Angli-CAN!

If you haven’t heard, when have you been? Well perhaps in New Zealand – if you take a liking to the NZ herald’s journalism. No no, you won’t hear about it there, but you will hear about sexual abuse in the church and the canonization of 5 saints and, ofcourse Galileo supposedly having the last laugh at the Vatican (what an absolute historical farce!) I found it rather interesting that the Herald failed to cover the story. I thought it would have been a biggie. Yes, I’m sure by now you know what I’m talking about – its ‘em Anglicans (of the slightly more orthodox type). I’ve been getting emails from my regular informant and have scanned through a couple of them briefly; it looks like these are going to be interesting times for the Catholic Church as well as the Anglican Church.

Father Z published some comments on his blog by Father George Rutler and adds his own commentary:

Fr. George Rutler (convert from Anglicanism) on new Anglican provision

Fr. Rutler discusses Vatican’s Anglican provision
By Fr. George Rutler *

Editor’s Note: Fr. George Rutler, a convert from Anglicanism, was asked by CNA what his reaction is to the Vatican’s new Anglican provision. Fr. Rutler’s reply follows.

It is a dramatic slap-down of liberal Anglicanism and a total repudiation of the ordination of women, homosexual marriage and [this is important] the general neglect of doctrine in Anglicanism. Indeed, it is a final rejection of Anglicanism. It basically interprets Anglicanism as a spiritual patrimony based on ethnic tradition rather than substantial doctrine and makes clear that it is not a historic “church” but rather an “ecclesial community” that strayed and now is invited to return to communion with the Pope as Successor of Peter.

The Vatican was careful to schedule simultaneously with the Vatican announcement, a press conference of the Catholic Archbishop of Westminster and the deeply humiliated Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury to enable the Anglicans to save some face by saying that this recognizes the spiritual patrimony of Anglicanism and that ecumenical dialogue goes ahead. [Hopefully, with a difference.] That is like George Washington at Yorktown saying that he recognizes the cultural contributions of Britain and hopes diplomatic relations flourish. The Apostolic Constitution is not a retraction of ecumenical desires, but rather is the fulfillment of ecumenical aspirations, albeit not the way most Anglican leaders had envisioned it. [Right. They are not recognized as equal on the playing field. I wish this same approach would be taken with a certain non Christian group!]

The press, uninformed and always tabloid in matters of religion, will zoom in on the permission for married priests. They will miss the most important point: that this reiterates the Catholic Church’s insistence that Anglican Holy Orders are invalid, and perforce so is their Eucharist. [Right. All their clerics coming into the Church as clerics must be at least provisionally ordained.] These married Anglican priests have to be fully and validly ordained by a Catholic bishop. Following Orthodox custom, they are allowed to marry only before ordination and not after. And no married man may become a bishop. (Thus, any Anglican bishop joining one of these “ordinariates” would no longer be recognized as a bishop. Under special provision, Anglican bishops would have some right to pastoral authority, but would not be bishops.) [This is why the distinction was made about "ordinaries". Not all "ordinaries" are bishops.]

It remains to be seen how many Anglicans (Episcopalians in the USA) will be received into the Catholic Church under these provisions, but it is a final nail in the coffin of the rapidly disintegrating Anglicanism at least in the West [I hope we can get all their churches…. or at least swap some of ours for theirs.] and will radically challenge Anglicans in other parts of the world. Perhaps most importantly, it sets a precedent for reunion with Orthodox churches whose Holy Orders the Catholic Church already recognizes as valid. [And the SSPX.] I should not be surprised if the Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury eventually is received into the Catholic Church, at least when he retires and gets a patent of nobility and a pension.

* Fr. George Rutler is pastor of The Church of Our Saviour in New York City and is a convert to Catholicism from the Anglican Communion.

Be Sociable, Share!

    Comments: 152

    1. Chris Sullivan October 22, 2009 at 12:26 pm

      It sure was in today’s NZ Herald printed edition (doesn’t seem to be online) which quoted Cdl Levada as talking of only “hundreds” of Anglicans having expressed their desire to join the Catholic Church.

      http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/10/20/vatican.anglican.church/index.html

      According to the CNN article, the TAC are not actually in the Anglican Communion, but are a splinter group that has already broken from Anglicanism.

      Forward in Faith appears to be another splinter group, whose sole rational for existence, according to its website, seems to be opposition to ordaining women.

      http://www.forwardinfaith.com/about/index.html

      What we seem to be seeing is not Anglicans considering moving to Rome, but ex-Anglicans, noting the precariousness of their position, considering moving to Rome.

      I’m reminded of the story of one traditional Anglican congregation, when their numbers had dwindled to fewer than the fingers on one hand, all deciding to move to Rome.

      Traditional Anglicans wanting to join the Catholic Church will have to come up with something much more substantial than merely opposition to ordaining women and homosexuals if they want to join the Catholic Church.

      God Bless

    2. Don the Kiwi October 22, 2009 at 12:39 pm

      Opposition to ordaining women and homosexuals is merely the catalyst for these faith-filled people to enter the Catholic Church.
      Their opposotion is morally and scripturally based wrt homosexuality, and theologically and traditionally base WRT women’s ordination.
      I’m sure they will be welcomed after the appropriate discernment, and understanding Catholic dogma and praxis.

    3. Chris Sullivan October 22, 2009 at 12:54 pm

      Don,

      Umm .. won’t they have to do a little more than just understand Catholic dogma ?

      Won’t they actually have to sign up to it ?

      I note that you don’t see any moral or scriptural basis for not ordaining women.

      Anglicans are particularly wont to base their position on scripture but the scriptural basis to deny ordaining women, one of the main gripes of Traditional Anglicans, is non-existent; and the scriptural basis to deny ordaining practising homosexuals, the other big gripe of Traditional Anglicans is decidedly weak (the Catholic position on homosexuality resting more on received wisdom than solid scriptural proof).

      Their gripes against the Anglican Communion do not rest very securely in the Anglican Tradition.

      Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation.

      Article VI, the 39 Articles, the founding document of Anglicanism.

