We are working out some internet wrinkle to let Fr. Nalls do his own posting. For now I am posting this one for him. - Fr. Hart
When the train left the stationRev. Canon Charles Nalls
The internet has proven to be a goldmine of information. Where else can one learn about the latest “Church” of Scientology scandal or check in on that all-important British tabloid coverage of Carmen Electra? Idle surfing (particularly when deadlines loom) brings all manner of interesting news. So was the case today when the latest story on the Apostolic Constitution popped up on Catholic News Service and was picked up on several other services and blogs.
It seems that Cardinal Walter Kasper, president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, said the visit Nov. 19-22 of Archbishop Rowan Williams to the Vatican “demonstrates that there has been no rupture and reaffirms our common desire to talk to one another at a historically important moment.” Heaven forbid! Might cut into the Cardinal’s London theatre weekends.
Kasper, who is no friend of the traditional Anglican (or Roman Catholic, for that matter), was hot to maintain that the Apostolic Constitution establishing special structures for Anglicans who want to enter into full communion with the Roman Catholic Church “absolutely is not a signal of the end of ecumenical dialogue with the Anglican Communion.” One can only uncharitably speculate whether the cardinal has been making ecumenical visits to peyote-based faith communities to make such a claim, but no matter.
In an interview published in the Nov. 15 edition of L'Osservatore Romano, the Vatican newspaper, Kasper assailed commentators who have said that the pope made this decision just to “expand his empire” as “ridiculous.” “Let's stick to the facts.” Said Kasper, no stranger to the Vatican-mandated press retraction. “A group of Anglicans freely and legitimately asked to enter the Catholic Church. It was not our initiative/” Rather, the whole thing is based on “the Second Vatican Council and of 40 years of Catholic-Anglican dialogue.” Now for the interesting bit.
Cardinal Kasper also spoke about the Traditional Anglican Communion-“a group that claims more than 400,000 members and describes itself as ‘a worldwide association of orthodox Anglican churches, working to maintain the catholic faith and resist the secularization of the church.’” The cardinal bluntly said that while “TAC leaders asked the Vatican two years ago to find a way for them to join the Catholic Church, they did not participate in the conversations that led to the pope’s recent provision.” This would seem to directly contradict the center-stage taken by the TAC since signing and transmitting a Catechism of the Catholic Church and accompanying letters in Portsmouth, England two years past.
The good cardinal didn’t let it lie there. He went on to note, “Now, however, they [TAC] are jumping on a train that already has left the station. If they are sincere, OK, the doors are open. But we cannot close our eyes to the fact that they have not been in communion with Canterbury since 1992” and therefore are not technically leaving the Anglican Communion to join the Roman Catholic Church, he said.
Again, the Cardinal has been known to have to down healthy servings of crow from time to time. Nevertheless, as chief ecumenical officer of the Roman Catholic Church and having been entangled with the CofE for some time, he must know a little something. It lends weight to the idea that the Apostolic Constitution is an instrument directed to departing “mainstream” Anglicans in the U.K. and elsewhere, (you know, folks who already have the altars in the nave and use the Novus Ordo liturgy) rather than continuing church Anglicans who may not be up to scratch in any number of areas specified in the plain language of the document. Perhaps the answer lies in the “special secret Apostolic Constitution” that is alleged to be manifesting itself shortly.
At least it is cause to ask, “When did the train leave the station?” There is much at stake in the answer.
30 comments:
Then, what about the 2008 letter from Down Under to the whole TAC asking for extra donations because of the work and travel involved?
I don't know if I trust Kaspar any more than those he is speaking of. he seems to be contradicting others in the Vatican far too often.
Interestingly, many within the TAC believe that the AC really has nothing to do with them.
Anyway, expect a response from the TAC within a month I would guess.
T
From the Roman perspective:
From Sandro Magister, on this subject:
http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1341020?eng=y
Walter Cardinal Kaspar seems to be inferring that the TAC does not have 400,000 members. Whatever the numbers, clearly he does not understand that the Canterbury Communion progressively abandoned Anglican Catholic orthodoxy following the ordination of women.
