I came across this article a few days ago…
Barack Obama’s silly obsession with Fox News
David Axelrod, then Barack Obama’s chief campaign strategist, put it best when he told his boss: “You care far too much what is written and said about you.” That was in 2006 but, three years on, some things don’t change.
Obama is President of the United States. His party controls both houses of Congress. And, yes, he just won the Nobel Peace Prize. But Obama still can’t shake off his fixation with the chief voice of the opposition – Fox News.
Why is the White House bothering with this kind of stuff? Everyone knows that Fox leans decidedly Right, just as everyone else between it and MSNBC leans Left.
It’s not just that the attack is pretty unfair on the likes of Major Garrett, Shepard Smith and Chris Wallace, all accomplished journalists at Fox who play it straight. Failing to differentiate between them and Glenn Beck, Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity and Co is deliberately disingenuous.
The bigger point is that you’d expect the Leader of the Free Word to be, well, bigger than this. As New York magazine puts it: “Recognizing Fox as an enemy worth fighting is an admission of weakness for a president whose appeal has been partly predicated on the promise of unity. It’s hard to disagree with, from the Left, John Nichols of the Nation when he describes Obama as the “Whiner-in-Chief”.
I have a pretty good idea why Obama is so obsessed with Fox.
It’s because he is a politician who lacks any real substance, or commitment to principal, and as a result he desperately relies on public relations spin and a carefully manufactured image that he can sell to the US public, and Fox, by asking the hard questions that the left leaning media aren’t interested in asking, creates a real problem for Obama’s public relations campaign.
He has to attack them, because they keep raising important questions about the glaring falsehoods and flaws that are part and parcel of the power hungry Obama political machine.
I see that in a recent independent media analysis of the US election coverage, Fox news was rated as providing the most balanced and fair coverage out of any of the US networks.
It seems that while they make no secret of their right wing viewpoint, they also allow the other side to present their views as well – unlike the other networks who simply dress up left leaning ideas as ‘balanced journalism’, and don’t allow the other side a fair chance at presenting their views.
I like this article for a few reasons and I believe the guy who writes is a supporter of Obama generally (so not part of the “Vast Right Wing Conspiracy”)
He tells it like it is; yes Fox is more right leaning but the reality is pretty much every publication loves Obama so why can’t he deal with a some criticism from just one?
And here is the thing; every media HATED Bush and had no qualms challenging him on everything (many things they should have) and he accepted that is the role of media.
I like this example too:
Obama has been on 27 Time covers in the last couple years
http://trackacrat.com/time-magazine-%E2%99%A1%E2%99%A1%E2%99%A1-obama/
Bush was also on 27; for the the last 8 and many not portraying him as the ‘hero’ the covers of Obama do
http://trackacrat.com/2009/10/19/time-%E2%99%A1%E2%99%A1%E2%99%A1-bush/
My advice to Obama? Do what your going to do and let the media do its job.
Fox News can be fanatical at times, but the important point in the article spliced above is that they have highly respected journalists who work on the same network as some opinionated conservative commentators — Beck and Hannity especially.
However, think about the ACORN controversy recently played out in the US. It was Fox News that outed this corruption, while other media outlets ignored it or simply drank the Kool-Aid that ACORN was offering them. They’re also chasing stories of political corruption that would make Taito Philip Field look like Little Red Riding Hood. They’re holding people, including President Obama, to account.
Fox also covers a lot of religious stories that other outlets won’t touch, especially discrimination against Christians.
gidday matees!!
yeah, i tend to agree scribe
sometimes o’reilly is a bit of a nut, or, at least comes across that way
but i think that fox plays an important part in american media, trying to balance it out from the other extremely leftist outlets who are in love with obama, and anything liberal
in general, they are all pretty untrustworthy though
ciao
Interesting story on this whole issue: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/19/white-house-official-says-obama-team-controlled-media-coverage-campaign/
This latest row seems to have erupted after Fox refused to take some government official’s word as truth and pressed her on the issue. It became a tad embarrassing when the official was shown to be being economical with the truth or possibly just blindly parroting information from someone else.
This from the New York Times, hardly the bastion of conservatism — in fact, the opposite:
Dumb Ox: You definitely like the controversial issues. There is no way on this good earth that Fox News can be considered fair and balanced. But as Goebbels said “tell a lie long enough and people will believe it”. And Fox saying that it is fair and balance is a lie that they repeat over and over again and again. The only “news” organisation that I can think of that continually asserted it’s truth was Pravda (Russian for truth).
Merely providing equal coverage does not make things fair and balance. For example if there was a story about the Holocaust, one wouldn’t give equal coverage to the Holocaust denier David Irving as one would give to Simon Wiesenthal for example. By putting these two people together implies that somehow they are on equal footing and that each view is equally valid. When of course David Irving is a spiteful lunatic.
The bais of Fox actually comes by presenting the story in the first place. A good example at proving “fair and balance” stories that actually distorts the truth has been Obama’s birth certificate nonsense. (A good summary is here.) The conspiracy theory relating to this is absolutely nonsense but Fox dutifully provides “both sides” to the story. However, providing both sides does not mean the truth emerges because in some cases there is no “both sides”. So the lie gets repeated and the lie gets mainstream respect and it means that the average person, who may not be in a position to determine the validity of the arguments, is left confused and may actually believe the lie.
So the lie gets repeated and the lie gets mainstream respect and it means that the average person, who may not be in a position to determine the validity of the arguments, is left confused and may actually believe the lie.