      As the inability to ordain women is not found in Holy Scripture, there is no basis in Traditional Anglicanism to walk off and found a separate group based on the supposed inability to ordain women.

      God Bless

    4. Scribe October 22, 2009 at 1:05 pm

      Chris,

      Did you read Brian Ingram’s letter in last week’s NZ Catholic? It covers this whole women’s ordination issue nicely and clarifies some of the misconceptions out there about the topic:

      In her article “Girls can do anything — except take Holy Orders” (NZ Catholic, September 20), Dorothy Coup asserts that the Pontifical Biblical Commission in 1976 “determined that there was no scriptural reason to prohibit women’s ordination”.
      In fact, what it stated was, “It does not seem that the New Testament by itself alone will permit us to settle in a clear way once and for all the problem of the possible accession of women to the presbyterate”.
      It carries on: “However, some think that in the Scripture there are sufficient indications to exclude this possibility, considering that the sacraments of Eucharist and Reconciliation have a special link with the person of Christ and therefore with the male hierarchy.”
      In this, the commission is ambivalent on the issue, but certainly does not support the cause of women’s ordination.
      In the 1970s, Sr Sara Butler, professor of dogmatic theology at St Joseph’s Seminary in New York, was among the numerous theologians who spoke out publicly in favour of women’s ordination. However, she was forced to change her mind as her study of the issue drew her deeper into Scripture and Church history. Sr Butler acknowledges that this requirement is not spelled out directly in the Bible, “as if Jesus, said, ‘I don’t want any women to be priests’”.
      History, however, shows that the first Christians believed that Christ intended a male-only priesthood.
      “We know it is so because early in even the second and third centuries, some people went ahead and admitted women to at least priestly functions, if not to ordination, and those people were considered heretics,” she explained.
      “The response was that this was not what Christ willed, and it’s against apostolic teaching.”
      In regard to the feminist battle cry of “girls can do anything”, it is not always in women’s or man’s best interests that they do everything and anything they want or wish for, as it does not always pertain to the divine order of things. The best example of that is contained in the first chapters of Genesis.
      As much as a man cannot be a mother, a woman cannot be a father. The priesthood is spiritual fatherhood.
      Archbishop Pilarczyk’s actions towards Sr Louise Akers were an exercising of his responsibility as shepherd to his flock to provide authentic and orthodox Catholic teaching in his diocese. Persons who are not in accord with the teaching of the Church should not expect to be allowed to teach catechetical leaders or others in the name of the Church.

    5. Chris Sullivan October 22, 2009 at 1:19 pm

      Scribe,

      The Pontifical Biblical Commission stated “It does not seem that the New Testament by itself alone will permit us to settle in a clear way once and for all the problem of the possible accession of women to the presbyterate”.

      Sr Butler acknowledges that this requirement is not spelled out directly in the Bible, “as if Jesus, said, ‘I don’t want any women to be priests’”.

      [and BTW Apostolic teaching ended with the death of the last Apostle, not in the 2nd or 3rd centuries as Sr Butler seems to imply.]

      There simply is no scriptural mandate to deny ordaining women.

      Therefore, if Traditional Anglicans wants to stick with article VI in the 39 Articles, the founding document of Anglicanism, which insists that every doctrine must have a clear scriptural basis, then by that article there is no basis for their opposition to ordaining women.

      Denying the ordination of women simply isn’t Traditional Anglicanism, it’s the denial of traditional Anglican belief in article VI.

      God Bless

    6. Gianna October 22, 2009 at 1:32 pm

      People, my advice? Stay away from womens ordination. We’ve done it to death, doesn’t matter what you quote, what you say, doesn’t go anywhere

    7. Dei Verbum October 22, 2009 at 1:40 pm

      May be these ‘ordinariates’ could have a two fold effect.

      Christopher would you consider joining one?

      It seems that you would be more at home there and others there more likely to understand your thinking process :blank_ee:

    8. FXD October 22, 2009 at 1:46 pm

      Christopher,

      the only early church group, despite what the agitators say, which ever ‘ordained’ women was the New Prophecy, otherwise known as Montanism.

      I wrote a Master’s thesis on this group ten years ago. Tertullian became a member.

      The ‘ordination’ of women was obviously so localised even within Montanism (localised to Asia Minor, that is, where it began) that the arch-misogynist Tertullian felt able to join. Clearly there were no priestesses in North African Montanism.

      In the 2nd century, when it arose, this ‘ordination’ of women was so clearly at odds with apostolic tradition that the group was immediately marked out as something at odds with the faith (there were other obvious reasons, too, into which I shall not go here).

      The work may be found in the archives of the Department of Classics and Ancient History of the University of Auckland. I think the title was:

      Pagan and Christian in the Background of the New Prophecy/Montanism.

      The progress lecture may still be on file as well:

      The Rise and Fall of Regional Montanism – an analysis

      I haven’t read it in some time, and there are some flaws, believe me – but you may benefit from a frank appraisal of events on the ground, written primarily from sources with no particular axe to grind, or otherwise, in relation to women’s ‘ordination’. It did receive a sound mark.

      To be fair, I think the work’s greatest moment is the thank-you page.

    9. Chris Sullivan October 22, 2009 at 1:57 pm

      the only early church group, despite what the agitators say, which ever ‘ordained’ women was the New Prophecy,

      Then why does Romans speak of Junia, a woman, as an Apostle ? And Phoebe as a Deacon ?

      God Bless

    10. Dei Verbum October 22, 2009 at 2:30 pm

      so there is a matter of doubt, what does the Church teaching say? That is the end of the matter that is what authority is for!

      I say again if you arent prepared to be ‘fully Catholic’ would you consider joining your ‘fully anglican’ friends?

