached immediately after my PM class today with a check for $10,000,000,000.

Queen Mum, perhaps that is the best approach. I'll comment more later, although I do agree that our Vatican Catholic brothers and sisters are true fellow members of the Visible Church.

[Jamme]

Please don't refer to it as 'your church'
I am struggling with this issue right now and looking for solutions.

[SirTimothy]

Indeed. In fact for any ecumenalism to be anything more than words, the Roman/Vatican Catholic church has to admit that it is in error. Otherwise it is just an empty gesture.

Timothy

[Iron Sun 254]

We already see a unified church...the fact that Rome doesn't see it lies in their lack of vision.

[TomUK]

They are welcome at our Table, we recognize the fullness of their Christian experience, we consider their orders valid. What more reunification is needed?

We already see a unified church...the fact that Rome doesn't see it lies in their lack of vision.

:amen: :amen: :amen:

[pmcleanj]

I am struggling with this issue right now ....

More than any other one thing, I would say that the struggle characterises honest Christian endeavour. The simple answers, whether they rest on biblical literalism to the one side, or on hierarchical clerical authoritarianism to the other side, both lead to extremes of error.

We call the Anglican way the "via media". Not "media" as in "mediocre" or average, but "media" as in being balanced on that middle ground in the tension between opposing fallacies. Like a hiker traversing a narrow ridge toward the mountain-peak, we cannot afford to back too far away from the "slippery slope" -- because the slippery slope exists on *both* sides.

The struggle to find the balance point *is* the experience of dealing honestly and fearlessly with a God who calls us to a relationship that is far beyond our experience or comprehension. The grace of God, is that when we fall off balance to either side, God is there to help us back up into the light.

[julian the apostate]

We already see a unified church...the fact that Rome doesn't see it lies in their lack of vision.

amen iron

[Albion]

They are welcome at our Table, we recognize the fullness of their Christian experience, we consider their orders valid. What more reunification is needed?


...an excellent point that everyone here should spend a little time thinking about.

[julian the apostate]

very good point pmcleanj

exactly how i feel,

only stated with normal punctuation

[pmcleanj]

only stated with normal punctuation :D Well, you know me and that bucket of commas I carry around :wave:

[UberLutheran]

Considering: that after 30+ years of work between the RCC and the Lutheran World Federation on The Concordat of Agreement on the Doctrine of Justification by Faith, when Lutherans and Catholics finally reached an agreement that Christians are justified before God by grace through faith, and that works are a demonstration that justification has occurred...

...Joseph Ratzinger decided not even three months later that Lutheran churches are not properly "churches" (because that designation exists only for Roman Catholic churches) but "ecclesial unions" -- well, I'm not terribly optimistic. :(

[benedictine]

Perhaps something can come of it at least......


Can a Papal Bull be repealed, BTW?

[PaladinValer]

Perhaps something can come of it at least......


Can a Papal Bull be repealed, BTW?

To which I repeat:

However, your church will not budge on it; the reason being that Papal infallibility is now a dogma in your church. If it were to drop it, it would have to recognize that it hasn't held Truth since Pentecost c. 33 ce.

Unfortunately, the chances of this (or its like in any church or denomination) anytime in my lifetime are so utterly remote that it is more likely that I were to be approached immediately after my PM class today with a check for $10,000,000,000.

Once something is declared dogma, it cannot possibly be wrong. Doctrine might be, but dogma can never be wrong, according to the Vatican Catholic Church, as far as I know.

Now take away Papal Infallibility and you'll recind two additional dogmas declared by popes ex cathedra: St. Mary the Theotokos' Miraculous Conception and her Living Assumption.

It's the domino effect; one goes and the rest fall.

[benedictine]

I didn't know a Papal Bull meant dogma. I was actually refering to the opne that effectively blocks any chance of our orders being recognized as valid by the Vatican.

[PaladinValer]

Perhaps not all papal bulls, but the very fact that something is a dogma means it cannot possibly be wrong according to Vatican Catholic belief, as far as I know.

[benedictine]

So.... Benedict XVI could possibly nullify/repeal Leo's(?) bull that declared our orders invalid?

[PaladinValer]

Is it dogma?

[Bonifatius]

Is it dogma?

I don't think it is, but certainly B16 will not repeal Apostolicae Curae. Some time ago he pointed out that the nullity of Anglican orders in his eyes is one of the eternal truths that cannot be changed - in the same way the church has declared the impossibility of ordaining women to the priesthood.