MFSS this happens with ANY media organisation and ANY person. Seriously!! Yeah the media has responsibility for truth but that usually doesn’t happen, there is usually a spin on it.
So no one here bar Ox has said Fox is fair and balanced. We are saying that Obama needs to get over it and move on and apparently most of the mainstream (i.e. not fox) media agree with this.
SERIOUSLY can’t believe you think Obama attacking Fox is a good idea. Every President puts up with the media.
MOre disturbing is the fact that Obama’s Press person came out and said they controlled everything the media got of Obama. Thats ‘fair and balanced’ wouldn’t you say???
Gianna: you are right that every politician has to put up with the media to a certain degree – some more than others. However, Fox has taken it to a new level. The so called tea parties as organised by Fox is more than just the media being critical. They are creating the story and then report on it for the sole purpose of criticising the government for profit and advancing the agenda of Rupert Murdoch. Also I was mostly commenting on the original post rather than the comments so I wanted to point out to Dumb Ox that Fox News is not fair and balanced.
Interesting if one considers Fox News and Sky News. Both are owned by Murdoch’s News Group but the regulation in the UK and the US is different. In the US television channels can be partisan where as in the UK television channels cannot – the difference in style and tone is amazing. Interesting enough James Murdoch, Rupert’s heir apparent, at a media conference in the UK recently acknowledged the bias of Fox but also argued that all channels have a bias.
I think Obama is doing the right thing by highlighting that Fox has entered into a new realm. There’s no way one can compare Fox to a regular news organisation as though it were equal with the other news channels. Fox is a partisan organisation and as such should be treated as such. I don’t have a problem with that. Similarly, I wouldn’t have a problem if a Republican refused to go on MSNBC. Openly partisan politicking does not advance the debate and, therefore, should be shunned.
MfSS,
Hey, I don’t mind that you don’t like Fox News, but your claim that Fox organised the tea parties does not have any grounding in reality.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_protests
Fox covered the demonstrations while others tried to ignore them, but that was ideological. It’s like how the media covers gay rights marches in Washington DC but ignores — in terms of coverage — the March for Life.
Scribe: If you actually read the Wikipedia entry you would see that Fox played a hugh role in promoting and one could say organising it. If organizing includes encouraging people to go by providing free advertising weeks in advance (when has a news organisation ever done that before). Also if the big names of Fox go to some of the events and host them how is that not organising it? Click here to see Glen Beck describing the events as “FNC Tax Day Tea Parties” – “FNC” means Fox News Channel. No organisation is ever going to admit that it is “astro-tuft” movement. I don’t deny that those persons there were genuine in the views but the event was organised and promoted top down.
Also to say that the other news organisations did not cover the event is simply not true. Here is Rick Sanchez calling Fox out over that misleading statement.
Man For Some Seasons, brilliantly said at #6.
This type of formula seems to form the basis for most of their more controversial aspects – e.g. Beck’s show. It’s surreal watching some of the cherry picked highlights of such shows online.
This is way off topic, so feel free to ignore, but the Holy Father has just offered corporate reunion to the TAC and other Anglican groups.
http://212.77.1.245/news_services/bulletin/news/24513.php?index=24513&lang=ge
YES!
Te Deum Laudamus!
Andrewsman,
Yes, this is wonderful news.
What do you make of it ?
Rome can be remarkably flexible when she wants to be, ordaining married Anglican priests, allowing liturgical diversity in the Latin rite, and setting up an Personal Ordinariate that can be led not just by a Bishop but by an ex-Anglican priest, which seems to nod to the essential unity of Holy Orders.
God Bless
Interesting that the SCDF are now saying that the reasons for precluding the ordination of married men as bishops in both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches are “historical and ecumenical”, rather than doctrinal or dogmatic.
God Bless
This is indeed wonderful news.
The aspirations of much of the Anglican communion can now be realised, whilst retaining their own forms and liturgies.
Just wait for the screams from the liberal wing of Anglicanism
Apparently Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury is not too impressed.
Maybe, losing his power base, and being left with the liberal heterodox wing of Anglicanism – that which happened on his watch – does not please him at all.
Wahooooooooooooooooooooo!
That’s cause for celebration!
In an attempt to steer the conversation towards the original post, but without raining on the parade that is this great news, it’s been interesting watching the media’s coverage of this. There seems to be an obsession with the few Anglican priests who will come over and the coverage of that is at the expense of the tens and hundreds of thousands of lay people joining the Church.
The best link for this (Anglican stuff) is here:
http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/theanchoress/2009/10/20/pope-anglicans-liturgy-welcome/
Sorry, I’m just so excited.
I just sang the Te Deum.
WAHOO!
A’man. this is HISTORIC. LIKE WOW.
As a friend just said
“who would have thought we should live to see such times”
And its great they are preserving Anglican liturgy etc.
BXVI is the shiz.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tobyharnden/100014238/first-they-came-for-fox-journalists-should-defend-cable-network-against-white-house/
The biggest step forward for Church Unity since Vatican II.
Thank God for a German Pope.
interesting perspective here
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,4810779,00.html?maca=en-en_nr-1893-xml-atom
God Bless B16!
wow !
Thank God for a German Pope.
yes, my thoughts too a-man
thank God for ratzinger!!
no other church-man has the intelligence, theological vision, wisdom, and charity in the church to be able to do what he is doing
old mass freed up
excommunications lifted of sspx
theological dialogue with them started
eastern guys looking friendlyer towards rome
tac anglicans welcomed home en mass
he is truly ecumenical (properly understood), in all directions
thank God kasper did not become pope, he would have killed this move, and the others…
peace all
How about all readers of good will make a special attempt to attend mass in the next few days, offered in thanksgiving for what has just happened and for the work that will need to be done to implement it.
