“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?

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.

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.

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.

(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.

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?