The way out of this is that we have to find a way not to repeal Ap. Curae but still to bring our two churches together. One option imho could be to find a new understanding of Apostolic Succession that leads away from only looking on the correctness of the ordinal (that's so legalistic!). And as far as I can see Cardinal Ratzinger has thought in the direction of a more holistic understanding of succession. This could be a way of getting round the stumbling block of Apostolicae curae without openly repealing it.

Greetings
Tom

[Dominus Fidelis]

Don't be fooled. Any reunification would involve us submitting to his authority.

What did you expect exactly? :scratch: Don't you submit to someone's authority right now? Its just a question of who is in charge, no?

As far as the validity of your orders being in question...your Bishops could receive a laying-on of hands and the matter would be closed.

[Cjwinnit]

This could be a way of getting round the stumbling block of Apostolicae curae without openly repealing it.

The other way of course is to include as many fellow "ecclesial unions" in the consecration of our Bishops and make the bull out-of-date, a process we have started in earnest thanks to the Old Catholics and the occasional Orthodox bishop.

[pmcleanj]

What did you expect exactly? :scratch: Don't you submit to someone's authority right now? Its just a question of who is in charge, no?

As far as the validity of your orders being in question...your Bishops could receive a laying-on of hands and the matter would be closed.

We submit to the authority of our Bishops. And because our Bishops are equal in doctrinal authority, they must gradually form consensus through the working of the Holy Spirit. And because they understand that reality, and work in the awareness that the Holy Spirit guides the Church as a body, not a single power structure, they also consider the consensus of their people in the process. No one Bishop has the power to subvert or overrule or usurp authority over that consensus-forming action of the Holy Spirit acting on the whole Body.

That's an entirely different understanding of authority than is expressed in "Don't you submit to someone's authority right now? Its just a question of who is in charge, no?". No, it's not just a matter of whose in charge.

As far as the validity of our orders being in question, yes our Bishops and Priests could all be reconsecrated and all our laity re-confirmed -- if we were to accept the lie that our Bishops aren't and haven't been Bishops and our Priests aren't and haven't been priests, and the Eucharist that has sustained us since our Baptisms hasn't really been the Eucharist.

Any one of us who wishes to submit to clerical authority and accept the debasement of our orders and sacraments has that option today. Conversion disguised as "Reunification" is still conversion, and in the case of accepting clerical hierarchicalism would still be acceptance of a false doctrine.

[Colabomb]

[b]


There may be hope, yet...


:crossrc:
It would only happen if we submitted to Rome.

[Colabomb]

What did you expect exactly? :scratch: Don't you submit to someone's authority right now? Its just a question of who is in charge, no?

As far as the validity of your orders being in question...your Bishops could receive a laying-on of hands and the matter would be closed.
Our Bishops HAVE recieved the Laying on of Hands. That is the whole point!

[gitlance]

I suggest that all our Roman Catholic friends who wish to question our orders read this document, the Saepius Officio:

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~ucgbmxd/saepius.htm

[Cjwinnit]

Our Bishops HAVE recieved the Laying on of Hands. That is the whole point!

It's a new perfume. Contradiction!. ;)

[Fish and Bread]

As far as the validity of our orders being in question, yes our Bishops and Priests could all be reconsecrated and all our laity re-confirmed -- if we were to accept the lie that our Bishops aren't and haven't been Bishops and our Priests aren't and haven't been priests, and the Eucharist that has sustained us since our Baptisms hasn't really been the Eucharist.

Any one of us who wishes to submit to clerical authority and accept the debasement of our orders and sacraments has that option today. Conversion disguised as "Reunification" is still conversion, and in the case of accepting clerical hierarchicalism would still be acceptance of a false doctrine.

I think a solution to this problem might be to do with the Roman Catholics as we have asked the Lutherans to do under the terms of our agreement with ELCA in 2001. If it is the only barrier remaining to unification at some distant point in the future, I see little problem with having a Roman Catholic bishop present at all future Anglican consecrations. Eventually, we would be brought into their succession and have that as well as our own. To make it an equal concordant, we could ask that they have one Anglican bishop at every Roman Catholic consecrations as a sign of unity. That would leave them with the issue of those who were consecrated/ordained/confirmed before this future agreement who would continue on in ministry, but I have a feeling that if we ever reach the point of any sort of reunification agreement, by that point enough theological and political ground will have been covered that the RCC will recognize our orders as "most likely valid" in any event and will just want their bishops present at our consecrations "just in case".

