I am still trying to digest the tumultuous events of recent weeks. Not only does the Anglo-Catholic now have access to the details of the proposed ordinariate- a new branch of the Roman Catholic church especially designed for former Anglicans- but we also have the first sign of the Church of England’s response…
…a shameful kick in the teeth that has removed any vestige of hope that our own Church desires to keep hold of us. If the Revision Committee wanted to stick two fingers up at orthodox Anglo-Catholics, whose only ‘fault’ is to reject unbiblical innovation and believe what the church has upheld throughout the ages, then they did a fine job.
And thus every Anglo-Catholic is reeling from this news. It seems no matter how many times we are knocked back it still hurts profoundly. What is most hurtful is that the revision committee rejected structural provision for us knowing full well that a Code of Practice will not do. We have long made this clear and the Archbishop of Canterbury himself confirmed this at the Synod of 2008 when he erged people to do more for us. How wicked that he, like us, has been ignored.
Having sent out signs of hope, that they might at last reach out with a hand of friendship, the Revision Committee has gone back on its word and punched us square on the nose. It is perhaps my bleakest hour as an Anglican and could well become the straw that breaks the camel’s back. I no longer feel my own Church wants me or my beloved congregation.
Having secured total domination over us we might imagine the hierarchy would be reaching out in sympathy. Instead we have stony silence from those in authority drowned out by a crowing Christina Rees from WATCH. And the irony is that those who have long berated us for standing up for Catholic truth within our own church are now berating us for daring to seek this truth elsewhere. It is not enough to simply un-church us and leave our future in doubt, those who oppose us would also resist finding us fresh pastures. They do not want us gone but languishing in the margins under their intolerably illiberal liberal fists.
And in the midst of all this confusion, doubt and fear I am also having to endure a tirade of people warning me about the horrors of Rome! (The only people seeking to offer me sanctuary and the fullness of Catholic truth.) I would not mind if these warnings were given in a reasonable manner to incite healthy debate. But they have come from many sources and are as illogical as they are poisonous! It seems anti-Catholic rhetoric runs deep in the English psyche and the successor of Peter is considered fair target for bigoted vitriol.
The chief moan, rather predictably, centres on papal infallibility. The belief that the Pope, when speaking to the whole church solemnly concerning a matter of faith or morals and under guidance of the Holy Spirit, is preserved from the possibility of error. In truth infallible teaching is almost never proclaimed, the last time was over 50 years ago when the Pope gave credence to the doctrine of the Assumption. It also only happens with teaching that fits the divine revelation and has the backing of Christian tradition. His infallibility is certainly never used to usher in innovation and trendy new ideas.
And that is where I find the irony! Those bashing the pope for his ability to speak infallibly are happy to accept that same gift of infallibility vested in General Synod- a confused and unqualified bunch of volunteers given free reign to decide what the Church of England believes! For make no mistake, by refusing traditionalists space in which to thrive, the revision committee has made infallible the innovation of women priests and bishops. No longer is the Catholic theology of priesthood allowed in our national church. And if you don’t like it- the message is simple- get out or live as soiled goods in the margins.
Apologies if this is a bleak post but I feel betrayed and very angry. Saint Barnabas church has lived out its Catholic faith within the Church of England for over 150 years. Who the hell do the General Synod, House of Bishops and Revision Commitee think they are in telling us that we may no longer do so? What the hell gives them the right to declare infallibly that my Catholic theology of holy orders is no longer wanted or relevant? Praise God for the wisdom, love and graciousness of the Roman Catholic church who, understanding and caring for us, are opening a door for Anglo-Catholics where one is currently closing.
Well said Father!
This is how many of us feel at the moment. The Catholic Church has offered us what we asked for from the Church of England, a province of our own, but our own Church have been so ungracious to us. Because my parish is a `C’ parish, we have the most dispicable things written in our visitors book by some visitors because we uphold the truths of Holy Scripture and the teaching of the catholic faith which the Church of England has claimed to be part of (Oh really!!)