    11. dave morgan October 22, 2009 at 2:40 pm

      haha ! another thread… ;)

      People, my advice? Stay away from womens ordination. We’ve done it to death, doesn’t matter what you quote, what you say, doesn’t go anywhere

      i was just about to post, and you reminded me gianna
      many thanks

      i shall refrain

      anyway, tom peters of american papist is doing good coverage on this

      Open Thread: Anglican-Catholic Reunification

      I will be busy today attending to APP-related activities, but I want to allow the discussion about yesterday’s news to continue. Here are the posts AmP published yesterday about the Vatican announcing special pastoral provisions for traditional Anglicans to be received back into the Catholic Church:

      **** Important: Vatican welcomes Anglicans into Catholic Church with Apostolic Constitution
      **** Commentary: Anglo-Vatican announcement has important American/African dimension
      **** Video: Vatican press conference on Anglican provision
      **** Raw video: Abp. Nichols of Westminster explains new Anglo-Catholic structures

      Please be aware of these resources which provide ongoing quality coverage and commentary:

      **** Fr. Dwight Longenecker, a Catholic priest and convert himself from the Anglican Church
      **** Damian Thompson, a reporter for the UK Telegraph and an expert on UK Catholic issues
      **** Ed Peters (my father) – a canonical expert who is looking at how this will all work out
      **** The Anchoress, an amazing blogger who has been doing mega-coverage of this story

      For those very interested in the internal politics of this news, do read the entirety of Robert Moynihan’s most recent report from Rome. He was in the room when the Vatican press conference took place, and provides a unique and thorough perspective on the many dynamics that were and are at play.

      … and that should provide ample fodder for you eager Papists …. and those eager to be Papists!

      And, as in all open threads, AmP readers are welcome to drop appropriate links into the comment box.

      peace brothers, and giannas :)

    12. MrTipsNZ October 22, 2009 at 2:47 pm

      Gianna in #6 – right on.

      Back on MSN when they used to have chat rooms there was a wonderful feature called “ignore”.
      Right-click on the contributor and they went away from your screen. And it worked well because it wasn’t a blanket ban, but was left in the hands of the user. St Ignora, we implore ya.

      This Anglican-Catholic statement is more notable for the fact that Benedict has put one over the ineffectual attempts over 20 years by the Council for Ecumenism on this issue. It will be very interesting to see how this plays out internally and externally in Rome, Lambeth and Westminster.

    13. dave morgan October 22, 2009 at 2:51 pm

      mr tipsy topsy, ;) have you seen this from damian thompson?

      Lambeth Palace ‘implacably opposed’ to Pope’s Anglican plans

      This from a good source in Rome: apparently both Lambeth Palace and elements in the Vatican’s Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity were “implacably opposed” to Pope Benedict XVI’s dramatic new arrangements for Anglicans. The source also reports speculation that Archbishop Rowan Williams put pressure on Vatican ecumenists to stop the Apostolic Constitution being issued. For all I know, he did persuade Cardinal Kasper, head of the Pontifical Council, that it wasn’t a good idea. But this particular portfolio was taken out of Kasper’s hands a long time ago; indeed, it looks as if the cardinal was simply “informed” what was happening by the CDF.
      The professional ecumenists on both sides had decades to get this right. They screwed it up. So now Pope Benedict has opened up another route to unity: a high-speed bypass.

    14. muerk October 22, 2009 at 2:55 pm

      People, my advice? Stay away from womens ordination.

      I agree with this sage advice. Seriously, nothing will change and everything has been covered.

      I’m just glad of the welcome the Church will be giving to those who wish to return. I think this is wonderful news.

    15. Chris Sullivan October 22, 2009 at 3:15 pm

      From Damian Thompson :-

      Cardinal Levada seemed to think the number will be fewer, just a few hundred.

      “‘Many’ is, of course, a relative term,” Levada said. “If I had to say the number of [Anglican] bishops [who may come over to Rome], I would say that is in the 20s or 30s. If I had to say individual [Anglican] lay people, I would say that would be in the hundreds.”

      And I note that Damian added [Anglican] to the quote; implying that Levada knows that these bishops and laypeople are not Anglicans but ex-Anglicans.

      God Bless

    16. Chris Sullivan October 22, 2009 at 3:23 pm

      If Cdl Levada is right that we’re talking only hundreds then maybe that’s why we’re looking at Personal Ordinariates – because the numbers are too few to work on a diocesan basis.

      God Bless

    17. FXD October 22, 2009 at 3:23 pm

      Sorry all.

      Troll fed.

      Confiteor deo omnipotenti, beatae Mariae semper Virgini, beato Michaeli Archangelo, Beato Joanni Baptistae, Sanctis Apostolis Petro et Paulo, omnibus Sanctis, (et tibi Pater), quia peccavi nimis cogitatione, verbo et opere

      mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa,

      ideo precor beatam Mariam semper Virginem, beatum Michaelem Archangelum, beatum Joannem Baptistam, Sanctos Apostolos Petrum at Paulum, omnes Sanctos, (et te Pater), orare pro me ad Dominum Deum nostrum.

      FXD

    18. Chris Sullivan October 22, 2009 at 3:33 pm

      FXD,

      Do you think the Confiteor will make it into the liturgical rites in the Personal Ordinariates, who are, after all, supposed to be able to retain their Anglican liturgy ?

      All that Mariae semper Virgini doctrine would be pretty scary stuff to heaps of Anglicans.

      God Bless

    19. dave morgan October 22, 2009 at 3:57 pm

      howdy cobbers :P

      :D :P ;)

      some excellent comments and synthesis of many commentaries from the anchoress over at first things
      worth reading through

      http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/theanchoress/2009/10/20/pope-anglicans-liturgy-welcome/

      i think that over the next 5 years, we are not talking hundreds, but tens of thousands of anglicans coming home

      once the initial fears are allayed, and they see how it is going to work, and if we do it well, then i expect many to come over. i imagine some big fears will be whether they get to keep their identity, liturgy, governance, etc, and the pope has made this all possible now (with provisions and limitations)

      so as the first adventurers start coming over, others will follow in the wake of good reports and good experiences of those who have made the trip and send back news etc

      this is an historic moment

      huge gestures of boldness and pastoral solicitude from our beloved and genius pope

      Do you think the Confiteor will make it into the liturgical rites in the Personal Ordinariates, who are, after all, supposed to be able to retain their Anglican liturgy ?