Let's face it, though, this isn't going to happen anytime soon. I'd like unity with Rome, but not at the expense of agreeing to heresies like Papal Infallibility, Mary as Co-Redemtrix, salvation by works, etc. If we agreed to unity with Rome by accepting those sorts of doctrines, I'd quit and become a continuing Anglican or a Lutheran rather than go along with it, as I think many others would as well.

John

[Albion]

As far as the validity of your orders being in question...your Bishops could receive a laying-on of hands and the matter would be closed.

That, of course, is not so. First, the Roman Catholic Church would not be united with another if the faiths were different. Are you suggesting that a laying on of hands with no acceptance of Roman Catholic teachings including Papal Infallibility, for instance, would make for a reunited church and that this would be fine with the Vatican? And second, the RCC already aknowledges the validity of some other churches' bishops. Yet they remain separated, so we know that the lines of succession are not the big issue. Besides, we already know the approach to reunification because it's been worked on for many years between the Vatican and Lutherans, the Vatican and Anglicans, etc. That's to address doctrines first. Regularizing the Orders would be the LAST item to fall into place.

[Albion]

Everyone--

Pmcleanj's point deserves not to be forgotten here.

We do not become something we are not because the Roman Catholic Church decides to approve of us. That is their problem to solve, not ours. We already accept them as equals in Christ and in principle have no lack of union with them. They can commune in our churches. Their priests are considered valid by us. We only await them to decide to accept unity with us.

.

[julian the apostate]

i completely agree with albion
(heaven help me)
he is awfully anglican
pmcleanj as well

i would like to point out one little thing here, that cant be overlooked or forgotten

the vast majority of roman catholics (laity and clergy) in practice and attitude are in fact practicing

episcopalians

[gtsecc]

i completely agree with albion
(heaven help me)
he is awfully anglican
pmcleanj as well

i would like to point out one little thing here, that cant be overlooked or forgotten

the vast majority of roman catholics (laity and clergy) in practice and attitude are in fact practicing

episcopalians
I think this is certainly true.
But, then one could also suggest that some (not a vast majority) of Episcopalians (laity and clergy) in practice and attitude are in fact practicing Methodists.

[Cjwinnit]

Let's face it, though, this isn't going to happen anytime soon. I'd like unity with Rome, but not at the expense of agreeing to heresies like Papal Infallibility, Mary as Co-Redemtrix, salvation by works, etc.

I don't entirely disagree.

I think this is certainly true.
But, then one could also suggest that some (not a vast majority) of Episcopalians (laity and clergy) in practice and attitude are in fact practicing Methodists.

Ah, but Methodists are just schismatic Anglicans so.. um.. kittens?

[Albion]

I think this is certainly true.
But, then one could also suggest that some (not a vast majority) of Episcopalians (laity and clergy) in practice and attitude are in fact practicing Methodists.

It's an interesting point, one that caused me to mull it over a bit. As one who may be as close to that situation as anyone around here, I'd have to say that although there are strong similarities in some obvious areas, the comparison is not accurate except as a very loose generalization.

If you were to go back and look again at the lives and themes times that made the Wesleys what they were, for instance, you'd see some important differences (not that a passing observation requires that we go into that in further detail here).

[gtsecc]

Well, Wesley was a good Anglo-Catholic.
I think we would all agree to that.

[gtsecc]

I don't entirely disagree.



Ah, but Methodists are just schismatic Anglicans so.. um.. kittens?
not intentionaly schismatic.
Revolutionary war made confirmation of Priests difficult.

[Albion]

Well, Wesley was a good Anglo-Catholic.
I think we would all agree to that.

I must say that I have no idea what you might mean by that.

:) :scratch: (Happy, not offended, but scratching head)

[Epiphanygirl]

Perhaps there is hope. This does make my perception of Benedict XVI a bit brighter and my hopes have become slightly more optimistic, but I am still too weary.There is always hope!!! :amen: :groupray:

[Iron Sun 254]

As far as the validity of our orders being in question, yes our Bishops and Priests could all be reconsecrated....

Well, only the male ones....