I agree entirely with your sentiments about General Synod – most of them are absolutey cluless of the argument at all, let alone being able to make vital decsions. Not forgetting how this so called `domocracy’ even ignores the advice of the Archbishops – so who runs the Churxch of England? A bunch of clueless ametuers, and it will result in the totaly downfall of the Church of England – I am agry to!
Oh the delicious irony of a blog like this being posted at the start of ‘Interfaith Week’.
Well here FWIW is my best advice I could come up with:
http://www.kendallharmon.net/t19/index.php/t19/article/26483/#400221
…and as a number of people from David Phillips of Church Society through to Bishop Alan Wilson have noted today, it may all mean that getting women bishops through the 2/3 majority in all houses of Synod is even more remote a possibility now. There will be many who prefer the third option of not approving legislation – unity of the CofE over division who would otherwise be prepared to consider women bishops. The fat lady may not have sung yet although I can understand the hurt and disappointment.
Sounding a bit hackneyed, but we will be the poorer without the Anglo-Catholic witness so I hope you keep fighting the good fight, and be assured of my good wishes and support.
Whatever else may be said, it is at least absolutely clear that ‘the Revision Committee’ reached the position it did – that structural provision was impossible – because there were crucial internal disagreements about the various ways in which it might be implemented. It was this that derailed the proposal – not opposition to the proposal per se – which had after all been the Committee’s own avowed goal. If nothing else, do not destroy your personal and theological relationships with the FiF representatives on the Committee by such blanket intemperance.
In some ways, I ALMOST feel envious of you in England. You are reading Angelicanorum Coetibus in the midst of CofE’s discussion on woman bishops. We, in the States, on the other hand, are reading it after years of TEC supposedly consecrating women.
Thus, you are considering AC with a passion borne by the immediacy of your situation. We are considering it with our accomodations in place. You are at the height of your game, many of our strongest players have long since left the field or allowed their convictions to be over-ruled.
Many share your mood Father but we must hope that true justice will prevail.
I don’t know how some members of WATCH sleep at night but I guess it is because their ‘faith’ is based on feminism rather than Christ. They spread half-truths and untruths in the name of justice yet they continually mis-represent the position of those who dare disagree with them. They infiltrated the Church with their own agenda in the same way that Militant tried to take over the Labout Party. Oh for a ‘Kinnock’ to take them apart and return the Church that glorious state where we all muddled through together.
Petros
I’m sorry, but I must have missed your lot urging Synod to create a separate province for supporters of women’s ordination for many years before 1992 (long after Lambeth declared it an acceptable integrity). How much sympathy and compassion did you show them? Or for those women who died before every fulfilling their deeply held vocation to be ordained? You feel oppressed and downtrodden? Try being a woman in the Church for the past 2000 years. Then perhaps you’ll have an inkling.
Sorry I do not understand your argument. It presupposes that women’ ministry has been non-existent in the church which is a load of baloney. Mary the mother of Jesus, revered as Queen of Saints, Ss. Felicity and Perpetua, Terese of Lisaux, Mother Teresa, Joan of Arc, the hoardes of fine women who have served in churches I have known, the reader in my last parish- all bore witness to Christ in a fine and celebrated manner. That they did not have a sacramental role does not repress them in any way- how could it- only one person has that in my parish and all those in the pews do not. For 2000 years the church has celebrated men and women whilst accepting and celebrating their differences. If you prefer to view the sacred priesthood as a JOB and want to make it subscribe to secular philsophy of rights – an individualistic philosophy at odds with the Christian philosophy of self sacrifice and family- that is your concern. But do not lable me as an oppressor when that simply is not true. Or do you discount all Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans prior to the last three decades?
Well said, father. You have the right being angry. But what surprises me – from a Swedish perspective living in a church that is far worse off than the English – is that you see the Roman offer as the only alternative. We, speaking for all catholics within the Church of Sweden, have been living in the situation you’re now about to enter, for decades now! Where still here!