It is not correct that the continuing Anglicans are not Anglican because we departed from the heresy and schism of the modernist Canterbury Communion.
ECUSA was the first to leave the fold when it ordained women. What the ACC and others have done is preserve the Anglican "patrimony".
Those TAC folk and Novus Ordo Anglicans may well still go to Rome, but they go as converts, not Catholics, they go denying their Church, their priests, their masses and their history. This is not a reunion of Christendom it is the abandonment of Anglican Catholicism by the few, and it saddens me greatly.
Cardinal Kasper's sstatement is similar to an earlier statement by the President of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, emphasizing that their ecumenical relationships with TEC would continue.
I do hope the Tiber-swimmers are aware that that will join not only the Church of Benedict XVI, but the Church of liberal American bishops and nuns who aspire to become priests. It's not all like what you see on EWTN!
LKW
The article cited by Mark VA shows that there is still considerable vagueness in Rome about matters Anglican. Thus he refers to the TAC as having not been in communion with Canterbury since 1992, a precise statement for which it is difficult to find any factual basis.
Perhaps he is as mystified as some of the rest of us about the significance of the TAC's having some bishops who have one leg in the Lambeth camp and one in extramural Anglicanism's, but that is confusing situation is not something that has any particular reference to 1992.
Perhaps he is referring to the Church of England's official adoption of women's ordination in that year but where the TAC gave no evidence of even tenuous and indirect communion with Lambeth prior to that event (its "dual bishops" came later), it is difficult to see just what it was to which the Cardinal was referring.
What does come through clearly is Cardinal Kasper's widely-reported coolness toward Anglicans who are not of the most liberal stripe. That by itself should be sufficient warning that anyone who accepts the invitation contained in the new Apostolic Constitution will be far from being welcomed with open arms by all current Roman Catholics.
John A. Hollister+
There is another point worth noting in Sandro Magister's article that was cited by Mark VA. This is the Cardinal's direct affirmation that, as others have speculated, the new Apostolic Constitution was devised with essentially no reference whatever to the TAC's application.
His remarks about jumping on a moving train and the train's having left the station are distinctly disparaging in tone.
Any member of the TAC who compares those words directly from a high Vatican official -- especially from one who probably does not really wish the whole new program well -- are distinctly contrary to the impression that the TAC's leadership has been trying to create. That is, the TAC's membership is being given the "spin" that the new initiative is (a) largely a product of the TAC's application and (b) just what the TAC ordered.
Unfortunately, but quite naturally, that dissonance can only create great discomfort and uncertainty among TAC folk. They are entitled to better information and better treatment but they do not seem to be getting it.
Therefore, it is no surprise that a considerable number of them, both in North America but also abroad -- including, within the last couple of months, quite large numbers in South Africa and in India -- are bailing out, going for other Continuing jurisdictions.
Any who are so disposed can count on a sympathetic hearing from the ACC, as many who post and read on this board can attest from their personal experiences. Incidentally, that also goes for deacons and priests who were once within the ACC but who left it, who, I am told, are heavily represented among the current ACA clergy.
We have several clergy in this country (the USA) who began in the ACC, looked for greener pastures, and then decided the grass was, indeed, greenest back home.
John A. Hollister+
"chiestic"!
Fr Hart wrote: We are working out some internet wrinkle to let Fr. Nalls do his own posting. For now I am posting this one for him.
As a tech support guy by trade, allow me to assist. Now, we have four users who can post to the blog, and one (Fr. Nalls) who cannot. What is different about Fr. Nalls? Answer: He doesn't have a beard. Clearly, once Fr. Nalls grows a beard, then, he will be able to post to the blog. He may also need to reboot.
You're welcome.
Cardinal Kasper is totally untrustworthy. His modernist theology, best exemplified in his book Jesus the Christ, is well-known. The fact that he was made a cardinal should sufficiently undermine anyone who wants to make an argument supporting the late Pope John Paul II's orthodox proclivities.