[Dominus Fidelis]

That, of course, is not so. First, the Roman Catholic Church would not be united with another if the faiths were different. Are you suggesting that a laying on of hands with no acceptance of Roman Catholic teachings including Papal Infallibility, for instance, would make for a reunited church and that this would be fine with the Vatican? And second, the RCC already aknowledges the validity of some other churches' bishops. Yet they remain separated, so we know that the lines of succession are not the big issue. Besides, we already know the approach to reunification because it's been worked on for many years between the Vatican and Lutherans, the Vatican and Anglicans, etc. That's to address doctrines first. Regularizing the Orders would be the LAST item to fall into place.

Yes, my position is that the orders would be the last item to fall into place.

[Robbie_James_Francis]

Just a few things that have come up...

Mary as co-redemptrix simply means that Mary's acceptance of God's Will in allowing the Holy Spirit to come upon her was necessary for Christ to enter the world, and then to save us. It does not mean that it is necessary for Mary to suffer for our sins or that she by her own power saves us or helps us.

Catholics believe, as was stated in the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification between the Catholic Church and the Lutheran Church, that we are saved by grace alone, and that grace inspires in us faith and good deeds. We must accept this grace and choose to follow it's call by virtue of our free will, thereby participating in our salvation.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Full reunification into one Communion would require acceptance of the doctrine that the Bishop of Rome is the Vicar of Christ and successor of Saint Peter, on whom the Church was founded by Christ (in Catholic belief). It is not that Catholics want to impose authority on others, it is that this is what we sincerely believe to be true. I'm truly sorry if any animosity and division is caused by this but I will not apologise for what I believe is the Truth. I hope that, as sincere people, as religious people and as Christians, you can understand that we are conscience bound to follow what we believe to be true, and even if we wanted more than anything else to change a dogma, we [i]could not. Note-not we would not, we literally cannot.

I would truly love to see a united Church, and if you asked me, if the Truth of my Faith (as I see It to be true) was not clear to me, then I would not say I personally think it necessary for one bishop to have supremacy. I would reject this rather than endanger unity. But I cannot reject this, because I believe it to be true, and we are slaves to the Truth.

I respect your Church as a Christian Church, and I consider your faith to hold a great deal of Truth. I believe God the Holy Spirit is working in your Church, and the faithful and good among your Church are certainly part of the invisible Communion of Christ's Body, the Universal Church. Also, they share much of that visible Communion by their profession of Christ and many doctrines.:)

In love and in Christ,

Your brother Robbie. :wave:

[julian the apostate]

good post robbie

[Robbie_James_Francis]

good post robbie

Thank you. :)

In Christ and His Love,

Robbie :wave:

[Fish and Bread]

Mary as co-redemptrix simply means that Mary's acceptance of God's Will in allowing the Holy Spirit to come upon her was necessary for Christ to enter the world, and then to save us. It does not mean that it is necessary for Mary to suffer for our sins or that she by her own power saves us or helps us.

Even if your definition were the one that most Roman Catholics have of Mary as co-redemptrix, I'd still disagree with it. God chose Mary, but had she rejected God, Jesus would have still been born to someone else. Mary was a willing instrument that God used to give birth to his Son and should be honored for that, but she was not the one who brought about the redemption of the world, that was God alone. Anything else would serve to diminish our understanding of God's power and authority and the unique nature of his goodness. We can't bestow grace upon ourselves or redeem ourselves, God alone can do that.

But the Roman Catholic supporters of Mary as co-redemtrix don't even usually stop there. Here's a quote from http://www.catholicsource.net/articles/coredemptrix.html:

And at the foot of the cross of our Saviour (Jn.19:26), Mary's intense sufferings, united with those of her Son, as Pope John Paul II tells us, were, "also a contribution to the Redemption of us all" (Salvifici Doloris, n.25). Because of this intimate sharing in the redemption accomplished by the Lord, the Mother of the Redeemer is uniquely and rightly referred to by Pope John Paul II and the Church as the "Coredemptrix."

That could be summed up as saying, basically, that Mary suffered to atone for our sins. It is simply not good theology. Only a perfect sacrifice -- God's sacrifice -- can atone for the sins of mankind.

