Cause for sadness and celebration

cprferry

You wrote, "However, when Jesus created the Church, he knew it needed leadership (Peter) and a teaching authority (bishops) to share and articulate the Truth."

Jesus referred to the "Church" as "My Church" and said, "I will be with you till the end of the age", seems as if Jesus point-blank said Who the "Leader" Is, did He not?

Jesus also said, "I will send the Holy Spirit to guide you ...", Jesus also told us Who the "Teaching Authority" Is, did He not?

You seem to get the "institutional church" and "The Church" confused, there can be and is "overlap".

Being a member in "good standing" with the "institutional church" does not necessarily mean someone belongs to "The Church".

Being a member of "The Church" does not necessarily mean someone belongs to the "institutional church".

As I have said: God is a searcher of hearts and minds, not of religious affiliations or lack thereof.

You also wrote, "and work together in the mission to love the Lord and serve His people."

The "mission" that Jesus gave us was to "Proclaim the GOOD NEWS", was it not?

Do you consider ALL HUMANITY "His people"?

Because they are.

Jesus is the Saviour of "His people", see above, that is the GOOD NEWS!

See you and the rest of humanity in the Kingdom.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Imam cprferry,

You evade rather than address the blogger who calls himself Thomas Baum.

The Church is universal, yes, and exists here on earth and in heaven. It's not in Rome, it's not in Constantinople, Salt Lake City, Jerusalem or any one physical location or within a certain body. Through valid consecration and transubstantiation of the Eucharist, people enter into communion with Christ as members of the Church.
However, when Jesus created the Church, he knew it needed leadership (Peter) and a teaching authority (bishops) to share and articulate the Truth. Less it dissolve into the mess than Anglican community has experienced as they allow social demands and quest for independence from Rome or Constantinople carry them away.
And while Catholics and Orthodox may disagree about who is the true successor, they agree that there is succession and the authority granted to those bishops to lead the Church.
Also note that Catholic and Orthodox debate is extremely rare, and the two bodies are in a continuous dialog toward reconciliation, are in clear agreement over dogma (just not minor issues regarding administration, expression and articulation), and work together in the mission to love the Lord and serve His people.

cprferry

You wrote, "Traditionally, due to the prominence of the Catholicism throughout America and much of the world, many perceive the Pope as the successor of Peter and leader of the universal Church of Christ."

While we are bickering like a bunch of "spoiled" children about who is the "leader", didn't Jesus say, "My Church"?

The Catholic Church happens to teach that the "Church" is not confined by the "physicality", so to speak, of the Catholic Church, does it not?

Kind of brings to mind the two Apostles that were trying to get the "best seats" in the house, so to speak, rather than hoping and praying that there would be "seats" for ALL, doesn't it?

God Is a Being of Pure Love, it is about LOVE, not jockeying for position.

Something to think about: Love is NOT an attribute of God, LOVE Is God's Very Being, big difference.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

SteveR1,

Both the Catholic Church and Orthodox hold claim to the succession of Peter. Catholics believe that is the Pope, and Orthodox the Patriarch. The Orthodox beliefs on succession are not any lighter or stronger than the Catholics'. This goes back to a declaration during the First Council of Constantinople which was exercised by the later Great Schism.

The two are in communion with Christ unlike any other groups that have distanced themselves from Peter, the Eucharist and the sacraments. They are the only two parties that can claim to speak for the universal Church.

Traditionally, due to the prominence of the Catholicism throughout America and much of the world, many perceive the Pope as the successor of Peter and leader of the universal Church of Christ.

The gender distinction is fully compatible as the Church (which Peter builds and leads) is spoken as the bride and Jesus (and priests during the Eucharistic Prayer) as the bridegroom.

@cprferry:
Try this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Peter#Eastern_Orthodox

Wikipedia: "Eastern and Oriental Orthodox do not recognize the Bishop of Rome as the successor of St. Peter ..."