      All that Mariae semper Virgini doctrine would be pretty scary stuff to heaps of Anglicans.

      i think that is all to be worked through chris

      the TAC bishops and priests all signed the catechism of the catholic church (one can see now how important that magisterial document was from john paul ii, and others) on one of their altars (well…tables ;) ), so that is a confession of catholic faith, which includes a confession of the role of the BVM

      as for other anglican groups, i’m not sure, but the TACs will have no issue i imagine with praying to the BVM

      peace :)

    20. Don the Kiwi October 22, 2009 at 4:20 pm

      All that Mariae semper Vitgine doctrine would be pretty scary stuff to heaps of Anglicans.

      Martin Luther had no problems with the perpetual virginity of Mary, along with the Immaculate Conception. Early Anglicanism follwed much of Luther’s teachings when they made the final break from the Catholic Church. I imagine many Anglicans would not be too concerned about it.

    21. dave morgan October 22, 2009 at 4:24 pm
    22. Leo XIII October 22, 2009 at 4:25 pm

      I have been celebrating non-stop since I heard the news! I have followed this for years indeed I am in touch with people close to Archbishop Hepworth of the Traditional Anglican Communion and priests from the Anglican Use Society in the States. I have also been following what has been going on in Anglicanism for years.

      I thought I would check what was being said on Being Frank about this joyous event. Of course I forgot about Captain Bring Down Sullivan….

      To correct some of Chris’s “misunderstanding’s”:

      The whole provision is for Anglicans both in union with Canterbury, and break awat groups like the TAC who are part of the “Continuing Anglican Movement”. Anglicanism can be defined as a cultural heritage (like the Eastern churches) and a spiritual traditional (like religious orders) both which continue on from the distinctive pre-Reformation English style Catholicism.

      This Anglican Patrimony is what binds the Anglican Church (well ecclesial community) as there is not doctrinal base for Anglicanism. The Anglicans which this will effect are mainly Anglo-Catholics (and some Board church Anglicans.

      So Chris these are Anglicans inside and out side the Anglican Communion and share the distinctive Anglican patrimony. These are not ex-Anglicans, you do not have to be in the Anglican Communion to be “Anglican” (The word Anglican means “English Church” referring to the character of the Church in England).

      Also this provision will profoundly effect Forward in Faith which is very Anglo-Catholic and contrary to what Chris said exists within the Anglican Communion, it is not a splinter group. Indeed Forward in Faith has millions of members and is considered a very wealthy organisation.

      The last thing Chris got wrong was quoting only “hundreds” of Anglicans are interested in converting. The Traditional Anglican Communion alone has 400,000 members, this is not to mention the interest in other Anglican Anglo-Catholic break away groups. It has been report that 50 bishops within the Anglican Communion are interested in coming over with their dioceses. Another figure being reported is somewhere between 1000-2000 Anglican clergy will come over. This is not even going into parishes.

      The provision has the potential to reconcile millions with Holy Mother Church.

      Chris please I ask you to get your facts straight before posting.

    23. Leo XIII October 22, 2009 at 4:44 pm

      To give more information on what the Provision will affect:

      Within the Anglican Communion:

      It will affect “Anglo-Catholics” who profess the Catholic faith even though they are not within the Catholic Church. This might seem weird but there a few rationales for this (I can go into this if people are interested).

      It will also appeal to some other groups within the Anglican Communion. “High Church” Anglicans who are very Catholic in ritual but may not hold to Catholic theology (some times Anglo-Catholic and High Church are used interchangeably, this is not correct). Also “Board Church” Anglicans who are not formed within any particular school of Anglican thought (as the Anglican Church is multiple belief systems within one church structure. They might be drawn to the integrity of the Catholic Church. Indeed a scary amount of Anglicans cannot tell you what the difference is between the Anglican and Catholic church.

      Outside the Continuing Communion:

      The churches formed in the “Continuing Anglican Movement” which the majority can be labelled Anglo-Catholic. The biggest one is the Traditional Anglican Communion whose unification bid made all this possible.

      There might be some other groups some might consider like the “Anglo-Lutheran Catholic Church” (who use the Catholic Anglican Use) and Anglican groups which went over to Eastern Orthodox churches as “Western Rite” parishes. Of course this is unlikely.

      Inside the Catholic Church:

      During the 1980s JP II’s Pastoral Provision for groups within the Anglican Communion within the USA who apply for unity although wanted to keep Anglican Patrimony. The Anglican Use was created along with the Anglican Use parishes which where Anglican parishes which came over. This will be subsumed into the new structure.

      Also the new Anglo-section might have great appeal to pre-existing Catholics, no just those who converted from Anglicanism. I myself love Anglo-Catholicism and wish to join the new structure.

    24. Leo XIII October 22, 2009 at 5:25 pm

      In the press they keep talking about Traditional Anglicans who “this is aimed at”. As I said before the Anglican Church is multiple belief systems in one church structure.

      In Anglicanism Traditionalist basically mean those that can be considered some form of orthodox or conservative. . This is true of Anglo-Catholics, most “High Church” and some “Board Church”. Although this also applies to the majority of the “Low Church” which basically are the Protestant wing of Anglicanism which is a cocktail of many schools of reformed thought (Calvinist, Evangelical, Pentecostal etc).

      Basically the conflict within the Anglican Communion is between the Low Church and the Liberals, groups like Anglo-Catholics are a minority. The bulk of Anglicans are in Africa (especially Nigeria) although the Africans are very Low Church. Anglo-Catholicism is a minority within the Anglican Communion.

      Also do not expect every Anglo-Catholic to come over. Many Anglicans have had generations of anti-Romanism breed into them and do not want to go over to their traditional rival. Anglicans use to pitch “Branch Theory” that there where three wings of the Catholic church: The “Eastern Catholics” (Eastern Orthodox), their branch the “English Catholics” (Anglicans), and the “Roman Catholics”(The Anglican Church is the reason we get called the “ROMAN Catholic Church”, which is incorrect as we are simply the Catholic Church). Basically some Anglo-Catholics believe they can be truly Catholic without being in union with Rome (which is wrong of course).