Added to Kasper's modernism is his stated admiration for the current Anglican Communion as a model toward which all of Catholicism should strive.
If there's any good news from the Vatican lately, it has to be that Kasper has submitted his resignation based on age.
I agree wholeheartedly with Father Wells' observation that the Roman Catholic Church is not what it appears on EWTN. Having been raised, trained, and ordained in the Roman Catholic Church at a modernist seminary, I would go farther and state that it is a church that is at war with itself. The battle lines between Roman traditionalists, conservatives, and modernists, are pretty clearly drawn and are well-represented both in the Vatican and, particularly, within the European and United States Episcopal Conferences.
Our Anglican Catholic heritage, besides being home to an incredibly beautiful liturgical and theological patrimony, is also
a safe harbor for souls where little of the conflict can be seen that is found in today's Rome.
If you plan to swim the Tiber, I strongly suggest (a) that you bring a life jacket and (b) that you don't throw out your 1928 Prayer Book.
Father Bob Jones
This conversation about those Anglicans leaving for Rome reminds me of what King Charles II said upon receiving the news that one of his mistresses had converted to Roman Catholicism; "It is no great loss to the Church of England, and no great gain to the Church of Rome."
If Cardinal Kasper's remarks are accurate should one assume that Archbishop Hepworth has reached the apex of "450 years of mistakes"?
Alan
veriword: reirero = ie error
No kidding!
I have just read the Sandro Magister piece, here:
http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1341020?eng=y
and it has confirmed my strong sense of puzzlement about what Cardinal Kasper means in his recent statements about the “Anglican ordinariat.” Please refer to paragraph 20 of the Magister article, and then to the last three paragraphs of this shorter report:
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0905080.htm
Here are those last three paragraphs, with my comments (made a few days ago) between and after them:
“Cardinal Kasper also spoke about the Traditional Anglican Communion, a group that claims more than 400,000 members and describes itself as ‘a worldwide association of orthodox Anglican churches, working to maintain the catholic faith and resist the secularization of the church’.”
Well, okay.
"The cardinal said that while the TAC leaders asked the Vatican two years ago to find a way for them to join the Catholic Church, they did not participate in the conversations that led to the pope’s recent provision."
What conversations? They wouldn’t have participated in the intra-Vatican conversations that led to the Ap. Con., but neither would have any other Anglicans. But if he’s referring (and I don’t know that he is) to the conversations in Rome in April 2008 with some FIF/UK bishops (1) and the January 2009 conclave in Vienna (2), then it’s a peculiar thing for him to say, since all of these things worked together for the good of all, rather than tripping each other up, or strewing banana skins all around. Actually, I am inclined to think that FIF/UK’s getting in on the act accelerated things rather a good deal, but, still, it was an addition onto the foundation laid by TAC.
“’Now, however, they are jumping on a train that already has left the station. If they are sincere, OK, the doors are open. But we cannot close our eyes to the fact that they have not been in communion with Canterbury since 1992’ and therefore are not technically leaving the Anglican Communion to join the Roman Catholic Church, he said.”
This is the “say what?” passage; it seems senseless and to lack clear meaning (or perhaps any at all). If “they” means the TAC, certainly the passage is perfectly incomprehensible, and why pull 1992 out of the air? I don’t know when the TAC presence in England began (as I recall, TAC as an entity only began in, when, 1993?), but there was some kind of Continuing Anglican presence there ever since the CofE began to ordain women to the diaconate in 1987. The whole passage seems to be laboring to convey the sense that since the TAC has not been in communion with Canterbury for some years, therefore if it manages to “jump on the train” they will be lucky if the conductors don’t push them off at the next stop, since there are no suitable “third class cars” for the likes of them. One would think that Kasper would want to say the opposite, that all remains fair weather (“Always look on the bright side of life …”) between Rome and Canterbury; we’re just rescuing a few “strays” who haven’t been in communion with Canterbury lo these many years, and so Canterbury shouldn’t be upset with any of this, and if a few stray “kosher Anglicans” get on board, we won't let that get in the way of our tea party. But to twist the passage to make it say that would be a real triumph of Newspeak. Perhaps something was “lost in the translation.” And, in any event, TAC has been holding private discussions with Rome since 2001—with the PCPCU until 2003, and thereafter with the CDF.