That sounds like a fitting way to celebrate.
That and a pizza party.
That and a pizza party ??????
Nah !!!
Bangers and mash,Pea, pie ‘n’ pud, or kippers and chips, washed down with a pint of old and mild.
I’ve been singing “Thy hand O Lord has guided” all day.
And I will be offering thanks in the next Prayers of the People I read.
Andrewsman,
Do you know any Anglicans thinking of converting to Catholicism under the Personal Ordinariate ?
Do you think you might ?
I would be surprised if there are enough Anglicans in New Zealand interested in becoming Catholics to warrant the establishment of any such Personal Ordinariates in New Zealand and I expect the same applies in the US where Anglican Rites have been a possibility for years and therefore this doesn’t really mean much new that wasn’t already on offer for US Anglicans/Episcopalians.
The big thing that Anglican converts are going to face is accepting the Papacy. Opposition from some Anglicans to gay bishops, women priests and a fondness for traditional liturgy do not automatically amount to their acceptance of papal authority.
I expect we’re probably talking some thousands of Anglicans (out of 77 million worldwide), in England and South Australia.
I also expect that First Things’ suggestion that all the Anglican churches in Africa are about to cross the Tiber is an unrealistic expectation.
God Bless
I expect some defections in the USA, and also some “continuing” jurisdictions to make it official–this offer isn’t just for the TAC, but also the loosely associated splinter groups–much like the SSPX.
I also expect some Anglican Provinces which are Tractarian (like PNG) to look hard at it, and I expect some (not whole-sale) defections in Africa, especially among those traditional Anglicans outside of our Communion (of which there are a large number.) It depends on the exact detail, I suspect. In the US, the new thing on offer is corporate reunion, with bishopa and clergy, not simply a Romanified BCP.
In England, I suspect at least one Anglo-Catholic bishop will be keen, and many will follow him, although how many is hard to predict. It will depend on the exact conscience arrangements for those objecting to women bishops, among other things.
Here, to be honest, I expect little change. There is an Auckland TAC parish, there are other missions throughout the country, but Anglo-Catholicism here, while alive, is mostly liberalised. There will be the odd defection here and there, but our Province is nowhere near as crazy as the Episcopalians (while still not being exactly sane). I know a few who might consider it.
Me?
I dunno.
The provision will simply clear away the cultural obstacles to reunion. That means I can go to a TAC parish and sing “Bread of the World in Mercy Broken” and chant my psalm. That’s genuinely comforting–one of the things which puts me off Rome is the sense that here is a foreign world I’m not comfortable in, despite being a good Tory.
But the doctrinal obstacles still remain.
My Anglicanism is partly cultural, but mostly it is a conviction that Anglicanism expresses something both true and lacking in the Roman Church–that is, I think we’re actually right about some stuff. I am evangelical as well as catholic–and that means I can’t swallow some Roman Catholic dogma.
Am I wrong about that? Maybe. Will I pray about it? Yes.
Am I in a hurry to move?
No.
this is a big moment
excellent articles and news on this topic over at rorate-caeli
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/
here is a goodun
ciao
But the doctrinal obstacles still remain.
I expect a great many Anglicans will get cold feet when they are asked to make the move for precisely this reason.
I think we’re actually right about some stuff
I agree.
On “cultural things”, the Catholic Tradition has always provided for local rites although the recent trends to centralise everything in the Latin Rite has tended to overshadow that.
As far as the impact on Anglicanism is concerned, they won’t loose huge numbers and the stronger opponents of ordaining women will leave so Anglicanism will continue on the trajectory they are on.
In the US, the new thing on offer is corporate reunion
In what ways is the new Personal Ordinariate actually much different than the current Anglican Rite provisions enjoyed in the US where, as I understand it, the BCP is retained ?
God Bless
Archbishop John Hepworth writes very well.
I shall call him Hone Heppy…and we shall pray that he can cut the flagpole down at last.
Not sure if the allusion works.
Just out of interest Andrewesman, what are the doctrinal areas to which you refer?
Oh, and Chris, stop pouring cold water over everything.
The one allowed Anglican Use parishes in Catholic dioceses.
The other allows Anglican Use Dioceses accountable to their own bishop, and with their own clergy, like the Eastern Catholics.
Anglicanism will continue on the trajectory they are on.
I just shuddered, crossed myself and said “God grant not”
Don,
Abp Hepworth is full of praise for the new provision, but I note that he isn’t saying he’s about to convert to Catholicism, and neither are any of the others. We’ll have to see how many actually make the jump.
Hepworth illustrates the problems many Anglicans face. As John Allen points out :
Perhaps this is why the SCDF are allowing priests to function as Ordinaries in the Personal Ordinariates rather than the more usual requirement for a bishop ?
The implications of the Personal Ordinariate are rather profound, but I expect their impact on Catholic ecclesiology will turn out to be the most significant aspect rather than the supposed hordes of Anglicans about to convert to Rome.
God Bless
FXD,
Off the top of my head:
1. Tradition is under Scripture, not equal to it (cf Hooker)
2. Catholic Marian devotion is…excessive, esp in context of popular devotion (cf South America) Throw in superstition in general, and the perpetual Virginity of Mary, the Assumption, and the Immaculate Conception. All dogmatic questions, by the way.