      As I mentioned in a previous post some Anglo-Catholic’s have left and joined an Eastern Orthodox church as a “Western Rite” parish using one of half a dozen approved “Western Liturgies” with a few eastern changes. These range from an adapted from an Anglican “Book of Common prayer” (like the Catholic “Anglican Use) to even a Traditional/Latin/Extraordinary form of the Roman Rite. In my opinion as more and more like minded Anglicans leave some might leave but go the eastern way.

      There are the “Affirming Catholics” which have been a cancer in the Anglo-Catholic movement hollowing it out from the inside. Basically these are Anglo-Catholics who went Liberal (woman priests, accepting of homosexuality etc). Although they hold to Catholic ritual their theology is corrupted to the point they are really “High Church Liberals”.

      Liberal/Board Church Anglicans (scarily very similar to our own liberals) will not be coming, indeed I believe they will be trying to drive as many “traditionalists” out as possible. Indeed it is they who are responsible for so many Anglicans wanting out. In fact many Liberal Catholics do not like the provision as it boosts the numbers of traditional/orthodox/conservative Catholics against their demonic plans for reform (WHICH ARE EXACTLY THE SAME ONES DESTORYING THE ANGLICAN COMMUNION!!! Learn the lesson people!!!)

    25. muerk October 22, 2009 at 6:16 pm

      In fact many Liberal Catholics do not like the provision as it boosts the numbers of traditional/orthodox/conservative Catholics against their demonic plans for reform (WHICH ARE EXACTLY THE SAME ONES DESTORYING THE ANGLICAN COMMUNION!!! Learn the lesson people!!!)

      I think this is exactly true. When you get people trying to bring in things that have always been regarded as wrong/impossible/sinful it destroys the people of the Church. The Anglican Communion is in a terrible state because of the hard-ball political manoeuvrings of people determined for change at any cost. I think we need to turn to the great thinkers of the Church and their theological writings to ground ourselves against modern heterodox thought. St Augustine, St Thomas Aquinas, St John Chrysostom, St John of the Cross, St Teresa of Avila, St Francis of Assisi, St Bonaventure etc.

    26. Don the Kiwi October 22, 2009 at 7:24 pm

      Liberal Catholics……their demonic plans for reform……..the same ones destroying the Anglican communion

      I agree with muerk, and other who have mentioned this.

      The thing about liberals is that they want to change the Church to their way.

      True catholics want the Church to change them to conform to the Church.

    27. muerk October 22, 2009 at 7:41 pm

      True catholics want the Church to change them to conform to the Church.

      Amen.

      I believe that the most direct route to God is by praying for ourselves to always conform to God’s Holy Will and not our own. And whilst I think it’s important for everyone to have the freedom of their own conscience we must also realise that God reveals Himself through the Church’s teachings – Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium. The Church is not a human institution that can change with the fickle sway of fashion, her truths are based on the eternal Truths of revelation.

      The problem is that the West has become arrogant, supposing that human nature can be progressively discovered as we have discovered material truths such as electricity and the speed of light. It feels as though we have become convinced that people of the past were ignorant of human nature and it’s only now with modern knowledge that we can tackle things justly.

      Personally I think the problem is that we don’t read enough history. You only have to read St Augustine’s Confessions, or Tacitus’ The Annals of Imperial Rome to see how human nature has not changed in thousands of years. Actually I think one of the most wonderful commentaries on human nature is Juvenal’s Satires.

      Just because we have modern technology doesn’t mean that our modern ideas on human behaviour are any more advanced.

    28. Leo XIII October 22, 2009 at 9:06 pm

      Also just FYI in England the numbers of Catholics outnumber Anglicans. The Mass attendance rate of Anglicans in England is only 1.7%. In New Zealand the Anglican rate is 5%.

    29. Andrewesman October 22, 2009 at 9:52 pm

      That’s a good idea, say the Confetior after every Sullivanism. Holiness may then be within reach.

      Thanks Leo for your clarifications. A simpler schema from the Anglican corner. (“High and Crazy, Broad and Hazy, Low and Lazy…”)

      From right to left, traditional to liberal, we have:

      “Continuing” Anglicans:

      They have broken with Canterbury not just over the ordination of women, but also Canterbury’s abandonment of “The Catholic Faith”. The TAC is the largest of these groups, which are mostly Anglican Catholics–that is, they are functionally indistinguishable in doctrine from RC’s. The TAC has already accepted the Catholic Catechism in its entireity. There are no doctrinal issues outstanding, there are only cultural ones, which are solved by the Papal decree Think your Pius X Society. These are most likely to take the offer–TAC will.

      The Anglo-Catholics
      These are Anglican Catholics who functionally agree with Rome on most or all things, but remain in the Anglican Communion. Forward in Faith is their organisation, and they’re Oxford Movement people, not anti-ordination-of-women people (although they are). They look for what Fr. Keble called “the Apostolic Church”. Some, maybe most, of these will come over–I expect the Bishop of Ebbsfleet to lead them.

      The High Anglicans
      These are Anglicans who may look very Catholic in ritual and sensibility, and agree with Rome on some or even the majority of doctrine, but disagree with Rome on one or several dogmatic issues. They may also defend the English Reformation as the restoration or recovery of English Catholicism, or authentically Catholic. They have a high view of authority and Tradition, but may take the view that the Church of Rome has erroneously applied one, and departed from the other. They may also be mildly “evangelical” but in the 17th century sense: that is, a removal of Roman accretions from evangelical faith and catholic order. (I am probably in this camp) You may get some of these, depending how fed up they are, the strength of Anglicanism they have, and the comfortableness of their present situation. May admire the Pope, or may faintly disapprove of Rome as un-English.

      Evangelicals
      Self-explanatory. Bishop Minns, along with ACNA, Fulcrum, CEEC, Latimer Fellowship, Anglican Mainstream et. al. will say “That’s nice, but no thanks” Charismatics (New Wine, etc.) will likely say the same.

      Calvinists

      They’re aggressively Reformed, and Evangelical. Some of them think the Reformation didn’t go far enough. Reform is their organisation, also Church Society and Sydney Anglicans. They’ll say “Hell no” and yes to lay presidency if they can get away with it. May think the Pope is the Antichrist, but regardless, are determined that they won’t have him.