NOTES:
(1) FIF/UK = Forward-in-Faith/UK, a largely Anglo-Catholic organization strongly opposed to the “ordination” of women and whose leaders are, for the most part, “Anglo-Papalists,” Catholic-minded Anglicans who believe in “all that the Catholic Church teaches to be revealed by God” and who have been seeking, in friendly collaboration with the TAC, “corporate reunion” with the Catholic Church. There are three so-called “flying bishops” (technically, “Provincial Episcopal Visitors”) who were created in 1993 when the Church of England began to ordain women to “the priesthood,” to minister to parishes that wished to distance themselves from their diocesan bishops who ordain women. They were given the titles of old defunct Anglo-Saxon episcopal sees: Beverley, Ebbsfleet and Richborough. The present bishops of Ebbsfleet (Andrew Burnham) and Richborouugh (Keith Newton) have acclaimed the recent Apostolic Constitution, while Beverley (Martyn Jarrett) has made a more ambivalent response. There are also two retired “flying bishops:” Edwin Barnes (formerly Richborough) has also acclaimed it, while John Gaisford (formerly Beverley) has affirmed strongly his lack of interest in “the Roman option.” There is also the Bishop of Fulham, John Broadhurst, the equivalent of aCatholic “auxiliary bishop” within the Diocese of London, who is perhaps the most prominent bishop in FIF/UK and who acts as the equivalent of a “flying bishop” within the London diocese; he had also acclaimed the recent action of the Holy Father.
(2) Two of the “flying bishops” visited Rome just after Easter 2008, where they spoke with Card. Kasper of the PCPCU and with members of the CDF; it appears that (much as the TEC bishops had done in 2007) they signified to the CDF their complete acceptance of the “Catechism of the Catholic Church” and their desire for reunion. Then, in January 2009, Cardinal Schoenborn hosted a two-day meeting in Vienna of 4 FIF/UK leading figures (2 bishops and 2 clergymen) with himself and other “Romans,” in the course of which he conveyed to them assurances of his support and that of the pope. Perhaps he also informed them that a definite “canonical structure” would be erected before the end of the year, as I heard back in April.
Whatever one thinks of this whole matter, it is something that Ratzinger has very strongly supported and promoted, first as Prefect of the CDF and then as Pope, since 2003. This is "the pope's baby," and not anybody else's.
One might also note that Kasper turned 75 in March 2008, so his "retirement" might be accepted at any time. Word has it that he might be succeeded by Cardinal Schoenborn of Vienna, unless Schoenborn is being kept in reserve as Levada's eventual successor at the CDF.
Bill Tighe wrote:
And, in any event, TAC has been holding private discussions with Rome since 2001—with the PCPCU until 2003, and thereafter with the CDF.
Or so they say; but this news recap with commentary was written for us by someone who was a canon appointed by Abp. Hepworth to take part in these discussions. He has made no argument against Cardinal Kasper's facts.
Furthermore, the request to Rome from FiF/UK dates to the 1990s, and it was Pope John Paul II who complained about the bureaucracy of English Roman Catholic bishops that was standing in the way(asking, "Why are the English bishops so unapostolic?").
Professor Tighe wrote, "I don’t know when the TAC presence in England began (as I recall, TAC as an entity only began in, when, 1993?)...."
Actually, the TAC began, if only as a gleam in the eye of then-ACC Abp. Falk, in 1989-90. In late 1991, under his wing, its rather vestigial structure transferred itself over to the then-AEC, which became the ACA.
This is what makes Cardinal Kasper's fixation on 1992 so strange. By that latter year, the TAC was already recognizing non-Lambeth affiliates at least in Canada, Australia, Ireland, India, and, very possibly elsewhere -- my memory on this is not particularly clear.