Catholics believe, as was stated in the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification between the Catholic Church and the Lutheran Church, that we are saved by grace alone, and that grace inspires in us faith and good deeds. We must accept this grace and choose to follow it's call by virtue of our free will, thereby participating in our salvation. [I apologise if this is not fully correct, I'm far less than an entirely reliable authority on Catholic teaching]

I was actually very impressed by the Joint Declaration until a relative of mine pointed out that it actually doesn't address salvation but only justication, and that Roman Catholics tend to divide this two concepts into completely seperate categories whereas most others consider them very similar and even interchangeable concepts. It's a fascinating example of how the same language can mean different things to different people. I really wonder how much new ground was broken at all by this agreement -- it looks startling and wonderful on paper, but I'm not entirely sure that anyone really truly changed their position. The RCC simply changed the way they talk about what they already believe to sound as if their belief is the same as Luther's, even though it actually is not.

Full reunification into one Communion would require acceptance of the doctrine that the Bishop of Rome is the Vicar of Christ

This is not the historic teaching of the Church, at least in the way that Roman Catholics define Vicar of Christ. Please see canon 6 of the first Council of Nicea. No unification will come unless Roman Catholics can allow for the Pope to be considered first in honor without any absolute authority over the Church as a whole.

I hope that, as sincere people, as religious people and as Christians, you can understand that we are conscience bound to follow what we believe to be true

I agree, as do many theologians within and without of the Roman Catholic church. Historically, the Roman Catholic church magisterium has not agreed with that line of reasoning, though, which has been the cause of much strife between the RCC and other members of the body.

John

[Iron Sun 254]

Full reunification into one Communion would require acceptance of the doctrine that the Bishop of Rome is the Vicar of Christ and successor of Saint Peter, on whom the Church was founded by Christ (in Catholic belief). It is not that Catholics want to impose authority on others, it is that this is what we sincerely believe to be true. I'm truly sorry if any animosity and division is caused by this but I will not apologise for what I believe is the Truth. I hope that, as sincere people, as religious people and as Christians, you can understand that we are conscience bound to follow what we believe to be true, and even if we wanted more than anything else to change a dogma, we could not. Note-not we would not, we literally cannot...


In otherwords, full reunification happens when we all decide to become Catholics. If that's what we believed, we'd be doing it now.

[gitlance]

We just need an Anglican to covertly climb the ladder of the Roman heirarchy and become pope. That would solve everything. :P

[pandg]

We just need an Anglican to covertly climb the ladder of the Roman heirarchy and become pope. That would solve everything. :P
Yes it might! I saw that prophecied somewhere so who knows
And as so many have said, there is always hope.

[Robbie_James_Francis]

Yes, as I have said, reunification would require acceptance of all Catholic dogmas. So...becoming Catholic bascially. But you are equally convinced that it will require the changing of some dogmas...so in some ways we feel the same about each of our Traditions. I certainly feel it is impossible to change any official doctrines and no pope or Council can ever do that.

In Christ,

Robbie

[Colabomb]

Yes, as I have said, reunification would require acceptance of all Catholic dogmas. So...becoming Catholic bascially. But you are equally convinced that it will require the changing of some dogmas...so in some ways we feel the same about each of our Traditions. I certainly feel it is impossible to change any official doctrines and no pope or Council can ever do that.

In Christ,

Robbie
I don't know if this is in the same field, and no, I don't think the Roman Catholic Church will be changing anything any time soon....

But the excommunication of the Orthodox was lifted, and the pope has called the Orthodox (who don't believe in the papal doctrines) the Left Lung of the Church. We have difficulty with the fact that we are suddenly the only Apostolic Group left out of the picture.

[Iron Sun 254]

Yes, as I have said, reunification would require acceptance of all Catholic dogmas. So...becoming Catholic bascially. But you are equally convinced that it will require the changing of some dogmas...so in some ways we feel the same about each of our Traditions. I certainly feel it is impossible to change any official doctrines and no pope or Council can ever do that.

In Christ,

Robbie

Well...that's why it'll never happen. Anglicans say "It would require some changes to reach this goal" and Catholics say "We won't change at all." We're not asking you to change completely but you're asking us to.

[Colabomb]

Well...that's why it'll never happen. Anglicans say "It would require some changes to reach this goal" and Catholics say "We won't change at all." We're not asking you to change completely but you're asking us to.
Because they believe they have the Truth. I disagree with many of their doctrines, but at least I understand why they won't change.

I won't change what I believe to please others. To do so would be betraying God.

[gitlance]

Because they believe they have the Truth. I disagree with many of their doctrines, but at least I understand why they won't change.

I won't change what I believe to please others. To do so would be betraying God.