3. Clericism (I am in favour of Synodical government, and a reframing of the doctrine of the priesthood (not necessarily a change, but a reordering of structures in general, esp in the Curia)
4. Justification (notwithstanding Joint Declaration)
5. Papal claims to temporal authority (cf Unam Sanctam)
6. Indulgences
7. The Nature of the Church
8. The Sacraments.
In a more positive vein, I resonate with Protestant Biblicism, emphasis on sanctification and holiness, the Holy Spirit, simplicity, the elevation of family life and the laity. I also happen to like long sermons.
Enough to be going on with?
Abp Hepworth ASKED for this.
He just signed the Catechism, and put it on the altar of the National Shrine in Walsingham.
He’s in.
Andrewsman,
Maybe I’m missing something, but I don’t read the SCDF document as granting Anglican Use Dioceses accountable to their own bishop.
An Ordinariate is not a diocese.
And neither is an Ordinary a bishop – the document explicitly says he may be merely a priest.
And the document explicitly recognises the authority of the local Catholic Bishops:
[If push comes to shove one expects local conferences of Bishops may well get the power to say "no" to the functioning of personal ordinariates in their dioceses].
I don’t know how many traditional Anglican bishops are celibate, but none of the married ones will be accepted as Catholic bishops, which seems to leave mostly Anglican priests as Ordinaries. While we’ll have to wait for the Apostolic Constitution for the details, I’d be surprised if the Catholic Church is about to give priestly Ordinaries power over local Catholic Bishops, rather I think the hierarchy will be the other way around.
While there are differences between the Personal Ordinariate and Anglican Rites, I don’t see them as anywhere near as huge as you seem to in terms of their actual impact on Anglican converts in the pews.
God Bless
Andrewsman,
Could you sign the Catechism of the Catholic Church ?
Is there any statement in it which you absolutely cannot reconcile yourself to ?
I expect that most (maybe not all) of your objections would dissolve if you read it and understood in context what it claims and with what degree of authority each of its claims are made.
God Bless
Chris,
I have read, and am reading it–and the answer is No, and Yes, respectively.
I could, however, sign the Articles of Religion.
Which is why I am an Anglican, not a Roman Catholic.
Andrewsman,
Do you mean you’d sign the Anglican 39 Articles of Religion (even though these are not binding on Anglicans) ?
Which clauses in the Catechism of the Catholic Church do you have the biggest problems with ?
God Bless
More reading on the new provisions here at American Papist.
- Samuel.
howdy me ol mates!
a-man, you wrote
so, to my understanding, you are not really high anglican if you have all those issues??
interesting interview with the well known fr george rutler (ex-anglican)
Fr. Rutler reacts: “It is a dramatic put down of liberal Anglicanism”
http://blog.beliefnet.com/deaconsbench/2009/10/fr-rutler-reacts-it-is-a-dramatic-put-down-of-liberal-anglicanism.html
also, this bit from dr edward peters (canonist)
First thoughts on an Anglican ordinariate
http://www.canonlaw.info/2009/10/first-thoughts-on-anglican-ordinariate.html
and this from damian thompson
New era begins as Benedict throws open gates of Rome to disaffected Anglicans
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100014174/new-era-begins-as-benedict-throws-open-gates-of-rome-to-disaffected-anglicans/
peace
Thanks for the links, Dave.
And yes, I am a High Anglican. I am simply not a Roman Catholic.
I accept the role of Tradition and the Church in the interpretation of Scripture. I invoke the Saints and sometimes pray the rosary according to the Sarum use. And I believe in the Real Presence (my cavilling on Sacraments is, I think, a matter of wording, not change in doctrine). There is no difference at all on moral teaching, or on the importance and nature of the Eucharist.
I was asked what my doctrinal issues were, so I said.
I am what used to be called a Prayer Book Catholic, or an Evangelical Catholic. In fact, I am an Anglican.
a’man,
You mentioned Marian devotion being a hindrance to unity ….. my brother-in law in England is TAC , he recites the rosary at times …. when I was visiting him in Engand he took me to a High Mass in his church on the feast of Corpus Christie ( I had already been to Mass at the local catholic church ) The High Mass was beautiful. just like our own catholic ones used to be….. after mass there was a procession and Benediction and then the bishop and priests went to a statue of Our Blessed Lady and recited the Angelus.
While in England I was taken to Washingham where I visited the Anglican shrine which was full of images of Mary and people were praying by some of them…. it almost felt more Catholic than many churches I have visited anywhere…. How do you personally feel about love of God through Mary who is always ready to lead us to Him?
shallom
Staying off topic:
I think this is wonderful news. Christ prayed that we may be one as He and His Father are one – not there yet but a step in the right direction.
There are a few questions and concerns that I have. First, I don’t think it’s going to have much impact in New Zealand. As far as I can tell the Anglo-Catholics in New Zealand are rather liberal in theology and many of those Anglicans who wanted to join the Catholic Church have already done so. Second, I’ve noted in a lot of the coverage that people are saying that the people who are most likely to join are disgruntled Anglicans who dislike the ordination of women and homosexuals. My hope is that we just don’t pick up “antis” from the Anglicans. After all, the Catholic Church has far more to say about a lot of things than just those two issues.
The announcement states that this allows Anglicans to have full communion with the Catholic Church but allow them to keep some of the distinctive Anglican spiritual and liturgical elements. Which elements are going to be kept? I haven’t been to many Anglican services but there is a great spectrum. I don’t think we are going to see Sydney Anglicans but there has always been (or for a long time anyway) a low church tradition within the Anglican Communion – how are those traditions going to be entertained?
