C of E bishop will defect to Rome

The Telegraph ^ | June 26, 2008 | Damian Thompson

[NYer]

At least one Church of England bishop will defect to Rome soon after the Lambeth Conference, I gather from Anglo-Catholic sources. And there could be more to follow.

I can't tell you much more than that at the moment, because the negotiations with Rome are so sensitive - and the Catholic Bishops of England and Wales, who distrust Anglican traditionalists, are quite capable of throwing a spanner in the works.

It's shaming to have to admit that the bishops of my own Church are the chief obstacle to a significant move of Anglo-Catholic clergy and lay people into full communion with the Holy See - but that's the way it was last time, in the early 1990s, and it's still the case today.

Fortunately, Pope Benedict XVI is more open to experiment than Pope John Paul II. He is taking a close interest in the progress of the rebel Traditional Anglican Communion towards reunion - a process which is under the control of the Congregration for the Doctrine of the Faith, not the Vatican's woolly-minded ecumenists.

I can't betray confidences, but my advice is: look at the new church structures, such as Old Rite parishes, that the Pope is already encouraging, and ask yourself how those models might be adapted for the use of former Anglicans.

But I've already said too much...

[sitetest]

Thanks!

[Antoninus]

May God bless them and guide them home.

The good ones, that is. The ones who like the womyn priests and lavender priests can stay right where they are, thanks very much.

[Antoninus]

On numerous occasions, I have seen posts similar to this that you have created. That is, you seem to celebrate, in a triumphal manner, anecdotes of Protestants becoming Catholic.

Christ enjoined us to be ONE. When folks who were in schism come back together, it is a cause for rejoicing.

[Hebrews 11:6]

Thanks for providing those links. It is my experience--and perhaps yours as well--that confident assertions by those who claim something is not only common knowledge but also official policy often turn out to be mistaken, to one degree or another.

As to my desire to let NYer speak for herself:

1. You persist in speaking for her.

2. You wrote, "...if you're looking for the reason why Catholics rejoice when people come into full communion with the Catholic Church...." That is only a part of the information I seek. My original question, which you in your overeager intervention have ignored completely and which she alone can answer, was not why she rejoiced but rather why she persists in publicly gloating in a manner that can only be taken as confrontational and antagonistic.

[Hebrews 11:6]

When folks who were in schism come back together, it is a cause for rejoicing.

So, by your measure, then, when a Catholic becomes a Protestant, there is equal reason for rejoicing?

[Antoninus]

So, by your measure, then, when a Catholic becomes a Protestant, there is equal reason for rejoicing?

Think about what you said. There is one Catholic Church. There are thousands of Protestant groups. The answer should be obvious.

May God bless and keep you.

[RFEngineer]

“While I believe that Anglicans should return to the Church, I am also certain that they will be in very good hands if they decide to place themselves under the primacy of Archbishop Akinola.”

My point was to underscore the irony of African Bishops returning the favor.

Some Eastern Orthodox folks I know have the same wish for Catholics - that they return to the Church.

There is nothing wrong with traditional Anglicanism. It is distinct from whatever it is that passes for Episcopalianism and the CoE. Some, however, feel they must become Catholics to escape the nonsense - and I am happy for them should that work for them.

There were good reasons at the time for there no longer being a catholic (small “c”) church - and there are good reasons why there won’t be any time soon. In the meantime - I’m happy for anyone who escapes the cesspool of iniquity that is the Episcopal/CoE with their soul intact.

Fortunately, they can go to the RCC and also other places to continue to actually practice their Christian faith. The good Bishop of Akinola wants to enforce a little discipline within the Anglican Communion. I hope he succeeds.

[sitetest]

Dear Hebrews 11:6,

“Thanks for providing those links. It is my experience—and perhaps yours as well—that confident assertions by those who claim something is not only common knowledge but also official policy often turn out to be mistaken, to one degree or another.”

I think that the record of Catholics here at FR to adequately represent their faith is pretty good.

“2. You wrote, ‘...if you're looking for the reason why Catholics rejoice when people come into full communion with the Catholic Church....’ That is only a part of the information I seek. My original question, which you in your overeager intervention have ignored completely and which she alone can answer, was not why she rejoiced but rather why she persists in publicly gloating in a manner that can only be taken as confrontational and antagonistic.”