AMEN! :clap:

[pmcleanj]

I must say, I am impressed by the staunchness of my coreligionists! How well you all discern the core issues of reunification! If you didn't get rep from me today, you had best assume it's because I've already repped you too recently!

(I'm so proud of you all!)

[gtsecc]

Well, Wesley was a good Anglo-Catholic.
I think we would all agree to that.

Someoen correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't he was known as a high Churchman and theologically more Catholic than Calvinist.

[benedictine]

In my opinion, Reunification may be possible for Anglo-Catholics, but might not be possible for other Anglicans.

[Fish and Bread]

Someoen correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't he was known as a high Churchman and theologically more Catholic than Calvinist.

I always figured that John Wesley was a low-churchman given that the denomination he founded, the Methodist church, is generally what we Anglicans would consider low-church. Perhaps it was his followers who swung things in that direction after his death, though.

John

[CSMR]

Wesley was an Arminian who held a strange doctrine of perfection - the ability of saints to lead a perfect life, and the expectation that there would be some Christians who never commit sin. That would put him farther from Protestantism than Catholicism I suppose, but not very near either.

[Dominus Fidelis]

In otherwords, full reunification happens when we all decide to become Catholics. If that's what we believed, we'd be doing it now.

If you think you can have an Anglican rite of Catholicism without actually submitting to the Pope's authority (instead of Rowans or the Queens) then you are correct, it won't happen.

[Bonifatius]

Someoen correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't he was known as a high Churchman and theologically more Catholic than Calvinist.


Hi!

I think it is difficult to mark Wesley with the label Anglo-catholic as that label did not exist in his time. Since then the Anglican church has developed more and more toward catholic understanding and liturgy, whereas the Methodists have moved more and more in the other direction.

He certainly was a high church man - as he frequently described himself. But this was more in the sense of the 18th c - meaning that he held the liturgy and authority of the Anglican church in high esteem and was very critical about dissenters like Presbyterians and Baptists. On the other hand the ritualism and elaborate liturgy of the Oxford movement would have been alien to his understanding, I would assume.

He also was a sacramentalist of format, receiving communion at least once or twice a week and even more often during special times (VERY unusual for 18th c Anglicanism!!). He believed in real presence which can be seen from his eucharistic spirituality, but when it came to describe how this presence comes about he would certainly be more on the side of a non corporal but rather spiritual presence of the risen Lord in the elements.

He submitted to the bishops of the church, but when it came to the question of ordaining "elders" for the Methodists in America in 1784 he abandoned the doctrine of Apostolic (episcopal) Succession and claimed his right as a priest to ordain other priests.

His doctrine of justification and good works is certainly far more catholic than protestant and fits well with the teaching of the council of Trent. Especially his understanding of prevenient grace!

All the best
Tom (Bonifatius)

[pmcleanj]

If you think you can have an Anglican rite of Catholicism without actually submitting to the Pope's authority (instead of Rowans or the Queens) then you are correct, it won't happen.
The vast majority of us are not under the authority of either the Queen or of Archbishop Rowan.

None of us are looking for having an "Anglican rite" of Roman Catholicism. What we are talking about is Reunification -- which starts with the recognition that we are already Catholic and that our submission to a foreign prelate is not a condition of being part of the church.

But I think you too are correct, it won't happen.

[Albion]

In my opinion, Reunification may be possible for Anglo-Catholics, but might not be possible for other Anglicans.

AHHH...thank you for raising a point that I was thinking about as this discussion has gone along. HOW can Anglo-Catholics be "reunified," I'm wondering. Anglo-Catholics are not a church unto themselves even if parishes here and there are famously A-C, so presumably negotiations between Rome and ECUSA, for instance, is not what you were thinking of.

It would be interesting to everyone, I think, to read--from you or anyone else who has given thought to this prospect-- the particular way in which this could happen. If reunification were to be merely conversion a la Newman, that route is open now.

[Iron Sun 254]

If you think you can have an Anglican rite of Catholicism without actually submitting to the Pope's authority (instead of Rowans or the Queens) then you are correct, it won't happen.

And there in lies the problem. First, as pmcleanj already stated, most of us are not under the authority of Archbishop Rowan or the Queen and some aren't even under the authority of the Anglican Communion. Secondly, the shortest route to reunification would be for the Pope to simply say "Anglicans are valid." That's it. He simply has to say "I accept that people can follow Christ without following me."