Wikipedia: "With regard to Jesus' words to Peter, "Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church", the Orthodox hold Christ is referring to the confession of faith, not the person of Peter as that upon which he will build the church. This is allegedly shown by the fact that the original Greek uses the feminine demonstrative pronoun when he says "upon this rock" (ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ); whereas, grammatically, if he had been referring to Peter, he would allegedly have used the masculine.[60] This "gender distinction" argument is also held by some Protestants."

Rabbi Baum,

Steven and I were talking about church authority, but you seem to be asking about salvation. Alas, they are connected by the mission of the Church.
Salvation is through Christ and the Church, but not necessarily exclusively with Christ and the Church. The Church has been granted a particular mission to live, love and share the Truth. The Church does this by its charity, teaching and pastoral care, promoting appropriate virtues, cautioning against sin, removing inflictions, restoring the dignity of all humans and so on. In doing so, the Church provides for billions of people, Christians and non-Christians alike, to grow closer to the Lord.
While the Church acts in its authority to articulate Truth, love the Lord and serve His flock, likewise the human soul acts to draw itself closer to the Lord and His Church. As children of God, we were created to seek greater communion with Him. While there are any number of religious and secular channels to do so, the Truth is articulated in its fullest within the Catholic faith and expressed in its highest form in the Mass where we enter full communion with the Lord by consuming the very flesh and blood He sacrificed to redeem us to God.

cprferry

You wrote, "The Roman and Orthodox church belong to that communion with Christ that all other churches have left."

Does God know about this?

Does God have any say in this or is it up to some human beings perception of just what constitutes "communion with Christ" and God has to kowtow to that perception?

Can God decide on His Own to have a "Personal Communion" with an individual?

God Is God, we're not, see you in the Kingdom.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

SteveR1,

The Orthodox holds their Patriarch is the successor. Worldwide perception (hence "seen") is that Pope heads the Church. This universal Church is an unbroken link in full communion with Jesus by the guidance of Peter and the apostles and their successors, dwelling place of the Lord, holders of the full deposit of faith at Pentecost and protected by the Holy Spirit. The Roman and Orthodox church belong to that communion with Christ that all other churches have left. They are not merely another sect or denomination.

@cprferry: The Orthodox Church does NOT acknowledge the Pope as being the successor of Peter. The Roman Catholic Church does not represent nor does it define Christianity. It is only one of many Christian denominations.

Disaffected Anglican's would have less theological issues moving over to the Orthodox Church since married clergy is allowed and those moving over would not have to accept of the improper perception of the supremacy of the Pope.

Moreover, why is the Roman Catholic Church bastardizing itself by accepting other theological perspectives? Are the Roman Catholic beliefs that superficial?

"As one poster remarked, Jesus established Christianity, he did NOT establish the Roman Catholic Church.
Posted by: SteveR1"

Jesus established the Church in which only the Roman Catholic Church and Orthodox have remained in communion, and which in practice the Roman Catholic Church and its Pope is seen as the successor of Peter, His rock and vicar of Christ.

Oh, if Henry VIII were still alive, he could behead all the priests that leave the Church of England.

As one poster remarked, Jesus established Christianity, he did NOT establish the Roman Catholic Church. The "On Faith" discussion concerning what the Anglicans should do is totally misplaced. We should be hearing what the Anglicans believe on this issue.

But since, "On Faith" seems to be limited to a unabashedly pro-Roman Catholic discussion; I suggest opening the debate to the question of the disaffected Anglican clergy joining the Orthodox Christian Church. But I suspect an honest debate is not in the cards. Furthermore, I believe that the Anglican community would be more at "home" with the Orthodox community.

Additionally, the sticking point of married clergy would not exist, since Orthodox clergy can marry.

just about every church in GB was stolen from the Catholics in the first place. But lets not worry about that now - it was 500 years ago.
But there is a threat to the Anglicans and that is not rome but America.
The American Alglican Church is attempting to force anti-biblical changes here.
They are attempting through bishop robinson - their boy girl bishop to saying that prohibitions about men doing men only ment casual and not loving men doing men. yea right.
accept the sinner - as we all are - but NEVER ACCEPT THE SIN. that is what the American Anglican church is doing. and when members dont want to go that way the church will sue them and take their lands and churches. That is the problem not rome.