John A. Hollister+
Fr. Hart wrote:
"...Or so they say; but this news recap with commentary was written for us by someone who was a canon appointed by Abp. Hepworth to take part in these discussions. He has made no argument against Cardinal Kasper's facts..."
That is very interesting, isn't it. He was also moved to go from serving as Canon to Abp. Hepworth to applying to be received under the Pastoral Provision, and then he changed his mind.
Where exactly is Fr. Nalls?
Now writing sternly against the Roman Church and against the Apostolic Constitution, makes one wonder how long he will stand by this position, or is this merely to convince the ACC that is he solidly in their camp despite previous positions he has held on theological issues?
Very interesting indeed.
EGS
EGS wrote:
Where exactly is Fr. Nalls?
In a uniquely qualified place to know exactly what he is talking about. The better question would be, what did he see that turned him away from those options? Or, what did he learn? Or, what can he tell us?
Of his integrity I have no doubt. And (not to wish him having to be in a foxhole), if I had to be in foxhole with someone, Charles Nalls+ would be high on my list, in fact second to no one.
In the end, no one but The Almighty knows who will go to Rome and who will remain in either the C of E or any of the other numerous “Anglican” groups out there.
It clear that this blog, among many others, is against the “Constitution” published by Pope Benedict XVI that in some way or another will allow for Anglicans to become Roman Catholics and keep some of the “Anglican” trimming which I suppose distinguishes betweens the two…I know there are a great deal presently with the liturgical upheaval that is the Latin Rite.
As a former Priest of the Latin Church I can assure you, that when its time to “Pope” as its often called, few will go. That will be based on various reasons, which I won’t go into here…just reread the Apostolic Constitution requirements, i.e. RC Canon Law.
Jumping through hoops after being a Priest for 10, 20, 30 plus years just doesn’t work; and for what…promises written on paper by a Pope who’s in his early 80’s…oh you dear naive Papist Anglicans. If the Roman Church makes her own male children jump through innumerable hoops, in seeking Holy Orders, why do you think you’ll get better, hum?
Father Richard John Hochwalt
It's a strange topic indeed. The more words that are spoken about it, the less people seem to be arriving at any solid conclusions about it.
All of this, for the TAC and any other group involved, is a waiting game. Letters and correspondence are flying around the globe from the people involved, and the poor laity are left to speculate in the meantime.
John Hollister said:
Unfortunately, but quite naturally, that dissonance can only create great discomfort and uncertainty among TAC folk. They are entitled to better information and better treatment but they do not seem to be getting it.
I'm in no doubt that the TAC laity couldn't agree more.
T
I have no crystal ball and no real "inside" sources in either RCC or TAC camps. But if I ventured a prediction as to how this will all shake out, it would be pretty close to that of Fr Hochwalt.
I too noticed those repeated references to the Code of (Roman) Canon Law and got the distinct feeling they were designed to be exclusionary. My unscientific guess is that in another 25 years, some poorly educated DAR bishops will still be babbling about "inter-communion" and their latest junket to Italy.
LKW
Ecumenism has traditionally been seen as involving discussions between one church and another. Roman Catholics have wanted to see the Anglican Communion as a church, and thus, the importance Cardinal Kasper attaches to communion with Canterbury (regardless of the strange date he gives, but perhaps 1992 is due to become the 1054 of future conversations ;).
Of course, there has never really been one Anglican Church, and if some thought they could say that the Continuum didn't count, the attitude of TEC, which has essentially said to the rest of the Anglican Communion to take a hike, should make that clear. But for a "professional" ecumenist, that does rather make the whole game difficult to play.
As for Cardinal Kaspers promotion to the cardinalate, it is entirely possible that this was a rather sly move on the part of Pope John Paul II, who used the traditional Roman option of "promovere pro movere" (promote in order to remove); JPII put Cdnl Kasper in a position whose only real importance is to keep alive the idea that Rome is willing to talk to other Christian churches, and to establish better relationships; but I doubt anyone thinks that the current ecumenical discussions with the various churches of the West has any chance of bringing about a healing of the Reformation schisms, since the mainline churches have pretty effectively jettisoned most of the doctrines taught by the reformers, with the exception of the antipapal ones. But Continuing churchmen have been dealing with that problem in their own way and already know that.