[gitlance]

And there in lies the problem. First, as pmcleanj already stated, most of us are not under the authority of Rowan or the Queen and some aren't even under the authority of the Anglican Communion. Secondly, the shortest route to reunification would be for the Pope to simply say "Anglicans are valid." That's it. He simply has to say "I accept that people can follow Christ without following me."

ARCHBISHOP Rowan Williams, please.

[Iron Sun 254]

Fixed...

and for the record we're not under the authority of Rowan Atkinson either.

[Colabomb]

If you think you can have an Anglican rite of Catholicism without actually submitting to the Pope's authority (instead of Rowans or the Queens) then you are correct, it won't happen.
I would settle for recognition of our orders.

[masuwerte]

Fixed...

and for the record we're not under the authortiy of Rowan Atkinson either.

LOL. Too bad, that would be interesting. :)

[gtsecc]

Has anyone seen the skit where Mr. Bean goes to church? They are singing "Ye Watchers and Ye Holy Ones."

[Cjwinnit]

If you think you can have an Anglican rite of Catholicism without actually submitting to the Pope's authority (instead of Rowans or the Queens) then you are correct, it won't happen.

Wow, many assumptions made. Yes, as such the Queen is the governor of the C of E. But there are 38 other national churches which are Anglican and none of them to my knowledge have the Queen of England as it's governor. And of course we submit to ++Rowan's authority, he's the archbishop, but then again, only in southern England.. ;)

[pandg]

Apparently Archbishop Rowan Williams will be attending the new pope's inauguration

[merechristian]

I have been attending a1928 bcp(t.a.c.) parish on and off for the past year,thought i had found a home but now theres rumors the t.a.c is heading for rome and will be under the authority of the see of rome,anyone know about this?and what would the specifics be?i,m married to a catholic and attend mass at her parish i have respect for the r.c.church but i just want to be a traditional anglican. imay have to either go back to lutheranism or try the charismatic episcopal church as the episcopal churches her are way to liberal for me,does anyone know anything about the charismatic episcopal church? in christ,mere christian

[Albion]

I have been attending a1928 bcp(t.a.c.) parish on and off for the past year,thought i had found a home but now theres rumors the t.a.c is heading for rome and will be under the authority of the see of rome,anyone know about this?and what would the specifics be?i,m married to a catholic and attend mass at her parish i have respect for the r.c.church but i just want to be a traditional anglican. imay have to either go back to lutheranism or try the charismatic episcopal church as the episcopal churches her are way to liberal for me,does anyone know anything about the charismatic episcopal church? in christ,mere christian

I can't find anyone outside of the TAC who thinks this proposal has a snowball's chance in August of actually succeeding. Therefore, you could sit tight and trust that it's all talk.

On the other hand, you are with a church that intends to make itself more like the RCC doctrinally and in worship even if Rome doesn't come across, so it's a question if that would leave you in a traditional Anglican Church or not.

If you are not a practicing charismatic or pentecostal, the Charismatic Episcopal Church would not be a good choice, in my opinion. However, it isn't an Episcopal/Anglican church anyway, despite the name. Got any Continuing Anglican or Reformed Episcopal Churches nearby other than the TAC?

[benedictine]

I will submit to the Bishop of Rome in Primacy, but not infallibility. Theologically, I am closer to Roman Catholic than anything else. Liturgically, I'm a mix of Anglican, RC, and EO. I pray every day for the reunification of the church. If we do, then we can provide a valuble and strong witness to the rest of the world, especially to those in the Mid East and Medditeranian.

[benedictine]

I would settle for recognition of our orders. I wish. Maybe Pope Benedict will do that at his inagural mass with ++Rowan Williams there. (If he does, he'll knock the Roman Curia back to the stone ages, though. ;) )

[gtsecc]

I have been attending a1928 bcp(t.a.c.) parish on and off for the past year,thought i had found a home but now theres rumors the t.a.c is heading for rome and will be under the authority of the see of rome,anyone know about this?and what would the specifics be?i,m married to a catholic and attend mass at her parish i have respect for the r.c.church but i just want to be a traditional anglican. imay have to either go back to lutheranism or try the charismatic episcopal church as the episcopal churches her are way to liberal for me,does anyone know anything about the charismatic episcopal church? in christ,mere christian
Almost every town has at least one really liberal and one really conservative Episcopal church.

[Albion]

Almost every town has at least one really liberal and one really conservative Episcopal church.