"It is for this reason that Pope Benedict's invitation must be seen as an opportunity for Anglicans to consider the claims of church unity against the strengths and attractions of the Anglican tradition before they send their RSVP's."

How about the Pope and his Roman Church considering whether to join and be absorbed into the Anglican-Episcopal Church, rather than the other way around.?

That would be a better approach toward improving God's world.

agapn9 and Terence100,

Now, to me this is "wretched," those who follow anyone capable of this sort of thing are wretched, most illiberal. Not necessarily "bilious," but morally lost, probably forever.
----------------------------------

Before Ratzinger was Pope, he was "in charge" of dealing with the pedophile priest horror. He wrote an infamous letter to American bishops telling them, in effect, to keep it quiet. There had been other memos, from popes, before him, concerning hush money payment, silence, etc.

Here is the link for Ratzinger's letter:

http://www.opusbonosacerdotii.org/ad_exsequendam_ecclesiasticam_legem.htm

Cardinal William Levada, Vatican Prefect for the Doctrine of Faith.

And it is to Levada that the disaffected Anglicans will apply. Here is a bit of info. on the Salesians, aka "Levada's boys."
-------------------------------------------
"Salesians hold world record for pedophile priests -- guest writer Joey Piscitelli lists their names and connections to William Levada
*****
The Salesians go on trial in LA April 14. Plaintiffs say the Order let pedophile priest Titian Miani have access to children at St. John Bosco High in Bellflower. Piscitelli sued the Salesians in 2006. -- ke

By Joey Piscitelli
The Salesians Clergy of California have shattered the World Record for the most accused child molesters in one area, by a landslide. There is no religious order in the world that we know of that is even remotely close in the number of accused molesters. And the list is growing. At latest count, there are 21 local (California) Salesians accused and/or convicted pedophiles, 19 of them named as child molesters in lawsuits! This tally is so far off the charts.

The following Salesians have been accused of sex crimes in California, including abuse, molestation, rape, sodomy, lewd and lascivious conduct, felony child abuse, copulation, and sexual deviation: Fr. Larry Lorenzoni, Fr. Richard Presenti, Fr. Bernard Dabbenne, Fr. Steve Whelan, Bro. Sal Billante, Bro. Jesse Dominguez, Fr. Jim Miani, Fr. Harold Danielson, Bro. Mark Epperson, Fr. Mario Blanco, Bro. Anthony Juarez, Bro. Ernie Martinez, Fr. Emanual Palayo, Fr. Juan Sanchez, Bro. John Verhart, Fr. Fleming, Fr. Al Mengon, Bro. John Vas, Bro. Ralph Murguia, Bro. Dan Pacheco, and Mr. Sam Vitone.

Cardinal William Levada shielded and covered for so many Salesian accused molesters that victims of the Salesians have nicknamed the Salesian pedophiles -"Levada’s Boys". Still, Levada has shown no shame or remorse, nor has he apologized.

It is depressing, but not wholly surprizing in this "liberal" age, to see commentators like Farnaz1Mansouri1 reduce a major religious happening like this to prejudiced, ignorant, bilious rants. Those with nothing but bile and venom to spread should really trying contributing something positive for once.

Posted by: terencef100
--------------------------
Glad you're depressed, since the Christians have been depressing, oppressing, psychologically mauling, torturing my people for two thousand years. A little depression would, no doubt, be good for your soul.

Now, I wonder how you feel about Cardinal Levada, Catholicism's doctrinal bulldong greeeting the disaffected Anglicans.

Do you, in all your lexical glory, know who Levada is?

Stay tuned....

Where, btw., is my "bilious rant"?

Another Jew perhaps you have heard of Him -Jesus said "remove the beam from your own eye first and then you will be able to remove the speck from your brother's."