First, Fr. Hart, thank you for your kind comments. The reason I have been writing the Bp. Grafton essays and the related pieces is simply the fact that being an Anglican is more than what Fr. Hochwalt aptly describes as liturgical "trimmings". There is a distinct catholic Church that is Anglican, and the big issues that make for that distinction remain. They were being roundly ignored, papered over or dismissed by those who valued merger with the Roman Catholic Church at all costs. (Indeed, documents recently provided to me indicate that this dismissiveness was a reason a number of ACA parishes left back in 2005--something I'll be writing on shortly.)
Over the time I worked on the "deal" and in light of my own years in a wonderful yet thoroughly Roman Catholic seminary, I realized that Rome was not going to come up with an "inter-communion" relationship that meant "non-absorption". One could see this in the pronouncements on a celibate clergy alone, and this was more than suspected by my brother clergy and at least several bishops. Studied, thoughtful letters by men far more experienced and learned than this writer were brushed aside to reach the "goal". I don't mind a mission-oriented approach, but ignoring the sensus fidelium increasingly posed a problem for me.
I also, after prayer, realized that there were propositions to which I hold fast in pious belief, I could not tell lay people were essential or salvific. At the end of the day, I found that I was still an Anglo-Catholic rather than a Roman Catholic. So, here I am in a good place where I can be that which I am and my family is, as well.
One other note: I want to be clear that I am not against the A-C for those Anglicans who wish to be Roman Catholics. I am urging merely that those who go will be Roman Catholics with full-doctrinal assent. Period. If one does that, please be a good Roman Catholic and do not go with fingers crossed on doctrines you do not accept in exchange for the perceived safety and stability of "big" Church.
LKW wrote:
....some poorly educated DAR bishops...
The Daughters of the American Revolution have bishops?
Fr. Nalls wrote:
I am urging merely that those who go will be Roman Catholics with full-doctrinal assent. Period. If one does that, please be a good Roman Catholic and do not go with fingers crossed on doctrines you do not accept in exchange for the perceived safety and stability of "big" Church.
Exactly. "Conversion" to Roman Catholicism has to involve a convinced mind that is reconciled to one's conscience. I am a convinced Anglican with a conscience reconciled to my Anglican beliefs, and plan to stay right where I am.
The danger of the TAC spin is a kind of monophysite approach to Roman Catholicism and Anglicanism; not Monophysite doctrine, but rather a blended two-natures-into-one ecclesiology that cannot tolerate clear convictions, and therefore cannot provide safety to the conscience.
This debate on the Apostolic Constitution seems to be doing a power of good for getting Anglican Catholics to work out that many of us embrace the intrinsic validity of the Anglican experience, and that we have nowhere else to go to be Catholics than stay put.
For me I see the hand of God in this unfolding story. I think that Steve Kavanaugh is correct in concluding that the Roman Church has wanted to see the Anglican Church as a Church, and not as an ecclesial community.
By denying our orders, we are relegated to that state, but for those converting to the Roman Church that is OK. For those of us staying put, to deny our orders, our Apostolic succession and our sacraments is as Bishop Grafton wrote an act of sacrilege before God.
In my view reunion with the Roman Church ought to be on the basis of recognition of our orders and sacraments, and consideration of an Anglican (Uniate) Church run along similar lines to the Ukranian Catholic Church with a patriarch, a holy synod and with an ecclesiastical identity that sits alongside it's sister Roman rite Church.
Fr. Hart wrote: The Daughters of the American Revolution have bishops?
Okay, that made me laugh. lol
The danger of the TAC spin is a kind of monophysite approach to Roman Catholicism and Anglicanism
Fr. Nalls makes an excellent point, of course; and I believe I understand what you're saying here; but are the TAC Bishops (Hepworth in particular) truly guilty of putting a spin on the situation?