Ah... you're begging the question. And possibly reading minds?

I haven't ignored your original question, but rather answered it completely.

You asked:

“Why do you take so much pleasure in your persistent endeavor?”

We ALL take much pleasure to the return home of lost sheep.

Now, you did slip in a [false] premise in your lead-up to the question, and I DID ignore that, out of a desire to give you the benefit of the doubt:

“That is, you seem to celebrate, in a triumphal manner, anecdotes of Protestants becoming Catholic.”

The hidden suggestion here, I suppose, is that the a “triumphal manner” is somehow bad, and NYer is engaging in it.

You strengthen that in your last post with:

“...why she persists in publicly gloating in a manner that can only be taken as confrontational and antagonistic.”

Now that you've stated your objection plainly (and falsely), it is no longer possible to give you the benefit of the doubt.

At least to my eyes, there isn't really anything confrontational or antagonistic to the report itself of Mr. Thompson. It's not much more than basic reporting. If you're finding the Mr. Thompson's report itself confrontational and antagonistic, then I don't know how to help you. He's merely reporting something he's heard - that some Church of England bishops are likely to leave the Church of England for the Catholic Church. You may not like the news, but reporting it isn't an inherently confrontational or antagonistic act.

Frankly, his treatment of our own Catholic bishops is far more confrontational and antagonistic (although not gloating) than his reporting of the basic facts that some Anglican bishops may be on the way out the door to Rome.

As for NYer’s commentary on it, well, you know, her comments are...

...missing.

She merely posted the article.

Without any commentary whatsoever.

It's difficult to interpret her [non-existent] comments here as gloating, or as confrontational or antagonistic.

LOL.

sitetest

[fortunecookie]

Wow!

[vladimir998]

If the man in question has been an Anglican his whole life then he has never been an apostate.

[Kolokotronis]

“Some Eastern Orthodox folks I know have the same wish for Catholics - that they return to the Church.”

Indeed we do and from what we see from +BXVI, it looks like that may well be happening.

As for detecting a degree of triumphalism occasioned by reports of ministers, priests or hierarchs becoming Roman Catholics, well I don't think you are imagining that. The Church in the West has been involved in a family feud/civil war for 500 years or so now. When one side or the other gets a “defection”, a little crowing seems inevitable. The shame of course is that after the Great Schism, matters came to such a point that a revolt occurred which, to all indications, continues to this day with no real signs of abating. It has been suggested by some Latins, even here on FR, that the almost embarrassing enthusiasm some Latin hierarchs show for reunion with Holy Orthodoxy is an indication of a very great need Rome has for the “orthodoxy” and “orthopraxis” of Orthodoxy in order to resist first the secular culture around it and second to return to a Christian mindset of the first millennium in order to meet head on the claims of Reformed theology at the pew level. I don't necessarily buy that, btw, though I think its fair to say that you won;t see that triumphalism in Orthodoxy, not because we are better people, its likely we are far worse, but rather because we don;t have a dog in your fight and really never have.

Oh, and H, NYer is one of the best Catholics of any stripe I have ever had the pleasure of knowing, not that you have implied otherwise.

[NYer]

On numerous occasions, I have seen posts similar to this that you have created.

Yes. I maintain the 'Catholic Ping List' and post articles of interest to Catholics. Would you like to be added to the list?

That is, you seem to celebrate, in a triumphal manner, anecdotes of Protestants becoming Catholic.

??? The only comment I posted to this thread was the word: Ping! Now, if I were truly celebrating, rest assured my comment would have reflected the mood: 'Excelsior!', for example, or 'Eureeka!'

Has any of these stories reported on even a single new conversion to Christ?

Absolutely! I have posted many stories of conversions but don't keep track of them. Here is one I do remember:

Interview with Roy Schoeman - A Jewish Convert

Or do you consider that nonCatholics are heathens and only Catholics can be saved?

I don't believe that nor does the Catholic Church teach that

The reality of the situation is that the flow of high ranking protestant theologians and prelates into the Catholic Church, has made news. As the unofficial Catholic News freeper, I post these stories for the edification of all freepers, not just the catholics.

Just out of curiosity, why does this story bother you?