Posted by: agapn9
-----------------------------
Yes, I've heard of Jesus, the imaginary, wandering thaumaturge of the first century in whose name millions upon millions, hundreds of millions have been killed, tortured since the first century.

Next question?

I think of QEI as "The Accidental Pluralist," 450 years ahead of her time. Over the course of the past 500 years, cultural pluralism--the ability to consider and the willingess to tolerate views contrary to one's own--has gained some collective "mindshare" in North America and parts of northern Europe, at least. (My personal experience doesn't extend further.)

Pitching a "Big Tent" has advertising appeal; it wouldn't be a catch-phrase if it didn't appeal to many people. But even the biggest tent can't hold everyone. There will always be extremists who cannot or will not tolerate other points of view. They will seek enclaves of like-minded others, and the pluralists of the world will have to tolerate them.

The announcement by the Pope of a bridge for Anglicans to use as they cross over to Rome, doesn't reflect that it is a two-lane bridge, and people have been crossing in both directions for decades--if not centuries. Maybe Archbishop Carey could advertise the hospitality of the Anglican Church toward liberal Catholics. It exists for clergy and lay people alike.

I agree with the Archbishop's sentiments (and being an American my agreement is not simply a matter of obedience, even though he is MY Archbishop). There is something about grappling for unity, putting our collective attention on what unites us--serving God, and flexing our collective will to practice toleration that informs our collective spiritual journey and moves us closer to God, whose essence is love for all people.

Let's keep in mind the different effects the Pope's announcement will have on the Anglican vs. the Episcopal Church. The Law of Unintended Consequences is likely to come into play here in the US.

Namely, there will be a tug-of-war between Bishop Akinwola et al and Pope Ben, for the allegiance of breakaway Episcopalians. This will tend to split the conservatives into two camps and dilute the influence of both camps.

And we who believe in the vision of a fully inclusive Church will simply persevere in taking one step at a time until we arrive at that promised land. We relish the journey as much as the destination.

"The difference is the Romans believe they ARE the one church, while the Anglicans believe that all should STRIVE TO BE that church.
POSTED BY: KJR1"

Catholic means universal, and the modern Catholic Church believes in an universal church in Christ and of all humanity. However, as successors of Peter and the apostles, the deposit of faith at Pentecost, scripture, sacred Tradition, etc. there comes a responsibility to the faith that only Catholics and Orthodox have stuck by. The Truth lasts forever, and the Church strives to fully understand and articulate that message for itself and for our brothers in Christ and all humanity.

I was going to join the Anglican church at one point. Then they made an active homosexual a Bishop, and I watched in horror as the church slowly dissolved. How will it play out? The Anglican church will split, and disappear just as we are watching happen. Catholics are just stepping into the breech like any good businessmen. While this is happening, everyone will deny the fact that it happened because of the do-gooders need to include homosexuality at the altar.

"We believe in one holy, catholic, apostolc church..."
Both Catholics and Anglicans recite this creed regularly. The difference is the Romans believe they ARE the one church, while the Anglicans believe that all should STRIVE TO BE that church. One sees in black and white, the other sees in color. One see what it wants to see, the other keeps its eyes wide open to take in all of God's glory. Those who leave the open, colorful world of Anglicanism for the unaccepting, bleak world of Roman Catholisism will soon realize the beauty of this world our Lord created for us they have left behind.

Farnaz1Mansouri1 - sorry that you're wretched - you need to take care of that.

Another Jew perhaps you have heard of Him -Jesus said "remove the beam from your own eye first and then you will be able to remove the speck from your brother's."

I read somewhere that catholicism is the largest Christian denomination in England.

If the people of England becomes catholic again it will be a great cause for celebration.

I'm going to find it ironic if American Episcopalians, whose pride is their particular variety of "big tent-ness" are outraged that the Vatican has found a way to extend its own tent.

As for the peculiarity of special quasi bishops (ordinariates?) to receive groups, not just individuals - watch what happens to the four split Episcopal dioceses over the next couple of years.

