Comments on: Church of England’s response is forming…

By: Steve

Steve — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 00:08:07 +0000

Could someone enlighten me? This is a genuine enquiry.
How could any ‘Catholic’ give assent to the 39 Articles? Articles 6,13, 19, 21, 22, 25, 28 and 34 would seem to deny the possibilty that any person who assented to them is a ‘Catholic’. I am aware that the ‘consecrated bread’ is reserved in some CofE church buildings, the persons doing so have solemnly denied that it should be reserved.
I shall leave the further (and equally pertinent) question of how any ‘Catholic’ could countenance being in communion with people who clearly deny the contents of the Creeds.

By: Vseedintsvo

Vseedintsvo — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 12:26:41 +0000

The irony with the Apostolic Constitution remains that those who accept its provision are those who have ‘protested’ against authority as it has been expressed within Anglicanism for many years. They are unable to accept that authority and are ‘protestants’. Rome is to inherit a kingdom of turbulent priests.

As to Father John’s interpretation of the term Catholic, I refer him to article XIX of the Articles of Religion, which as a properly ordained Anglican he most surely have had to assent: ‘Rome hath erred…not only in living and manner of Ceremonies, but also in matters of Faith.’

I, too, am an Anglo-Catholic in favour of the prophetic interpretation of tradition, which has concluded that woman should share in the presbyterate and episcopate. My only regret is that, in line with the development of the original episcopate as attested by the Fathers, they were not consecrated first.

I am hopeful that Anglo-Catholicism will be able to live out its radical creed, built on the headship of Christ alone and expressed through Bishops who are primus inter pares, now that those of conscience can immediately take on the yoke of papal obedience and its unscriptural doctrine of infallibility they have so desired.

By: Rod

Rod — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 14:04:06 +0000

On the subject of huge contradictions…

Under the proposed arrangements, Anglican priests who go to Rome will have to be ordained in the Roman Catholic Church. According to both logic and Rome’s teaching, up to this point they were not really priests at all. The main reason for them leaving the C of E in the first place is that they do not accept women are really priests at all.

I am baffled but grudgingly impressed by this supreme feat of doublethink. I should also add my name, with Steve’s and Peter’s, to the list of Anglo Catholics who accept women priests. I find this idea less of a struggle. Maybe we should form a support group?

By: FrJohn

FrJohn — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 10:46:53 +0000

I find it interesting that there are `Anglo-Catholics’ who claim to accept the ordination of women; I find that a huge contradiction in terms! If one is `catholic’ then one accepts the Church of the First Millenia, built upon the 12 foundation stones of the Apostles under the leadership of Peter, on whome Our Lord built his Church.

If one is `catholic’, then one accepts the orders of the One Holy Catholic and Apsostolic Church; orders that do not uniquely belong to the Anglican Church, but to the whole `catholic’ Church, for which the Church of England, if she claims to be `catholic’ cannot unilaterally change their nature, neither the nature of the Sacraments of the Church.

If one is Catholc, then one is `0rthodox’ rather than perhaps `traditional’.

The Pope’s offer is indeed generous for those who are beng pushed out of the Church of England because they happen to believe in what the Church of England claims to be. The news of the Revision Committee on Friday wa not only a further pushing away of true catholics, but yet another nail in the Church England. Women priests and Bishops? – but at what cost to the Church of England – what will be left?

By: choirboyfromhell

choirboyfromhell — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 23:46:34 +0000

http://www.fuc.org.uk/

Make sure you take the quiz! And they accept PayPal!

By: tommiaquinas

tommiaquinas — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 21:27:45 +0000

Section 19 of the Sex Discrimination Act provides an exemption where distinguishing on the grounds of gender is appropriate:

“Because of the nature of the employment and the context in which it is carried out, so as to avoid conflicting with the strongly-held religious convictions of a significant number of the religion’s followers.”

So let’s stop the talk of illegality because it plainly is not the case, whatever WATCH or Robert Key MP might tell you.

By: Petros

Petros — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 20:43:05 +0000

I hope you jest Peter but if you are being serious, a bishop may be irregular in the eyes of some but that does not make them second class. You use the language of the propagandist to discredit those with whom you disagree. I am happy for you as an Anglo-Catholic to be in favour of the ordination of women but is charity now so lacking in the Anglican Church that we no longer tolerate people with whom we disagree?
Petros

By: Peter Elliott

Peter Elliott — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 17:22:00 +0000

I suspect the the revision committee’s move was mainly motivated by a need not to make women second class bishops and so contravene the Sex Discrimination Act. I see myself as an Anglo-Catholic in favour of the ordination ow women.

By: Petros

Petros — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 13:38:25 +0000

Could the threatened exodus to the Methodist and Lutheran churches have caused the Revision Committee to have a change of heart? Faith appears to have been replaced by feminism in the Anglican church.
Petros

By: Steve Way

Steve Way — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 23:57:12 +0000

As an Anglo Catholic who is not against the ordination of women (yes we exist too!!) I am saddened by the fact that Rome’s intervention seems to make unavoidable the schism so many have tried to avoid.

And what of Papal infallibility? I know of few Anglo – Catholics who truly accept this doctrine, and fewer still who believe Bishops must be celibate. Think of the wonderful ministry and leadership of married Bishops we have all experienced and benefited from.

I accept the need for a legislative solution to preserve the needs of those who cannot accept Women Bishops. But can you really believe the Ordinary will have true authority? Will they be treated better than the Archbishop of Westminster whom we are told was not consulted prior to this untimely announcement?

I am a member of the Church of God, not an “Ecclesiastical Community” as we are now to be referred to. I believe I was baptised by a Priest, and Confirmed by a Bishop neither of their ordination’s will ever in my eyes be “absolutely null and utterly void”. I have experienced the ministry of wonderful Priests throughout my life, many have now died. I cannot sully their memory or undermine their ministry by accepting they were in some sense not Priests.

I am concerned that Priests who have administered communion to me will now accept the Roman view that they had no right to administer them, indeed then were the elements never truly consecrated? By accepting that previous ministry was not priestly you do not just accept that for yourself but for all you have exercised it to.

I urge Synod not to pass any Church or property over. Some of us will need to use them to keep a Catholic Heart in the Church of England