Can’t also Anglo-Catholics try to see there place as one that God has placed them in. Where you are called to witness the Catholic faith also to the liberals withing Church of England? And what will you say to your congregation that day when you are re-ordained into Roman orders? Will you say that the sacraments with which you have served them all have been invalid, null and void through all these years? Will you tell them that all sacramental rites have been invalid since the Reformation? If not, the pope will not be very happy!
Who mentioned ‘job’? I said vocation. You’ve experienced the call of vocation to ordained ministry. You know how compelling it is (unless you were just following in daddy’s footsteps). Then just what are those thousands of women throughout history who have experienced EXACTLY the same call as you? Mistaken? Mad? Stupid? Deluded? Under the influence of evil ‘feminists’? Is God playing a sick joke with them? Tell me. I’m all ears.
er how do you know they felt the same call as me? Perhaps the Holy Spirit called me and they were just wanting to do it? Or maybe they felt caleld to seve God in active ministry and all the church offered was the model of priesthood? I would also point out that ‘feeling’ has nothing to do with anything….I mean if Fred West felt called would that mean we must accept him. The church has always taught that feelings need testing against tradition, the teaching of the church and holy scripture. And on all those counts these ‘feelings’ would be rendered dormant.
Fr Davage, of Pusey House, “hit the nail on the head” in his FiF homily when he described General Synod as the HBOS of the CofE peddling “toxic theology.” General Synod may well be populated by a bunch of second-raters, but you should see the shocking shower we’ve got on the General Body of the Church in Wales!
The ability of those on General Synod to make an informed decision is, I am afraid, symptomatic of a lowering of academic standards across our society. Unqualified members of the public, because they have access to the internet or other mass media, regard themselves as experts. Only the other day I had a patient in my consulting room who opened up with, “It says in the Daily Mail that Statins are bad for me and so I should come off them.” So I took up a reporter’s jotting pad from my desk and started composing headlines, “Bag of sugar found in West Wales after thirty years!”, “Man from Somerset invents paper clip!”, “Red crayons to be used in Hull for the first time!” My patient said, “What are you doing?” “Well,” I replied, “if you are happy to go to your newspaper for considered medical advice, I’ll sit here as you doctor and make up the headlines!”
I think we have to stand back from the conflict a little and remain in the desert of prayer. Anglicanorum coetibus is either a gracious gift from God, whereby Catholic unity is possible for those Anglo-catholics who have longed and prayed for unity with the Holy See or it is a distraction from the task of bringing the whole of the Church of England and the Anglican Communion safely into the ambit of Catholic Faith and Order. If this second possibility is ruled out by the Church of England’s own actions – and that seems to be an ever stronger interpretation – then we need to accept the Holy Father’s offer, not as Plan B but as Plan A++. But, if we accept the offer, we need to be careful not to damage our brothers and sisters in Christ in the Church of England and the mission of Reformed Christians in this country – amission which God also enables and inspires. And we must make the journey in humble faith and trust. + Andrew
If your heartless dismissal of women’s deeply held vocation is a reflection of your pastoral ministry then I can do nothing but pity you. A mere ‘feeling’ (you said it, not me)? Merely wishing to copy YOU? That they’re too stupid or confused to recognise a call to ordained ministry – whereas you’re not of course? And to compare them to Fred West is simply repulsive, and if you had any shred of decency you would apologise for that remark.
It’s obvious from your response that you have never talked with an ordained woman. You admit that you have no idea what they have experienced. And yet you presume to judge.
Perhaps you should leave your macho, rugger-bugger, boys-own bubble for a moment and actually talk with an ordained woman. You might actually learn something. About yourself.
Why on earth should we seek to find a place for the pure misogyny you have just displayed?
Is this the best we can do? Too sad for words.
Gosh! Anglican is getting her/his knickers in a twist! I’m relatively new to this blog, and find its approach most refreshing. The charge of misogyny is bonkers – if you don’t like the content go elsewhere. Fr Ed, regarding the previous post with the yard of ale: I feel that a little more detail was required in your post. What ale was drunk? Did it stay down? If not, how far did it fly? If it flew, did it reach the barmaid? (sorry, for Anglican, barperson [wouldn't want to upset anyone, eh?!]).