      Broad Church Moderates

      Anything goes if boat is not rocked. They’ll be mildly cross. (Somewhere in the middle of this group, classical Anglicanism has traditionally found its limit)

      Affirming Catholics

      Look Catholic, like lace, smells, bells, candles, and thuribles. They also like gay and women priests, and hollow out the Catholic tradition in favour of Liberalism. The majority of the Auckland diocese is in this camp (no pun intended). So is +Cantuar, although he’s moderate. They tend to think if everyone shuts up, the triumph of Liberal thought is inevitable. Their organisation (suprise) is Affirming Catholicism. Replace Affirming with “Fake” and you have the idea. Like the idea of a Pope, provided he agrees with them and is a Liberal.

      Liberals

      Progressives. Modern Churchpeople’s Union. St. Matthews in the City, John Shelby Spong, Episcopalians. Unitarians in clerical dress. Think the Pope is Satan, for a different reason.

      You can see that on the Anglican spectrum, the Pope’s offer will have large appeal to some, limited appeal to others, and no appeal to quite a few more.

      A man.

    30. bamac October 22, 2009 at 10:39 pm

      Thank you all of you for your explanations … I am not that good with words amd explaining myself but have learnt so much from all of you … my thanks and prayers in return …Chris is is so confused and lacking in understanding it seems to me … arguing with him seems to get nowhere ( dog chasing its tail so often ) We can not get through but God can and I pray that He will.
      A man thank you for explaining Anglicaism so clearly, bless you all

      Shallom

    31. Leo XIII October 23, 2009 at 12:41 am

      I would just like to say why the provision is a great thing that goes beyond the potential millions of converts reconciled with the Rome.

      Anglo-Catholicism is a beautiful thing. The liturgy is amazing. The music is amazing.

      After the Normans conquered England they sort to combine the many liturgical practices in the British Isles (as there were a number of Rites and Uses in the Western Church before the Reformation). The end result was the Sarum Use which has been described as the most beautiful of Western liturgies, so impressive it influenced Rites and Uses from Norway to Portugal. Although it spread beyond it was seen as particularly English.

      During the Reformation when Catholic Masses where suppressed in the British Isles and the Reformers release the “Book of Common Prayer” which was based on Sarum forms of worship. In this way the Sarum spirituality is at the heart of Anglican Patrimony.

      It is this beauty that will be returning to the Church with the converts. I believe this will lead to a renewal within the Church as pre-existing Catholics are touched by this beauty.

      That is not to say we do not have it now. The Anglican Use parishes created by Episcopalians converts in the 1980’s have done nothing but thrive. This is not only from further Episcopalian converts but normal Catholics in great numbers have been attracted to Anglican Use parishes for its beautiful liturgy.

      Oh Traditional Anglican music is amazing, I do hope many an Anglican Choir Master comes over. It’s far superior to the rather pathetic majority of parish music groups within the Church in New Zealand.

      I would say Anglo-Catholic liturgy is far superior to the usual Novus Ordo masses we have in New Zealand. I have it on good authority (from what I can only describe as a really really good source) Pope Benedict will issue a standard liturgy for the new Anglican section of the Church (as various groups have different, but similar, styles) and he wants it “really Sarum”.

      Just to try and make things more clearer the Sarum Use, with a Use being a variation of a Rite, was a Use of the Traditional Latin/Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite. The Anglican Use has been described as the Traditional Mass in English (with of course distinctive Anglican characteristics).

      I agree when people say it is a good thing for the Extraordinary form of the Mass to become more widespread as it will help clear up what is wrong with the practice of the Novus Ordo masses, but I also believe the new Anglican liturgy will do this also (as of course similar in form but in English). Just FYI many of the Traditional Anglican clergy celebrate Holy Mass facing east!

      Of course on another vector most Catholics will tell you if you want to find out something about Catholicism, ask a convert! Of course this should not be taken as a general rule but most converts read up lots in regards to their new faith. Of course many will be Anglo-Catholics and have a good grounding in Catholic teaching/thought but do remember they have not really be apart of the “main stream” of Catholicism so have not had access to certain material we take for granted like the “Catechism of the Catholic Church” for example.

      If you meet a new “Catholic Anglican” befriend them and lend/give them good Catholic material and invite them to good Catholic events like Adoration or youth groups etc. Always make new Catholics feel welcome! (Especially as the liberals might not- sad but true). Adopt a Catholic Anglican!

      So the impact of this goes well beyond numbers. We will be getting a lot of new clergy with awesome liturgy! We will be getting Zeal; these are people who are choosing to be apart of the Catholic Church, who are fired up for their faith and have a far high Sunday attendance rate than your usual Anglican or Catholic parish.

      Now for those wondering what this has to do with us here in New Zealand. We have two parishes of the Traditional Anglican Communion in NZ, one in Auckland and one in Christchurch.

      Also within the Anglican Church of New Zealand there seems to be active persecution of traditional Anglo-Catholics. I will not go into that right now but who knows what Anglicans might come over in New Zealand.

      I would hazard a guess there will be at least 1 Catholic Anglican parish in the major cities0 we already know 2 cities which will have them (as mentioned Auckland and Christchurch with TAC parishes).

      This is Church history in the making! All hail the great Benedict XVI! Long may he reign!

    32. Dei Verbum October 23, 2009 at 6:27 am

      Leo;
      Can you tell us which parishes are TAC….. is this public knowledge?

    33. MrTipsNZ October 23, 2009 at 7:21 am

      Leo and Andrewesman

      I too would like to thank you both. I have learnt more reading this thread than many other articles around the place. Many thanks

    34. Dei Verbum October 23, 2009 at 7:36 am

      leo
      google answered my question

      http://traditionalanglicancommunion.org.nz/auckland%20parish.html

      what is it about elevated landscapes? Closer to God?

    35. Gianna October 23, 2009 at 8:06 am

      Wonderful explainations LEO and AMAN. And I’ve been to a high Anglican service; it is BEAUTIFUL

    36. Andrewesman October 23, 2009 at 9:10 am

      Well said, Leo.

