Anglicans must choose between Protestantism and tradition, says Vatican

Catholic Herald ^ | 5/6/2008 | Anna Arco

[markomalley]

FOR THE RECORD, neither the article nor the Vatican said that the Anglicans had to choose between Protestantism and Catholicism...

Rather, it said...

"Does it belong more to the churches of the first millennium -Catholic and Orthodox - or does it belong more to the Protestant churches of the 16th century?"

[markomalley]

Ping to your lists!

[mnehring]

I'm glad the article actually didn't say that because I love the balance the Anglican church has with tradition and Protestant theology.

[Kolokotronis]

You may find this interesting. For what its worth, I think the Cardinal is absolutely right. Its fish or cut bait time and I think we all know what the answer will be.

[markomalley]

I'm glad the article actually didn't say that because I love the balance the Anglican church has with tradition and Protestant theology.

So you like the ritual offered by the Anglicans while endorsing abominations like allowing the ordination of open homosexuals?

I am not sure what you mean if not that type of comment. Could you possibly clarify?

Tnx

[mnehring]

I said Protestant theology, not liberal politics.

[VanDeKoik]

So the Anglicans want back in?

[GAB-1955]

“So you like the ritual offered by the Anglicans while endorsing abominations like allowing the ordination of open homosexuals?”

If the Anglican church practiced its theology, it wouldn’t have this problem. There are Anglican churches that reject this path, especially in Africa.

[ModelBreaker]

"Does it belong more to the churches of the first millennium -Catholic and Orthodox - or does it belong more to the Protestant churches of the 16th century?

That's just ridiculous. The churches of the first century did not have multi-multi-multi billions in assets and income, a government all to itself, a church every couple of miles in most cities all over the world, and a bureaucracy that rivals the US Government. Nor is the most powerful government in the world hunting down Catholics and killing them. Nor were the Churches negotiating with Rome to be good little Churches in exchange for official recognition.

With all due respect, the Churches of the first century far more closely resembled today's house churches in China than they do the Catholic Church.

[aposiopetic]

Nor is the most powerful government in the world hunting down Catholics and killing them.

Whatever the power of the respective governments, Catholics have recently been martyred, in Iraq and Indonesia and Turkey and doubtless also in China. I am not replying in order to start an argument but rather to point out that Catholics in some parts of the world still die for their faith.

[Petronski]

I really wish he’d said “ought” rather than “must.”

[proxy_user]

The Church of England does not make any sense without England, with Queen Anne as the head of the churh, and the bishops sitting in the House of Lords voting for the government.

[sionnsar]

On the other side of the spectrum, rebel conservative bishops, headed by Archbishop Peter Akinola of Nigeria,

No bias here... as a member of the "rebellion" that preceded these late-comer slackers by more than a quarter-century, I cry "foul." Though not seriously; may God bless their ministries -- there are a lot of good Christian folk among and in the care of these "rebel conservative bishops."

Thanks to markomalley for the ping.

Traditional Anglican ping, continued in memory of its founder Arlin Adams.

FReepmail Huber or sionnsar if you want on or off this moderately high-volume ping list (sometimes 3-9 pings/day).
This list is pinged by Huber and sionnsar.

Resource for Traditional Anglicans: http://trad-anglican.faithweb.com
Humor: The Anglican Blue

Speak the truth in love. Eph 4:15

[markomalley]

The churches of the first century did not have multi-multi-multi billions in assets and income, a government all to itself, a church every couple of miles in most cities all over the world, and a bureaucracy that rivals the US Government.

True. However they did have the essential hierarchal structure that exists to this day. Ref: the writings of St. Paul to the Church in Thessaloniki, amplified by the writings of St. Ignatius of Antioch and others from that era.

Nor is the most powerful government in the world hunting down Catholics and killing them.

Not any more...but you should read up on your British history a little bit before making that statement. Ref: St. Thomas More, Cuthbert Mayne, and others. (BTW, you do realize that it was Catholicism was essentially illegal from Elizabethan times until 1829, don't you?)

Nor were the Churches negotiating with Rome to be good little Churches in exchange for official recognition.

With the exception of heretics, such as Marcion and other Gnostics, pretty well all the bishops were in communion with Rome at that time, so the point is a non-sequitur.

With all due respect, the Churches of the first century far more closely resembled today's house churches in China than they do the Catholic Church.

One of my best friends is a Chinese priest. He came of age during the Cultural Revolution. His family had a house church. In fact, when he goes to visit his family, he says a Mass each day at that altar that was erected for their house church.

So that is a very adroit comparison. Just as the house churches were persecuted because they would not forswear their loyalty to the See of Peter, the underground Catholics in England were persecuted. And just as Pope Benedict is attempting a reconciliation with the Patriotic Association (the official "church" in China), the Vatican is attempting some variety of reconciliation with the official "church" in England. Yes, a very adroit comparison. Thanks for that observation!

[Tailback]

As soon as the Roman Catholic church starts excommunicating pro-abortion “Catholics” like Kennedy, Kerry, and Giuliani, I’ll start listening to Roman Catholic criticism of the Anglicans.

[A.A. Cunningham]

The churches of the first century

You do understand that a millenium is 1,000 years or 10 centuries, don't you?

[RFEngineer]

“I really wish he’d said “ought” rather than “must.””

Catholics and Protestants have been telling each other what do for quite some time, and probably will for quite some time in the future.

Really though, the Pope does have a dog in this fight as too many of his flock (at least in the US) actually are closer to Protestants in how they actually live. So if they are going to act like Protestants, he should have some say.

[RFEngineer]

“So the Anglicans want back in?”

We’re practically pre-approved to become Catholic, so there really is no hurry for those who are interested in actually doing so.

He’s just playing with the fine print, but the offer still stands.

[redgolum]

The trouble is that most Catholic dioceses resemble some of the luke warm ECUSA ones. I don't know the case in England, but the US has a heap of problems.

Still, the Cardinal has a point. Eventually you have to fish or cut bait. The Anglican Communion has split apart, and the pieces have to decide which way to go.

[PAR35]

So you like the ritual offered by the Anglicans while endorsing abominations like allowing the ordination of open homosexuals?

Ever heard of Bishop Pilla and his rainbow friends in Cleveland? Are you sure that you don't want to withdraw your statement? Or do I need to name one or two more Catholic Bishops? Or should we just start discussing the large numbers of ordained homosexual priests in some of the Catholic Dioceses?