I’m happy with much of Marian devotion. I was singing the Salve Regina this morning.
I am not happy with its excesses, notably in places like Spain, Mexico and South America. I also find some of the language used of Mary (”Mary Save Us” “Tots tuus” “Consecration to the Immaculate Heart…” etc.) to be excessive and odd, and not Christocentric at all.
We’re talking about High Mass attending Anglo-Catholics here, so it will be Prayer Book (adapted), music, chant, etc. As far as I know there will be no doctrinal differences at all–which is why Sydney Anglicans are out.
I think the likely model will be this one:
http://www.atonementonline.com/bodw.php
A’man, you said:
I also find some of the language used of Mary (”Mary Save Us” “Tots tuus” “Consecration to the Immaculate Heart…” etc.) to be excessive and odd, and not Christocentric at all.
The english version of Salve Regina
Aman
whatever our differences, we have all moved closer together today! and we should thank God for the grace that allowed that. The line in now drawn closer than ever. At least the step is a small one.
Considering the issues that you raise;
even Catholics have different opinions on some of these issues. but can I suggest that if Anglicanism had been aligned to Catholicism on all these matters then the Anglican Church wouldnt be in this crisis today!
Andrewsman,
It’s true that at various times and various places Marian devotion has deviated into occasional excesses (the same can be said of pretty much every genuine spirituality) but I think these deviations are rather rare today and would be in popular devotion and not in any way the official teaching of the Catholic Church.
“Mary save us” just asks Mary to ask her son to save us (which, honoring his mother and father as per the commandment, he grants); it does not imply any salvific role of Mary apart from Christ.
“Tots tuus”, “Consecration to the Immaculate Heart…” etc are just tokens of Marian devotion and amount to a devotion to Christ thru his mother.
I agree with Man For Some Seasons; Anglicans should convert to Catholicism because they are convinced of the truth of Catholicism, not because they are unable to work out their differences in the Anglican communion.
The Popes have shelved claims to temporal authority and Unam Sanctam is generally looked at as a rather extreme excess in the Catholic Church today (although some of its teachings remain true but need to be carefully understood).
Indulgences are merely the ability of the Church to dispense to individuals from her treasury of the prayers and good works of the Saints. They are especially powerful in the salvation of souls both in the Church militant and the Church in purgatory. At one time they were abused but the doctrine remains absolutely true and one I personally find very spiritually beneficial.
The Catholic Church does not have any traditions that are without any scriptural foundation, although it is true that the basis of some in sacred scripture requires a rather deep understanding of scripture. Anyway, scripture itself has clear references to other matters conveyed orally and not in writing (eg the Pauline letters assert this on several occasions).
I readily admit we have problems with clericalism (all organised religion does).
From what I can tell, your faith in the Eucharist is functionally Catholic (your understanding of transubstantiation notwithstanding).
Do you limit to 2 sacraments as per the 39 articles or do you accept marriage, holy orders, annointing of the sick, confession, and confirmation as sacraments ?
From the Catholic side, most of us would readily concede the need for a more collegial Church and the advantages of greater lay input.
Would be interested in your views on justification.
God Bless
This prelude to unification is HISTORIC.
Not in the past 450 years has anything approaching this declaration been so significant.
It does not mean that there will be millions of Anglicans breaking down doors of Catholic churches to be let in. What it does mean is,that for the first time in 450 years – excepting some specific dispensations – the Anglican communion has a way to being re-united with the Catholic church.
So this does not mean that “Anglicans” will become “Catholics”.What it means is that Anglicans can become RE-UNITED with the Catholic church and in FULL COMMUNION with Her.
As Andrewesman says, there will be some hesitancy with regard to some doctrinal and Faith issues.
I’m confident that a well informed Catholic can put those troublesome matters to rest with a full explanation of TRUE Cathols teachings – not what they have learnt through the Anglican association with Protestantism; certainly, in my case, thru my association with RCIA over nearly twenty years, where I have helped introduce probably 100 Anglican into the Church – and many other Protestants and “pagans”- over a period of discernment, all anxities can be laid to rest, with the help of Our Lord Jesus Christ and the guidance of The Holy Spirit, and in communion with Our Father – our Triune God.
there will be some hesitancy with regard to some doctrinal and Faith issues.
I’m confident that a well informed Catholic can put those troublesome matters to rest with a full explanation of TRUE Cathols teachings
You know this is an interesting point. I know well informed Protestants who can explain matters of Catholic teaching better than I can, have a deep understanding of the reasons and yet…are not Catholic because even though they understand them they cannot reconcile themselves to them.
You are right Don, but I think you also have to be careful how you frame it.
Don well said
the steps to unity in truth do not need to be big but steps there need to be!
Pray for open hearts!
From Fr Dwight, a (married?) Catholic ex Anglican Priest (GREAT blog)
http://gkupsidedown.blogspot.com/
Two Roads
Leaders of traditional Anglican breakaway groups don’t seem to be exactly rushing to take up the offer of Personal Ordinariates :-
Don,
If Anglicans want to be in full communion with the Catholic Church then, yes, they will have to become Catholic. That doesn’t mean they have to ditch their rich liturgical tradition and the SCDF hints that there are other elements to their spiritual partimony which they won’t have to ditch either. Both of these contributions from Anglicanism will enrich the Catholic Church.
God Bless
I think Fr Dwight is very perceptive.
The TAC’s have played the threat to join Rome card and it can’t be played anymore so their leverage on Anglicanism is now minimalised.