      May I add my appeal to Leo’s–although I am at present unlikely to move, please if you get an Anglican Catholic turn up, DO adopt them. There are so many horror stories of converts feeling unwelcome, reactionary, being greeted with suspicion, etc.

      The Pope has been generous–it would be lovely, Christlike, and gracious for his flock to copy him. (I have a personal interest in this since at least some of my friends are indeed likely to move, and I want them to be looked after).

      With love (albeit schismatic)

      A man.

    37. dave morgan October 23, 2009 at 9:47 am

      Great Minds Think Alike: The Pope of Christian Unity

      *

      Fr. John Zuhlsdorf @ 1:53 pm

      I just had a note from a rather distinguished reader of WDTPRS alerting me to something that appeared in today’s Wall Street Journal.

      BTW… there is a POLL on that page, but you have to search for it.

      He wrote: Next to its article titled “For the Vatican, New Resolve to Expand the Catholic Fold”, the WSJ captioned a picture of Pope Benedict with “The Great Unifier?”

      [comments in square brackets are from fr zulhsdorf]

      For the Vatican, New Resolve to Expand the Catholic Fold

      By STACY MEICHTRY

      ROME —Long regarded as a hard-liner on religious doctrine, Pope Benedict XVI also is emerging as the pontiff of interchurch, or ecumenical, relations. [Sounds right. This is the Pope of Christian Unity.]

      The 82-year-old pope’s decision Tuesday to amend Vatican laws to make it easier for Anglicans to become Roman Catholic represents his most aggressive attempt to bring more Christians into the Catholic fold. [Again, this was an overture also in response to Anglican initiatives.]

      The pope’s outreach to rival churches has spanned the conservative-liberal spectrum. He has bolstered dialogue with Lutherans and other mainline Protestants. [liberals] He met with the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I of Constantinople, regarded by some as the spiritual leader of Eastern Orthodox Churches. And he lifted an excommunication ban on the highly conservative Catholic splinter group Society of St. Pius X. [conservatives]

      Few expected Pope Benedict to reach out to other Christian churches aggressively [there it is again… makes it sound like the Anschluss.] when he was elected in April 2005. Yet the rise of secularism among European Christians and the expansion of Islam on the Continent in recent decades have influenced thinking within Vatican corridors. In addition, this pope considers divisions among rival Christian churches as a threat to Roman Catholicism’s credibility in the market of ideas and faiths, according to Vatican analysts and advisers to the pope.

      “Anyone who thought he wasn’t serious about ecumenical dialogue was seriously mistaken,” said the Rev. Joseph Fessio, one of Pope Benedict’s former students whom he occasionally consults.

      Yet some Christians don’t view Pope Benedict’s latest move as an ecumenical gesture, and they warn that it risks derailing decades of formal dialogue between the Vatican and Anglican leaders. [This is exactly the point I was making HERE.]
      *

      You can read the rest there.

      Remember: Benedict XVI is the Pope of Christian Unity.

      He has the correct ecumenical vision. A true ecumenism does not compromise essentials of our faith and identity even while it challenges us to stretch.

    38. Leo XIII October 23, 2009 at 1:11 pm

      As I want people to be fully informed about the change over I thought I would talk about the married priest issue which Filia Day brought up that the press is focusing on (although I do not want the thread to devolve into a married priest debate).

      The Church recognises that people are called by God for ministry, indeed God is your creator and He knew you before you were born (I am of course talking about vocation here). Some males hear the call to serve the people of God but are outside the Catholic Church and so respond by becoming an Anglican clergyman or Protestant ministers. When these people convert (and this is an unprecedented time in history when ministers of other Christian groups are converting) the Church in her wisdom recognises these people might have a vocation to ministry and so is open to them going through the discernment process for the priesthood.

      Please note the Church recognises the call to ministry in the sense of vocation, not in the sense of a job with this new application having related job history! Of course just like normal application to the priesthood not all who apply are deemed to have a calling.

      Of course some of these Protestant Ministers and Anglican clergy are married as their faith tradition allowed for it. Of note there are a surprising number of celibate Anglican clergy who converted to become priests in the Catholic Church who report they felt called to celibacy to better serve the people of God (a sign of a true vocation to the priesthood). The Church in her mercy would not want to break up these marriages nor deny these men their vocations to avoid issues concerning the Liberal agenda for married priests.

      The church in her mercy is allowing a concession, like with Eastern Churches in union with Rome, not a change or relaxing to requirement for priestly celibacy in the Latin Rite. It is important to note that even Catholic and Orthodox churches that allowed a married priesthood recognise celibacy is best, indeed our bishops have always been celibate and hold the FULLINESS of the priesthood. Also of note some Eastern Churches that allowed for a married priesthood did away with this when they came into union with Rome as they recognised celibacy is best as it is a real sign of holiness.

      It must be recognised married priests have limited themselves in a number of ways beyond the cannot receive the fullness of the priesthood, they have families to attend which requires more resources from the Church, they cannot give as much time as a celibate priest, they cannot just be picked up and moved somewhere else etc. I am not saying the concession is bad, I am just saying married priests are limited in certain ways (its not all the same as the Liberals would claim).

      This brings me onto the matter of the Liberals and the topic. Many Catholic priests over the years have left the priesthood to get married. Indeed there was a case in England were in a parish the priest and left to get married and his replacement was a married and newly ordained former Anglican priest. Some were decrying this as unfair but the matter is simple.

      In the Latin Rite there is a general requirement for priestly celibacy, you know you are signing up for this. The married Anglicans are being granted a concession due to their circumstances this does not change the rule. That simple.

      Also neither Catholic nor Orthodox churches have every allowed marriage after ordination so for those Liberal priests still in the priesthood or that have left to get married if married clergy; if married priests in the Latin Rite became a general rule they still would not be allowed to be a married priest! Also the Liberals show they are unsuitable to get married: they married the Church but are not faithful so why would it be any better with a wife, they give bad teaching to their flock and so why would we let them raise children?