It is a mini-yard- so not really a yard at all! Just over a pint- which allows drivers to get fined too!
That said more And nothing flew anywhere- I am a dignified cleric don’t you know ; )
I say! A mini-yard? Would that be something metricated from the Continent? What the bloody hell is a “dignified cleric”? Never met one yet, and have no intention of doing so!
It should have been obvious that the ‘progressives’ would take a yard if the Church gave an inch.
Deaconess – Deacon – (“oh there’s not much difference, just a few words”) – so Priest – and now Bishop. If they had stuck to a mini-yard all this could have been avoided.
Petros
what would jesus have thought about all this ?
‘Anglicanorum coetibus is either a gracious gift from God, whereby Catholic unity is possible for those Anglo-catholics who have longed and prayed for unity with the Holy See or it is a distraction from the task of bringing the whole of the Church of England and the Anglican Communion safely into the ambit of Catholic Faith and Order.’
A third possibility is that it was an act of mischievous interventionism on the part of a Pope whose chief concern is power and that it has actually damaged the interests of FiF in the UK. This would be my view but I realise you are setting out the possibilities from the point of view of an avowed ‘Catholic/Papalist Anglican’.
On the other hand, there is graciousness, as well as good sense, in: ‘But, if we accept the offer, we need to be careful not to damage our brothers and sisters in Christ in the Church of England and the mission of Reformed Christians in this country – amission which God also enables and inspires.’ Would that there were more such graciousness around – on all sides.
‘Anonymous’: from earlier postings, it is clear that Fr Ed knows plenty of women priests and is/has been in a cell group with two. I do not regard his essential theological position on women priests as per se misogynistic. Further, he’s obviously over-wrought by this whole business (as, frankly, are we all) and is presumably getting little sleep at the moment. We should show him charity, as he should show us charity (and, indeed, intermittently does).
Fr Ed: I have much sympathy and empathy with your struggle – see my Blog Brisbanebrowsings for my own confused and anxious reactions.
I am, however, concerned, as I express in my own blogs, that we do not lose sight of the certain calling of God to ensure that our beloved Church of England still has a group within it who hold the essentials of the Catholic Faith and Catholic tradition.
I therefore agree with the Bishop of Ebbsfleet that it is crucial that we do not allow the sense of being kicked in the teeth by our brethren in the Church, to infect our prayerful consideration of the way forward.
I cannot imagine a Church of England without the presence of the Catholic minority – we have such good gifts to offer the rest of our Communion.
So my view is that we must continue to struggle, glad that the Holy Father has been generous, but aware that we have brethren in our own Communion that we must not abandon (even if they abandon us!)
So will pray for you and your brethren in England as I offer Mass in Brisbane Australia this evening, and most of all pray that “we may all be one”
Good wishes
Pingback: More Reaction to the Revision Committee’s Decision « The Anglo-Catholic
Firstly, I must declare that I am an Anglo Catholic who supports the ordination of women. That said I respect those whose viewpoint differs from mine. And that is perhaps what is most sad about the whole affair. One of the beauties of the Church of England (in recent years) has been that respect and Christian love shown to those one disagrees with.
A formal structure is required that much is plain. To declare otherwise is the opposite of love and respect. Any movement or nation should be judged not on how it treats those with the greatest power and voice but those with the least. A Church should be judged likewise.
However, to belittle the very real fears about the RC Church many of us have is also disingenuous. The real point about Papal Infallibility is that a fallible man chooses when to exercise it. Anyone who doubts the fallibility of Popes need only look to history. That said Infallibility is really a red herring.
More important is the validity of previous orders? In another post I highlighted that to me this is a betrayal of those who have passed on and have held Anglican orders. Any Priest who accepts their Anglican Ordination was not valid is, in effect, stating that others Ordination was equally invalid. For me this is the biggest single point.