I can't think of one really, actually conservative Episcopal church within a hundred miles of where I live. Several that are MORE conservative than average, perhaps, but even then I'd have to pass a dozen liberal ones and drive quite some distance to reach them.

[benedictine]

There are a couple in my town. One's anECUSA Anglo-CAtholic Parish, and one is a Continuing Anglican Parish.

[Konstantinos]

Nor will our EO brethren sadly How true that is :( :crosseo: Konstantinos

[TomUK]

From your orthodox perspective Konstantinos, you think there should be reunification between us?

[Father Rick]

Ok... here goes my one hit-and-run post in this thread...

My solution to help this whole process is simple-- The entire AC should come to the OC's for our lines of Succession (since we share in consecrations sometimes anyway). Then Rome would recognize the AC's sacraments as valid-- and voila, one giant leap for re-unification.

(I know that's NEVER going to happen, but... oh well...)


And now we return to the regularly scheduled serious discussion that was at hand...

[murron]

I have been attending a1928 bcp(t.a.c.) parish on and off for the past year,thought i had found a home but now theres rumors the t.a.c is heading for rome and will be under the authority of the see of rome,anyone know about this?and what would the specifics be?i,m married to a catholic and attend mass at her parish i have respect for the r.c.church but i just want to be a traditional anglican. imay have to either go back to lutheranism or try the charismatic episcopal church as the episcopal churches her are way to liberal for me,does anyone know anything about the charismatic episcopal church? in christ,mere christian
Talks between the TAC and the Vatican have been ongoing for the last 8 years, hammering out the details. One of those details is that the TAC would not be "under" the Pope. If that were the case, there would be no need for these talks, we'd all just become Roman Catholics. The intent is to keep the TAC as it is, but with the validation of the Vatican for our sacraments. Hope that helps clear it up a bit :)

[Albion]

There are a couple in my town. One's anECUSA Anglo-CAtholic Parish, and one is a Continuing Anglican Parish.

Two things--

I was taking "Episcopal" in your post to mean ECUSA since that's the way most of us use term and most people here are ECUSA (or other AngComm churches). Naturally, if there is a Continuing Anglican parish, that's probably going to be a horse of a different color.

Then too, it appears that you are fortunate to have choices probably because, I'm guessing, you live in a large city. There are quite a few places in the US where the range of options really isn't too good.

[gtsecc]

I can't think of one really, actually conservative Episcopal church within a hundred miles of where I live. Several that are MORE conservative than average, perhaps, but even then I'd have to pass a dozen liberal ones and drive quite some distance to reach them.
I live in Charleston, and we have Episcopal 6 parishes downtown.
3 are very conservative:
St. Michael's
St. Philip's
Holy Communion

[benedictine]

Two things--

I was taking "Episcopal" in your post to mean ECUSA since that's the way most of us use term and most people here are ECUSA (or other AngComm churches). Naturally, if there is a Continuing Anglican parish, that's probably going to be a horse of a different color.

Then too, it appears that you are fortunate to have choices probably because, I'm guessing, you live in a large city. There are quite a few places in the US where the range of options really isn't too good.


ACtually, I live in a moderate city smack dab in the Bible Belt. There are more than a dozen Episcopal/Anglican churches and several RC, and two ORthodox Churches. Most of the mare small and spread out.

[trooper]

Fr. Rick has it right. Why not?

[gtsecc]

Fr. Rick has it right. Why not?
Rome needs to change, not us.

[Albion]

ACtually, I live in a moderate city smack dab in the Bible Belt. There are more than a dozen Episcopal/Anglican churches and several RC, and two ORthodox Churches. Most of the mare small and spread out.

You are fortunate in that way, since for most of the country that is not the case. The Bible Belt, by the way, is the place--with Florida, the Far West and Southwest--where one is most likely to find a range, including conservative ECUSA and Continuing churches. In many parts of the country, there are few conservative ECUSA parishes and almost no Continuing ones.

[RobNJ]

Almost every town has at least one really liberal and one really conservative Episcopal church.

I'm only aware of three (maybe) in my Diocese

[trooper]

You are fortunate in that way, since for most of the country that is not the case. The Bible Belt, by the way, is the place--with Florida, the Far West and Southwest--where one is most likely to find a range, including conservative ECUSA and Continuing churches. In many parts of the country, there are few conservative ECUSA parishes and almost no Continuing ones.

EXACTLY:(