Every member of the TAC's House of Bishops signed a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church in 2007. They also signed a declaration which stated: "We accept that the most complete and authentic expression and application of the Catholic faith in this moment of time is found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church and its Compendium, which we have signed, together with this letter as attesting to the faith we aspire to teach and hold." These solemn acts were not exactly done in secrecy.
The Immaculate Conception is treated in nn. 490-493 in the Catechism. The Primacy of the Bishop of Rome, nn. 880-885. Purgatory, nn. 1030-1032. And so on. It's all in there.
I get a little agitated by anecdotal reports that some members of the TAC take a "soft" attitude on these doctrines -- as if they don't really have to profess them. However, I wouldn't accuse the TAC Bishops of spin or deception. Again, the TAC-Rome talks have been going on for years. I have copies of The Messenger from 2002-3 alluding to the discussions, and already looking forward to unity.
Fr. Hart wrote: The Daughters of the American Revolution have bishops?
I am reminded that Fr. Hollister made this same joke a while back. For those uninitiated in our enigmatic codes, DAR is "divorced, annulled, remarried."
Just a quick response to Mr. Olivieri. I don't wish to impite bad motives where none lie, but there has seemed from my vantage point much extraordinary wishful thinking and some views of Rome that are rose-tinted. I think this caused some to gloss over or ignore the parts of the Catechism that were problematic (a bit like an enthusiast trying to read 2000 pages of legislation). Now there is a statement circulating from one of the bishops to the effect that "just because we think the CCC is the most complete statement of Christian faith doesn't mean we buy into it entirely." Thus, there is a need for "discernment". This is cafeteria Roman Catholicism in its exemplary form.
If one accepts the CCC as the most complete statement of faith, then there is nothing to debate at all.
To borrow from the Declaration Dominus Iesus, the Roman Catholic Church asserts: “This is the single Church of Christ... which our Saviour, after his resurrection, entrusted to Peter's pastoral care (cf. Jn 21:17), commissioning him and the other Apostles to extend and rule her (cf. Mt 28:18ff.), erected for all ages as ‘the pillar and mainstay of the truth' (1 Tim 3:15). This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in [subsistit in] the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him”.
In the “Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (Lumen Gentium),” we hear that “Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do His will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience – those too may achieve eternal salvation.” (LG 16). In sum, those who are truly unaware of what God requires of them are not held responsible; rather they are judged by what they did with the truth they had. But, where one is aware or, rather, has assented to the doctrine of the Church, it is, in the view of the Church, a matter of salvation to stay outside of it.
So,here's the deal: if you assented to it quit fooling about. The A-C provides you nice, familiar liturgy and practice, but you no longer have an excuse to remain outside. All that remains is to negotiate over liturgical "timmings", better perks and privilege, unless the aim is to try to take more Anglicans along. In that case, with the issuance of the A-C it appears that the time for teaching and cajoling is long past, and many seem to be a bit disturbed that they weren't asked their opinion. In sum, those who have assented should already be on their way, preparing petitions and the other necessaries under the A-C and leave behind claims of discernment and alternate special deals. You already sound too much like many ordinary Roman Catholics, sitting in the pews with doctrinal gingers and toes crossed.
Sorry, make that "impute" bad motives with apologies for any other spelling errors and formatting difficulties. I am trying as fast as I can to grow a beard to avoid further posting errors!
Canon C.
Won't help. Fr. Nalls. I've had this beard since 1966, and I'm still well known for my tupinf erors.
ed
And I haven't welcomed you yet. Consider it done.
http://www.reuters.com/article/lifestyleMolt/idUSTRE5AK0YB20091121?feedType=RSS&feedName=lifestyleMolt&rpc=22&sp=true
The Pope says"Beauty ... can become a path toward the transcendent, toward the ultimate Mystery, toward God,"
Gee and we got was this lousy Apostolic Constitution! Maybe it would be easier to become an arteest!
Alan
Post a Comment