The Vatican has admitted married priests and the general normalisation of that is now only a mater of time in the Latin Rite.
Rome has opened the door to particular Churches and the Churches in the West will go for that and demand the same local autonomy for themselves as has been offered to Anglicans.
The Anglicans will continue to ordain women bishops.
The end run result will be that the Catholic Church will form particular Churches open to much greater lay input which will lead to many positive changes, including the ordination of women.
God Bless
The end run result will be that the Catholic Church will form particular Churches open to much greater lay input which will lead to many positive changes, including the ordination of women.
How in the world can the Church form particular Churches? Do you mean like branch offices? You’ve been reading too many wonky books, my friend.
This is a humorous parody of how Rowan Williams might have responded to Rome, but it makes an excellent point about what “Traditional Anglicanism” really is :
God Bless
Scribe,
From the SCDF document released yesterday:
We already have some 22 particular Churches in the Catholic Church, each with their own liturgy and spiritual patrimony.
The Code of Canon Law for Oriental Churchs has already spelt out that these Churches are particular Churches in their own right, sui iuris http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sui_iuris, unique enough to even have their own code of canon law.
If it’s OK with Rome for Anglicans to have a Personal Ordinariate, then people are going to start asking why can’t we have a particular Church in Aotearoa, (or California, or Holland, or Switzerland, or Germany or wherever) because we also have our own spiritual patrimony we’d like to continue.
Floodgates once opened are not easily closed.
God Bless
If it’s OK with Rome for Anglicans to have a Personal Ordinariate, then people are going to start asking why can’t we have a particular Church in Aotearoa, (or California, or Holland, or Switzerland, or Germany or wherever) because we also have our own spiritual patrimony we’d like to continue.
Good luck with that. I, for one, wouldn’t want any piece of a personal ordinariate for the Church in Aotearoa. Nor is there any case for it.
I agree that there won;t be a a personal ordinariate for the Church in Aotearoa.
But there are plenty of Catholics who think that a particular Church of Aotearoa, in full communion with Rome, but with increased local autonomy, would be quite a good idea.
God Bless
But there are plenty of Catholics who think that a particular Church of Aotearoa, in full communion with Rome, but with increased local autonomy, would be quite a good idea.
Well, as some traditional Anglicans come to the Catholic Church, maybe some people with that Anglican concept will consider heading in the other direction.
What is this “increased local autonomy” you and your friends what?
Christopher, you claimed earlier:
So where does that leave you…limbo?
Scribe,
Particular Churches are not an Anglican concept. They are a Catholic concept.
The idea of centralising every minor decision in Rome, such as every liturgical detail, is a rather recent change, and one at odds with the Tradition, in which particular Churches always had considerable local autonomy to make local decisions, within due limits and in communion with the wider Church and the Pope.
Anglicans today enjoy considerable local autonomy (the Anglican Church in NZ even has three tikanga) and I think that the loss of that autonomy would be keenly felt by Anglicans considering joining any Particular Ordinariates, especially as they’ve just been thru an exercise in asserting their autonomy by distancing themselves from the rest of the Anglican Communion and setting up their own autonomous structures.
God Bless
FXD,
That leaves me both fully Anglican and fully Catholic.
There isn’t anything essential to Anglicanism (opposition to the Papacy is not essential and neither are the 39 Articles) which in any way conflicts with Catholicism.
Recent ecumenical progress since Vatican II has made this rather obvious.
Therefore, Anglicans can become Catholic by embracing the fullness of the faith, and there isn’t anything essentially Anglican they need to give up to do so.
God Bless
and one at odds with the Tradition, in which particular Churches always had considerable local autonomy to make local decisions, within due limits and in communion with the wider Church and the Pope.
The problem with this model you support is that such local autonomy leads to fiefdoms and detracts from the universality — catholicity — of the Church. A small decision hear leads to another small decision and another and another and, before you know it, you’ve got a small c church that bears little resemblance to the Church.
I am a member of the ROMAN Catholic Church and I don’t want people in New Zealand doing everything they can to turn us into the New Zealand Catholic Church, which is what some are trying as we speak.
morning cobbers, and cobbettes,
insightful comments from renowned author and journalist sandro magister (posted at NLM)
to read the entire article: go to…
Knock, and It Shall Be Opened to You. As Long As It’s According to Tradition
also, these paragraphs from fr rutler’s interview struck me as very important and true
[comments bolded in square brackets are from fr zulhsdorf, of wdtprs]
also this one regarding the media’s take on things, which, i notice is the first thing mentioned by one of our prolific posters here at bf
also, here is the primate of england’s comments
The Archbishop of Westminster, Archbishop Vincent Nichols, on the Personal Ordinariates
it’s also here, catholicherald
peace all
Scribe,
You seem to want to imperialistically impose Latin rite ways of doing things upon the entire Church.
That will not work and will only lead to division.
It is the complete opposite of the historic tradition of the Catholic Church, which has always embraced unity in diversity.
It represents a hermeneutic of rupture rather than a hermeneutic of continuity.
And it’s completely opposed to Pope Benedict XVI’s desire to welcome and foster unity in diversity by his moves to support the Tridentine Rite and now Anglican Ordinariates, both with their own cultural and liturgical tradition and spiritual patrimony which are distinct from those of the Latin Rite.