The final issue is the treating of married Priests as, in effect, second class. There have been many married Popes, most of whom had children. If being Catholic means upholding that which the “church has upheld throughout the ages”, we must be careful not to decide for our own reasons where the “ages” begin. St Peter was married, as Christ himself chose him that should be the end of the matter.
I am a Roman Catholic Priest. I do not normally use the “Roman” bit. I am writing to protest about the last message from Steve and also about some comments made by John earlier. First of all, let’s get the most obvious mistake out of the way first. The Roman Communion has always had married priests – i.e. in the Maronite and Greek Catholic communities. They are not treated as “second-class citizens”. If RC’s in the West tend to look on married clergy like that, it is because of their personal ignorance not because of any informed or official view. In any case, most if not the vast majority of RC’s in the West are now quite used to married priests and do not treat them as you suggest.
In these important discussions and debates it is understandable that tempers are raised and there is the odd outburst, but as Christians we must remember to preserve justice and charity. The remark about the Pope being mischeivous and power-seeking is not only insulting (have you MET the Pope?) but simply untrue. it is therefore grossly unjust.
Some of you forget that it was a group of Anglicans who went to Rome to ask for help. Some of those who apparently wanted help are now seemingly backing away. That’s fine. I respect anyone’s sincere response. However, there are some points that need to be made.
Firstly, Truth is not negotiable. If some Anglo-Catholics believe that the Petrine Ministry is of God then they are bound in conscience to seek unity with him. It seems to me that you cannot hold this position and still be looking for a settlement within the Church of England which officially rejects Papal Authority. If you believe that the Pope is central to the mission of the Catholic Church, the way is clear (although not easy). Those who do believe in the Petrine Ministry should make the necessary decision. Those who do not must seek a home elsewhere or try to set up some enclave under the umberella of the C of E.
One of the things the Pope’s gesture does is to show that God WAS and IS “active” in Anglicanism, and it is not a simple black and white affair to judge Anglican orders. How can it be when some Anglicans doubt the validity of other Anglican orders? If you cannot accept each other’s orders why complain about the doubts of Rome? The complexities cannot be swept under the carpet.
Where are you going to get another offer like this? The practicalities may cause much pain, but if you believe the Pope is the “Vicar of Christ” you have to pack up your stuff like Abraham and get on the road.
Well, Father John, I am not impressed nor am I cowed. The timing of the Pope’s intervention was terrible. It undermined a process within the C of E which might have given FiF – or those of its members who want to remain within the C of E – the ‘structural provision’ they wanted. It obviously embarrassed some RCs (many of whom have been quite explicit about this). It surprised and embarrassed and I would say publicly humiliated Rowan Williams, ABP of the C of E. In this sense, it was also gross bad manners. Of course, if you believe – as the Pope does and you do – that the RC Church possesses all truth and that Truth is not negotiable you may behave badly in these ways. But even if the ‘all truth’ claims were justified (which of course I do not accept), most people with moral sense agree that ends do not justify disreputable means.
I came across this website by accident and began reading the comments. Interesting.
In reply to John, I would say this: There was no such thing as “the Anglican Church” for the first 1,500 years or so of Christianity. “The Church” in England was papist, and some of your own countrymen died for that truth. Saint Thomas More, Saint John Fisher, Saint Robert Southwell, and many others come to mind.
That is why true Catholics, that is, Roman Catholics, do not accept the claims of your organization. Prior to Henry VIII, your ancestors belonged to the Church of Rome, not the Church of England. Anyone who denies that fact, is denying history. Nor did your ancestors sanction the misuse of the marital act in order to prevent procreation, as your organization does.
The reason why the Anglican Church is disintegrating is because it is not grounded in “all truth,” although it contains some elements of it. Anglicans of good will should return to the home of their forefathers, and that home is certainly not the Anglican Church.
The present pope has every right to do what he did, just as Pope Gregory had a right to send Saint Augustine to your shores to spread the true Faith. And that Faith took hold in your fair land and was embodied in the Church of Rome, and that’s the way it was understood in the British Isles for 1,000 years, long before Henry VIII decided to enter into an adulterous and incestuous relationship with his own daughter.
