tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post1105025310631272766..comments2024-03-24T15:19:06.377-04:00Comments on The Continuum: Anglican Catholic EcclesiologyFr. Robert Harthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-67395820959578135832012-03-21T06:52:27.779-04:002012-03-21T06:52:27.779-04:00Tuesday, March 20, 2012
Bishop Fellay, Fr.Schmidbe...Tuesday, March 20, 2012<br />Bishop Fellay, Fr.Schmidberger,FSSP,Joseph Fenton seem unaware the baptism of desire is not an explicit exception to the dogma <br />http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/03/bishop-fellay-frschmidbergerfsspjoseph.htmlCatholic Missionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06025127342963192930noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-57540407348552203052009-11-21T10:14:42.373-05:002009-11-21T10:14:42.373-05:00I believe it was "Xavier Rynne" (a nom d...I believe it was "Xavier Rynne" (a nom de plume, obviously), writing in the New Yorker magazine account of Vatican II, <br />who told of Cardinal Ottaviani muttering darkly about what procedures could be used to remove Pope John XXIII for heresy.<br />So Fr Kirby has a point when he writes, "the question of the precise limits and qualifications of papal authority is as yet unresolved." <br /><br />Conceivably, the official theologians of the RCC might contrive a spin on Papal claims which would be palatable to the other branches of Catholic Christendom. But here again is the "nose of wax," leaving us with a Church which is ultimately unreliable. <br /><br />Can anyone give us an infallible list of infallible teachings?<br />LKWAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-75140004840042445432009-11-20T14:41:35.541-05:002009-11-20T14:41:35.541-05:00Fr. Kirby wrote, "RC theologians in good stan...Fr. Kirby wrote, "RC theologians in good standing right down the centuries, even after Vatican I, who have posited that a Pope can be un-poped or at least officially recognised as self-excommunicate by the Church."<br /><br />It reminded me of something I learned in high school about pre-Communist Chinese political theory. It went something along the lines of, "The Son of Heaven [the Emperor] rules by the Mandate of Heaven, so rebellion against him is impious and cannot succeed. But, if by chance a rebellion should succeed, that would mean the Mandate of Heaven had been withdrawn from him and he was therefore not the Son of Heaven."<br /><br />In other words, the victors write the histories.<br /><br />John A. Hollister+John A. Hollisterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01325615323834517909noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-23623295148760027372009-11-20T05:51:49.115-05:002009-11-20T05:51:49.115-05:00The fact is that the papal claims look like a clai...The fact is that the papal claims look like a claim of absolute monarchy. It looks like the Pope is unjudgeable (except by God) and uncontradictable when one interprets Vatican I <i>via</i> Roman Canon Law and certain apologetics, just like the mediaeval Kings were supposed to be who believed in their divine right to absolute authority. So we have adjectives like "full", "supreme", and "immediate" to describe his "power".<br /><br />But there are also official and approved statements denying absolute monarchy, and RC theologians in good standing right down the centuries, even after Vatican I, who have posited that a Pope can be un-poped or at least officially recognised as self-excommunicate by the Church. And there are the suggestive words of <i>Ut Unum Sint</i>.<br /><br />Therefore, the question of the precise limits and qualifications of papal authority is as yet unresolved. It is not manifestly the case that Anglican and Orthodox doctrine are irreconcilable with a properly clarified RC doctrine of the Papacy. Or so I believe.Fr Matthew Kirbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14386951752314314095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-17154670961236279332009-11-19T05:15:23.270-05:002009-11-19T05:15:23.270-05:00Father , your article and its content is the sort ...Father , your article and its content is the sort of stuff that makes the Continuum essential reading for Anglican Catholics.<br />Regarding the RCC! Whilst the Anglican Fathers of the later Reformation agree that Rome is a particular Catholic Church, the issue of the papacy presents an enormous barrier surely! It would seem to me that the elevation of the Pope in matters of Jurisdiction and I nfallibility alone are cause for schism? having said that I could well live incommunion with Rome unless I was forced to accept these precepts. Further the fathers appear to have considered the Council of Trent to have been something of a coup, by Rome that called for a refusal to Communion by Rome unless the other bretheren accepted the Papacy, which to my mind puts the RCC, in schism?highchurchmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06758923949944286862noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-81843384873859135622009-11-18T15:52:17.176-05:002009-11-18T15:52:17.176-05:00Fr. Kirby:
Very good.
Our 39 Articles say that t...Fr. Kirby:<br /><br />Very good.<br /><br />Our 39 Articles say that the ancient Sees have erred (at one time or another), but never do they even imply that the Universal Church erred. Our Formularies reject many false doctrines, but they do so addressing the ideas that existed in the popular imagination. Blaming Rome for <i>allowing</i> and even promoting those false ideas would not, in the mind of the Reformers in England, have translated into a charge of heresy against everyone in the Western Church. In those days, they saw the See of Rome as just that-one See. Doctrinal issues were still supposed to be settled in the Conciliar way.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-76632682280066528072009-11-18T14:50:19.974-05:002009-11-18T14:50:19.974-05:00Thank you Fr. Kirby for this insightful work. Even...Thank you Fr. Kirby for this insightful work. Even low Churchmen have failed to establish missions to convert Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox to Anglicanism. The whole history of Anglicanism shows a respect for the validity of the RC and EOC as part of the Catholic and Apostolic Church.<br /><br />I would welcome some opinion from Fr. Kirby et.al. on the issue of our relations with what many call the Canterbury Communion.<br /><br />The ACC et. al. have pro-cathedrals, pointing to the fact that our own cathedrals are temporary until we reclaim the cathedral sees held by the Church of England, ECUSA, Anglican Church of Australia etc. <br /><br />Given that Anglican Catholics maintained orthodox Anglicanism in form, in practice and in holy orders post 1978, and the Canterbury Communion progressively ordained women priests, practicing homosexuals, Creed rejectors etc. is the Anglican Catholic position that the Canterbury churches are in definitive heresy, lack sacramental validity and are heteredox ecclesial communities outside the Catholic and Apostolic Church?Deacon Down Underhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14903366446394957630noreply@blogger.com