God Bless
chris,
you said above in number 67,
fully-anglican, fully-muslim, fully-jewish, and most likey fully-hindu
in which case you are not only not fully-catholic, but not catholic at all
but hey, the good news for you is that pope benedict is inviting many who are open to the truth to come home to communion with Rome, which means that if you seek the truth authentically, sincerely, and faithfully, you’re welcome to come home too
the church is universal, but not stupid chris
we’re open to all, but that requires a confession and profession of our faith! which we entered into at baptism – start trying to be faithful to it will ya!
do you employ this type of double-speak with your wife?
peace, and God Bless
Chris,
I want the Church around the world to cling to the Barque of Peter rather than hang her feet over the side of the waka. THAT is continuity, rather than constant attempts to forge new paths of exploration in the liturgy and teaching of the Church.
in which case you are not only not fully-catholic, but not catholic at all
I see we have descended once more to JUDGING the Catholicity of others.
On the Hindu, we are very much looking forward to attend a Diwali Mass Saturday and I welcome the regular Vatican statements of support for Hindus during Diwali, the festival of lights.
God Bless
Scribe,
rather than constant attempts to forge new paths of exploration in the liturgy and teaching of the Church.
Oh, so you are opposed then to the Personal Ordinariates ?, because that is precisely what the Holy Father is going to set up.
Anglican liturgies.
Anglican married priests.
Anglican spiritual patrimonies.
Ordinariates not led by bishops but by priests.
Ordinariates with a degree of autonomy.
That sure is forging a new path, as you put it, and shows that the Hole Father is by no means the arch-conservative that some (on both sides) would like to paint him as.
God Bless
The Vatican has admitted married priests and the general normalisation of that is now only a mater of time in the Latin Rite.
Maybe. Maybe not. I have no problems with unmarried priests
The end run result will be that the Catholic Church will form particular Churches open to much greater lay input which will lead to many positive changes, including the ordination of women.
LOL. This will never happen Chris and if it does the TAC who joined Rome will probably UNJOIN.
LOL.
Scribe I’m not sure if chris is ascribing to you what you said? I have no problems with the richness of the Anglican liturgy that is in keeping with Catholic teaching being retained.
Chris,
The Pope is courageously making very positive moves towards unity and is making prudent concessions in his attempt to have all be one, as Christ called for at the Last Supper.
That is very different from a large group of vehicles driving in convoy down a certain road and some of them just deciding to take a sharp left while the main convoy heads straight.
Using that analogy, the Pope is allowing some people on a different highway to merge gently into our lane. We can’t force them to get out of their Triumphs and buy Ferraris, but they can join the car club.
Scribe why would we want to force them out of their Triumphs?
Gianna,
Sorry, not sure if you’re a fan of that particular vehicle or we’re still speaking in analogies…
The Pope is courageously making very positive moves towards unity and is making prudent concessions in his attempt to have all be one, as Christ called for at the Last Supper.
If concessions can be made then maybe we need to start looking at some of the kinds of concessions that mainstream Catholics would like to see ?
There is extraordinary flexibility towards rather small traditionalist groups but rather extraordinary inflexibility towards mainstream Catholics.
Rather than put all our energy into hoping to attract traditionalists (without much to show for it), maybe we ought to put more energy into thinking about how we can retain the Catholics we already have, many of whom are becoming increasingly alienated and leaving ?
God Bless
Hahaha. See Chris seems to be saying that as a rule you are against what they are doing (ie keeping Anglican traditions etc), when in reality they should do everything the ‘Roman’ way.
Is this what you are saying? i realise Chris sometimes misinterprets things.
I guess what I’m saying is that diversity (in the good sense of the world) DOES add to the richness of the Church, so I don’t think its fair to say the Pope is making ‘prudent concessions’ when in reality it seems he is welcoming the richness that other traditions can bring?
I might be wrong here.
Gianna bangs head against wall
You can’t change TRUTH in order to attract people
Gianna,
if it does the TAC who joined Rome will probably UNJOIN.
The TAC haven’t joined Rome yet.
But this illustrates the problem with the TAC joining the Catholic Church over an issue (ordaining women or homosexuals) rather than because they want to be in full Communion with the Catholic Church and with what she teaches (even if the Church develops what she teaches, which she will on women).
That was C.S. Lewis’ objection to papal infallibility – not that he had any problem with what was already defined but he worried that he’d be unable to accept what might be defined tomorrow.
The fact is that the Catholic Church could change and ordain women and practising homosexuals (although I don’t think she’ll do the later) as neither teaching is dogma.
God Bless
Gianna turns back to the books as she thinks ‘boy it is not worth getting into a discussion on womens ordination’
Peace out hombres
in reality it seems he is welcoming the richness that other traditions can bring?
I think that’s exactly correct and we ought to also welcome the richness of other traditions.
But it also has HUGE IMPLICATIONS.