To all Anglicans of good will here, (Roman) Catholics welcome you back to the Faith of your Fathers, the pillar and mainstay of the truth. The door is open for you. Why tarriest thou?
As a former Anglo-Catholic who converted Easter 2008, I am heartened by the openness of Bishops Andrew and Keith responses to Rome’s overtures to Anglicans; theirs is an episcopal crown of thorns which they and their PEV cohorts and predecessors have borne quietly and steadfastly; keeping the faith and a sense of Zusammengefuehl amongst those who refused to be cowed by the fallibility of the General Synod.
USA Papist,
(1) I nowhere refer to ‘the Anglican Church’.
(2) You don’t produce any counter whatsoever to the claim that the Pope’s timing and manner were poor.
(3) ‘Henry VIII decided to enter into an adulterous and incestuous relationship with his own daughter.’ You need to learn some basic Tudor history.
Just a couple of points, if I may;
I meant to say to Steve that your understanding of the doctrine of Papal Infallibility is is incorrect. Also, with regard to the repeated accusations made that the Pope is being bad-mannered, I simply do not know – and neither does John – why the Pope’s offer to Anglicans was made public at that time. Human beings are not perfect and mistakes are made often without malice. Having said that, since none of us knows why it was released at that time or how the process of releasing it began, it is still futile and unfair to go on suggesting that there is some personal blame to be attached to the Pope. This is not the way to continue this discussion.
As regards my belief that the Roman Church “possesses all truth”, I would just say that each of us is answerable for his/her own conscience. To disagree with another’s beliefs is fine, and my point is simply that those who do agree with the Pope obviously ought to make the necessary decisions. I continue to respect – as my Anglican friends will testify – those who do not accept Papal authority.
Thank you for your more conciliatory tone, Father John (though of course I’d like more). I’ll try to match it.
On your point about ‘those who do agree with the Pope’, I merely observe that the attitudes even of such people are often complicated – far more than such a formulation as yours allows. To take just one example: some very ‘Catholic’ people want to remain in the C of E in order to maintain the C of E as both Reformed/Protestant and Catholic. While on the one hand upholding ‘Catholic Truth’, they are also pluralists in that they believe that the health of the Church (here the C of E, though they might also believe it of the RC Church) requires representation of diverse points of view. (My position, from a very liberal perspective, is in this respect the same.)
I think the point is important. One source of poor argument and poor understanding is that so many ‘orthodox’ ‘Catholics’ simply do not understand that people have sincere reasons for not wanting (at any rate immediate) union with the RC Church. Instead, they think that such people are ‘in denial’, ‘are kidding themselves’, and ‘really’ want it. Obviously, this is not true of ‘liberals’. But often it isn’t true of ‘Catholic’ Anglicans either. There is a real failure of imagination, of empathy, even of compassion here. If I made the charges against the Pope which I made on this thread (and which I still maintain) to his face, he probably wouldn’t understand them. But I think that would be his fault.
I would like to make it clear – just as you, on your side, have done in relation to Anglicans – that I am not ‘anti-Catholic’. I grew up with Catholics (rather unusual for a Northern Irish Prod of my generation), most of my Irish friends are Catholic, not Protestant, and I of course continue to have Catholic friends. But – here a last dig – only a small proportion of them like or approve the present Pope. E-mail from priest at local RC seminary to local Anglican priest (rather Evangelical, as it happens): ‘please keep your misogynist and homophobic FiF priests: we don’t want them’ (copy available for inspection).
John.
John:
I didn’t say you said anything about the Anglican Church. I was the one who used that term. That’s the organization I was commenting on.
The Anglican Church is not the Church Christ founded; it was founded in the 16th century by Catholics who left the Church Christ founded, and those people began another organization: the Anglican Church. Then others left the Anglican Church and began making other organizations, which fractured England even further and threw it into civil war.