[Hebrews 11:6]

Nice try. You lose.

[Hebrews 11:6]

You persist in missing my point profoundly, despite your arrogance, or more likely because of it. My point, dear one, is that NYer delights in repeatedly posting these articles (even without comment) in a public nonCatholic forum, with no apparent thought--or worse, care--for how that looks to nonCatholics, or how offensive that is to them.

But I am through with you now: it was not you, after all, to whom my inquiry was directed, as I have pointed out--yes--repeatedly. Let her answer.

[Hebrews 11:6]

You persist in missing my point profoundly, despite your arrogance, or more likely because of it. My point, dear one, is that NYer delights in repeatedly posting these articles (even without comment) in a public nonCatholic forum, with no apparent thought--or worse, care--for how that looks to nonCatholics, or how offensive that is to them, or whether it is a Christian thing to do at all, by any scriptural or ecclesiastical standard. Perhaps it is a surprise to you that someone might take them that way.

But I am through with you now: it was not you, after all, to whom my inquiry was directed, as I have pointed out--yes--repeatedly. Let her answer.

[sitetest]

Dear Hebrews 11:6,

“You persist in missing my point profoundly, despite your arrogance, or more likely because of it.”

LOL. You don't seem to like the news so you get all in a tizzy about the messenger.

“My point, dear one, is that NYer delights in repeatedly posting these articles (even without comment) in a public nonCatholic forum, with no apparent thought—or worse, care—for how that looks to nonCatholics, or how offensive that is to them.”

As is clear from NYer’s recent reply to you, you burden her posts with thoughts, emotions and attitudes that just aren't present. “Mind reading” is considered “making it personal” on the Religion Forum at FR. One is advised to try to refrain therefrom.

“Let her answer.”

She already has, and has shown that she isn't “gloating” or being “confrontational” or “antagonistic.”

One wonders what goes on in the mind of someone who thinks such things.

"But I am through with you now:"

LOL! Just who is arrogant?

Well, anyway, have a nice day.

;-)

sitetest

[Hebrews 11:6]

Thank you for your reply, NYer. While awaiting it, sitetest and I had a slightly vigorous discussion of it in which I laid out my concerns--I am afraid my latest post appears twice (#33 & #34) due to FR's slowness just then. May I say by way of introduction that my heat in replying to him would not have appeared (at the beginning anyway!) in my inquiry to you.

First, has it occurred to you that your frequent posts of this nature might offend nonCatholics? That posting them so repeatedly cannot help but suggest your triumphal attitude? Is that really the message you want to send?

Second, regarding conversions: I was not referring to Jewish converts, as in the example you recall. Rather, I was asking if your rejoicing was due to your belief that new converts result from these Protestants becoming Catholics. Anytime someone moves from the damned column to the saved, we can all rejoice rightfully. Is that your opinion--that only Catholics can be saved? You respond that is neither your nor the Church's position (sitetest might take exception there). But that is certainly the impression you leave by these victorious postings. Each time, it's as though you're holding aloft another Protestant scalp. How would you react if Protestants responded in kind?

It might help here to describe mission experiences I have had which inform my inquiry. For example, I have gone door-to-door seeking specifically the unchurched (not to mention the unsaved) to visit our church. When we encounter people who are already churched, we do not attempt to pry them from their present church--God's kingdom would have no net gain. That includes those who attend other Protestant as well as Catholic churches. In our view, God's kingdom would not only have no net gain, but it would suffer loss from such divisive acts.

As is implicit in my original inquiry, I have been noticing these posts of yours for some time now--perhaps a dozen or more. I was offended by the first, and by each since. I refrained from comment until now because I did not know whether you would persist, or whether something or someOne might intervene. Obviously, you do persist unabashed. For your sake, then, I felt a duty to inform you of my reaction. I may be alone, though I doubt it. But you should know, in order to have the opportunity to take that into account in considering how best you should fulfill your Lord's call.

[thefrankbaum]

I love these posts NYer...keep ‘em coming! :-)

[Larry Lucido]

If all this apostasy amounts to a catastrophe, would that be an apostrophe?

[BibChr]

LOL

I can hear it. “It’s apostasy! It’s catastrophe! It’s... it’s... it’s an APOSTROPHE!”