God Bless
you’re the one who has brought judgement (God’s discernment) on yourself by your actions, words, and thoughts, all exposed on this blog
judgement in the Scriptures is more linked to discernment, than to condemnation. God’s judgment is about Him sheding His mericful Light into our lives, and in this all we see what we really are. be careful chris, many of your actions, and words, being exposed God’s light, are allowing us to discern what you really our about – not because we want to judge you in condemnation – but because we seek for the truth, and because we are worried about you
discernment is a christian responsibility, to allow one to walk on the right path, and to allow others to; and i can assure you that many of your words, actions, and thoughts (though not all) on this blog, are allowing us to really see what you are about my friend
that is not judgment in terms of condemnation, but a discernment of your thoughts, words, and deeds. we don’t know your guilt before God. heck, you could possibly have a mental illness for all we know. we don’t know. but we can say with clarity, that many of your words, thoughts, and deeds here on this blog are often not truly catholic, and present a sycretism which is actually quite bizarre
so don’t try and blame and project guilt onto others (calling them judgers)for your duplicity; everybody sees through you chris; you’re not fooling anybody here and we’re not going to play your silly little of games of linguistic sophistry and selective self-absorbed intepretation
(Jn 5:22-23)
start honoring the Son authentically, and acknowledge Him before others; and let go on those things which hold you back. if you confess hinduism, islam or any other faith, and try to say that you can confess catholicism fully and anglicanism fully without any issues, you fail in your acknoledgment of the Son
audience of john paul ii, Jesus Christ Has the Power to Judge
peace, and God Bless
You can’t change TRUTH in order to attract people
No, but you can DEVELOP your understanding of truth and accept that your current understanding might not be the last word on the matter.
God Bless
hidy ho
No, but you can DEVELOP your understanding of truth and accept that your current understanding might not be the last word on the matter.
yes, very true.
but your ideas go well beyond a lot of that chris
and you don’t have a proper historical understanding of these things, as well as a deficient ecclesiology, soteriology, and christology
so you end up with an admixture of half-truths, and kooky ideas
in regards to these ordinariates, it will be very interesting to see the liturgical aspects play out
much of anglican liturgical sensibility, in the high church, is actually better developed and encouraged than most catholic parishes in the Western world, following the iconoclasm which occurred post-vat II
so it is true, that because we have let own own standards slip liturgically, and have ended up in a mess, we could learn a lot from these high anglicans as they come in. in fact, many disenfranchised catholics, who have to suffer through horrendously stupid liturgy in many contemporary catholic parishes, may gravitate towards better high anglican parishes, once they have had their liturgy approved by Rome.
just as we can thank the orthodox and eastern churches for preserving their liturgy with great reverence, better than we have, we can also see that the Holy Spirit has some things to teach us through these high anglicans who have a good liturgical sense, which is actually a hang over from catholicism anyway, and which they have developed in their own local and historical tradition
so, it bodes well, as long as it is governed properly, and these things are handled by Rome, not by some of the shonky local bishops’ conferences
peace all
and more continues to be commented upon
people are commenting that cdl. kasper’s lack of appearance at the announcement from Rome yesterday is a huge sign of non-support of this move; and he spoke more by his absence.
he is head of the pontifical council for christian unity, and has been for many years.
a while back when noises were emerging of this new structure for the anglicans, kasper let it be known, that in his opinion, this is not the policy of Rome, ie, to bring home anglicans en masse. his ecumenism is quite different to that of ratzinger, and in my opinion, is not willing to go all the way in love, and is therefore, not fully catholic, ie, not all embracing in the demands of and fidelity to the truth
Lambeth Palace ‘implacably opposed’ to Pope’s Anglican plans
peace
Bp Minns and Reform are both wedded to Calvinism. It’s obvious they wouldn’t want a bar of the Papal offer. TAC asked for it, and their prayers have been answered. Forward in Faith said:
It has been the frequently expressed hope and fervent desire of Anglican Catholics to be enabled by some means to enter into full communion with the See of Peter whilst retaining in its integrity every aspect of their Anglican inheritance which is not at variance with the teaching of the Catholic Church.
We rejoice that the Holy Father intends now to set up structures within the Church which respond to this heartfelt longing. Forward in Faith has always been committed to seeking unity in truth and so warmly welcomes these initiatives as a decisive moment in the history of the Catholic Movement in the Church of England. Ut unum sint!
+John Fulham
Geoffrey Kirk
To expect either the TAC or FiF to say yes immediately is unrealistic, just as it was unrealistic for Rome to respond instantly. The TAC has an Assembly process to go through (although all of them have approved the principle of union with Rome, they still have to vote on detail) and FiF and the Anglo-Catholic bishops have consultations to go through as to who will leave and how.
There are other Anglicans like me who have to pray about the offer, and discern.
As they say, Rome wasn’t built in a day–be patient. In Church terms, this is an earthquake, and will take a while to settle.
yes, good point a-man. there is no major hurry, and this needs to be handled carefully, and discernfully
hopefully there will be good cooperation from local bishops in these new offerings
peace
Christopher;
you contradict yourself.
Who decides the line in the sand that will determoine what needs to go to a higher authority the local autonomy?
The reason that the Anglican Church is in this disarray is precisely because they have not been operating under proper authority. The autonomy that Bishops have is to make good decisions in accordance with Church teaching not to go off on different tangents that might be populist but lead to heresy.
Proof of this is theology that developed after anglicanism split (and other protestant off shoots)from Rome and the loopy theology that was allowed to pervade their teaching
regards “That leaves me both fully Anglican and fully Catholic”
the truth is that if you are fully Anglican (and fully Christian) then you will be (or become),fully Catholic. Anglicans simply restrict the ‘fullness’ to their own comfortable agendas rather than accept in faith and obedience that which they dont understand.
Pray for the Church! (the one,holy, catholic and apostolic that already includes the anglicans! (they just dont know it).
if you are fully Anglican (and fully Christian) then you will be (or become),fully Catholic.
Amen to that !
Let’s hope the present opportunity persuades many Anglicans and Catholics of the truth of that.
God Bless
Christopher 93;
so do not be satisfied with just being fully Anglican?
http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2009/10/big-brother-is-watching-white-house-emails-msnbc-during-broadcast-to-correct-them/
This great video explains the new Anglican/Catholic development…