In particular I am thinking of Fort Worth, whose priests made overtures to the Roman bishop of Fort Worth before that diocese split from the Episcopal Church and linked up,temporarily,with the Southern Cone Anglicans. Many, many people in that diocese long to be called "more Catholic than the Pope" - all for the sake of being able to say they are "conservative".

Meanwhile, we'll see the full range of Christian doctrine represented by the former parishes of that diocese by - 1) those who go to Rome; 2) those who have already decided to stay Episcopalian; and 3) those who can't bear either (1) or(2) and chart a more fundamental course, whether with African Anglicans or others.

Therein is another irony - they could have stayed together under the Episcopal tent and spared themselves the centuries and centuries of ecumenical discussion toward the end of reunifying the Church - something akin to the present (deteriorating) state of the English Anglicans that the author describes.

What would be interesting to explain and know is why the American and English churches with disparate congregations held together for so long and now are falling apart. Is it the reign of fundamentalism, as partly described by Karen Armstrong, or, again ironically, a cooling of the warm ethos that accepted brethern, no matter their theological stripe, or something else?

If it's really over homosexuality that speaks volumes about how close sexuality is to our hearts and what a great gift it is, and maybe we should examine that more closely.

It is depressing, but not wholly surprizing in this "liberal" age, to see commentators like Farnaz1Mansouri1 reduce a major religious happening like this to prejudiced, ignorant, bilious rants. Those with nothing but bile and venom to spread should really trying contributing something positive for once.

I suppose somewhere within the conservative movement within Anglicanism, there might be one or two women priests...after all, there are ALWAYS the ends of every spectrum. What will Rome do when a parish which has a woman priest serving it do when they want to enter this new structure? How will they tolerate that, and still hold that women's ordinations are invalid? For many women both inside and outside the Roman Catholic Church, that is the key issue: While they may be very attached to much of Roman Catholicism, they are sure that they have a true vocation. Nothing that Rome can do or say will change that belief. And as long as someone long distance continues to assert that women pro forma cannot be priests, the split between Rome and those who are very similar in doctrine and liturgy will always be an issue.

It will something to watch in the next few years...

Pr Chris

I suppose somewhere within the conservative movement within Anglicanism, there might be one or two women priests...after all, there are ALWAYS the ends of every spectrum. What will Rome do when a parish which has a woman priest serving it do when they want to enter this new structure? How will they tolerate that, and still hold that women's ordinations are invalid? For many women both inside and outside the Roman Catholic Church, that is the key issue: While they may be very attached to much of Roman Catholicism, they are sure that they have a true vocation. Nothing that Rome can do or say will change that belief. And as long as someone long distance continues to assert that women pro forma cannot be priests, the split between Rome and those who are very similar in doctrine and liturgy will always be an issue.

It will something to watch in the next few years...

Pr Chris

One has to admit that the "Apostolic Constitution" or "church within a church" is quite unique. In Roman Catholic ecclesiology, there are 23 Catholic Churches within the "Communion of Catholic Churches," the largest being the (Western)Latin or Roman Rite Catholic Church. The 22 other Churches are Eastern Catholic Churches (like the Maranite, Ukraine, etc Churches). These comprise the Catholic Church in Roman Catholic ecclesiology. Now the Pope is creating a 24th church within the Catholic Church -- The Anglican Catholic Church or Anglican Use Catholic Church. And just as the Eastern Catholic Churches have their own liturgies, married clergy, traditions, seminary, etc. so will this new Anglican Use Catholic Church. I would imagine the already existing Anglican Use Parishes in the US (some 6 or 8) will be incorporated into the new Anglican Church entiity within the Catholic Communion of Churches.

This is new and totally unexpected. How it will play out in England, remains to be seen (where, for example, will their main cathedral be and their seminary?)

England already has a Ukraine Catholic Church; now it will have a Anglican Use/Catholic Church along side the Latin or Roman Rite Catholic Church.

All very interesting! William 27