The pope’s timing has been determined by the pope himself. The fact that others may not like the pope’s timing does not mean the timing was bad. What evidence do they have, other than their own opinions, that the timing was bad? Bad for whom? And why is it bad for them?
It is a well-known fact, seldom discussed by Anglicans, that Anne Boleyn’s mother wrote to Henry VIII and related to him that he was the father of Anne, and she warned the king that his relationship with Anne would be incestuous. That’s Tudor history. Even some of us here on this side of the ocean know that.
But aside from all that, to be honest, the problem that many papists have with the usual complaints from Protestants of the British Isles is that those Protestants seem utterly incapable of admitting that the “Christianity” that was brought to their lands and that their ancestors observed — exclusively so, for at least a millenium — was nothing other than “Roman Catholicism.”
So, the question becomes: If Roman Catholicism was considered by my ancestors for generations upon generations to be the only true form of Christianity that exists, why do I not do so?
What happened in the 16th century to change “Christianity” from the Roman Catholic Church to some other organization, and where did God reveal that such a change would take place?
Further, which of the many contradictory organizations that came out of the Reformation ended up being true Christianity? Was Luther right? If so, the Anglican Church is wrong on somoe points of doctrine. Was Calvin right? Ditto. Who gets to decide?
Also, why did some of the people in the 16th century refuse to accept any change of religion but, rather, insisted that the Roman Catholic Church is the true Church, for which those people gave their lives?
And modern day Anglicans (post 1930) need to ask themselves how contraception came to be an acceptable practice, when even Anglicans of prior centuries considered it to be an abominable practice. Is truth relative?
It is a sad fact that many people today oppose the Catholic Church because, in reality, they oppose the moral teaching of Christ Himself, particularly on the life and marriage issues, contraception being “the biggie.”
The bottom line in all this is a simple fact: Christ came into this world and died for mankind, and He established a Church –only one — for Himself. That Church is visible and is the Catholic Church, the Roman Catholic Church, and all others are manmade organizations that cannot trace their roots back (as far as Protestants go) any further than the Middle Ages.
If Saint Augustine or Saint Bede or Saint Thomas Becket came back to earth, they would in no wise attend services at your church, as they would not recognize your belief system to be true. Rather, they would attend Mass at my parish, recognizing it for the same Church they still belong to, albeit in Heaven.
As the famed Newman once stated, to be steeped in history is to cease being Protestant.
If and when you decide to return to the religion of your ancestors, you will be most welcome. As I stated before, the door is open. All you need do is walk through it.
Pingback: The Church of England landscape today « Churchmouse Campanologist
Fr John Abberton writes:
“It seems to me that you cannot hold this position and still be looking for a settlement within the Church of England which officially rejects Papal Authority. If you believe that the Pope is central to the mission of the Catholic Church, the way is clear (although not easy). Those who do believe in the Petrine Ministry should make the necessary decision. Those who do not must seek a home elsewhere or try to set up some enclave under the umberella of the C of E.”
Sorry for being so late catching up with this one, but there is a delicious irony here! Fr John Abberton is ‘the’ Catholic apologist for the occult ‘seer’ Vassula Ryden. Yes, there’s only one Catholic priest in the UK who speaks up for TLIG – just do a Google search and you’ll see what I mean – although there are some crazy Anglicans similarly afflicted (particularly in the Chichester diocese.) As such, Abberton is completely ignoring the CDF’s instruction on Catholics keeping a distance from this woman and her dangerous ‘ecumenical’ sect.
So, Father Abberton, who are you to be writing fine lectures on ecclesiastical obedience? And what does your bishop think of you going on the TLIG occult jamboree?
This is the main reason I like sbarnabas.com. Surprising post.
I have to challenge the appalling history of Fr John from the USA.
Henry VIII was born in 1491 and Ann Boleyn in 1501. Unless he impregnated Lady Boleyn at the age of 9, it’s not likely he was Anne’s father!!
If we are going to criticise each other, at least let us get our facts straight and not peddle 16th Century propaganda!
My apologies. My comment was aimed at USA Papist, not Fr. John.
Mia culpa