      Basically the new married Anglican priests WANT to be priests, good and faithful and we should celebrate that. Those Catholic priests who left the priesthood stopped wanting to be a priest and made their choice. Indeed it seems seminaries in the past were a lot less discerning and many were ordained without actually having a vocation, they realised this and left and got married, you can respect this. Those who left to get married and then go on about how they cannot be still serve as priests I cannot respect that, they made their choice.

      There has been a lack of liberals ordained to the priesthood (hence the “vocations crisis”) as they would rather get married. There is a concern that they will now try and join the new Anglo-section of the Church so they can be married priests if the Church allows this practice to continue. Of course the new Catholic Anglicans are fleeing Liberalism and can probably spot a liberal a mile off and will have none of it I am hoping. Of course the reports talk about clergy and seminarians being allowed to be married, its to early to tell but this practice might not be allowed to continue, indeed unless you are a married seminarian now in future only single celibate candidates might only be allowed.

      On a more positive note married priests make good what I call “village priests”. Basically they are very good in small communities were they can settle in and receive a lot of close knit community support and there is not as much demands on their time allowing them to have family time (especially when kids are concerns, so many children of Protestant ministers are tear aways as one or both of their parents spent all their time looking after their parish instead of being there for them). Of course in an urban context married priests would make good auxiliary priests for parishes “backing up” celibate clergy and sharing the load as it were.

      I know I have gone on but I recently was talking to an Anglican priest and he told me the situation in the Anglican Church of New Zealand is not good for married clergy. Due to budget cuts their “pay” has been cut. During the mid 1990s if you accounted for all the allowances married Anglican clergy received around $56,000 a year + housing. Now they are being told with the recent cuts some of them will need to get part time jobs. These are men who are in their 50s and 60s, been in ministry since their 20s and have families to support. Of course cutting their pay is also a “disciplinary action”, an example given was if any Anglican clergy was caught even just talking to the clergy of the Traditional Anglican Communion in New Zealand they could have their pay cut, or as he said “it was suicide”.

      Even the Anglicans are having a “vocations crisis”. If you see an Anglican parish and out front the sign says “ministers: the people” that means there is no resident priest, adding more workload onto existing Anglican clergy. Liberals run the Anglican Church of New Zealand and have been bullying any clergy that get in their way. It seems the provision might be an out for many oppressed Anglican clergy in NZ.

      Of course with our own “vocations crisis” we do have a number of empty presbyteries which could house new priests, and their families. It is possible if whole parishes come over we could have some new beautiful traditional churches to replace some of our Vatican II nightmares….

    39. Leo XIII October 23, 2009 at 3:38 pm

      Well as I am taking the opportunity to rant I thought I would mention an exciting possibility from the provision. We might have more Methodists convert.

      This might sound odd as Methodists are definitely Protestants but I believe there is potential.

      In case you do not know Methodism started off as a renewal movement within the Anglican Church although due to a number of conflicts were expelled. As such they share a heritage with Anglicans. The majority of the worlds 75 million Methodists are Wesleyans i.e. disciples of John Wesley (there is a much smaller Calvinist strain of Methodism but in NZ they are Wesleyans).

      John Wesley was an Anglican “priest” who started the movement. He subscribed to a very interesting sub-strand of Calvinist thought called Arminianism which rejected the Calvinist belief of predestination and asserted free will and cooperation with grace for salvation, or “made perfect in love”. Although “Low Church” Protestant in belief Arminians are very “High Church” in worship (i.e. very Catholic in ritual). Many Protestant criticism of Arminianism is that it seems “to Catholic”. Wesleyan Methodist services are similar to Anglican services.

      Also what makes Wesley’s take of Arminianism interesting was that John Wesley studied and was very influenced by Eastern Orthodoxy especially the doctrine of “Theosis”. Of course the Orthodox doctrines that influenced Wesley are of course found in Catholicism (although expressed in a very eastern way).

      Also of interest in 1999 there was the signing of the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification between the Catholic Church and the World Lutheran Federation (which represents 67 million of the worlds 70.2 million Lutherans). The JDDJ basically said although we are not in full agreement with each other on the doctrine we both share so much we both have “the right idea” and we cannot accuse the other of being fundamentally wrong. The JDDJ came about as Justification was the big issue of the Reformation. IN 2006 the World Methodist Council (representing around 70 million Methodists) at a general meeting in Seoul, Korea, “signed up” to the JDDJ proclaiming they shared the doctrines expressed in the declaration.

      So in regards to Methodists if you want to do the whole, “hey do you want to come to Mass with me to see what happens?” (The Catholic version of “hey do you want to come to my Church”), invite them to a Catholic Anglican church (when up and running) and hopefully they will go “this seems very familiar”. If you talk about matters of faith start on the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification (although read up on it first).

      A good combo for an “in” with Methodists (although always remember you bring people to Holy Mother Church out of love, not “to boost the numbers”. Also remember it’s the Holy Spirit that converts them, not you).

    40. lux et veritas October 23, 2009 at 4:43 pm

      Hey Leo and A’man, loving those comments, they are fantastic!

      I have been buzzing all week about this news.

      Pax

    41. Lucia Maria October 23, 2009 at 7:25 pm

      With regards to married Catholic Priests, a Priest who knowledge of the Faith I trust absolutely told me very recently that when the Church ordains a Priest, whether he is married or not, he must take a vow of celibacy. It has always been so, right from the beginning.

    42. Don the Kiwi October 23, 2009 at 8:12 pm

      Lucia Maria.

      Is that a vow of Chastity ( continence) or, as you say , celibacy.?

      Celibacy means not being married. This is a bit dificult for someone who is already married. :-)

      It is my understanding that married priests from an alternative tradition, when they are married, when they are to be ordained in the Latin Rite are expected to take a vow of Continence – i.e, they live as brother and sister – as is the case for married men who wish to be ordained as deacons.
      I stand to be correction here.

      Do we have a priest or bishop in the comboxes?? ;-)

    43. Dei Verbum October 23, 2009 at 9:58 pm

      this was doscussed on another thread

      the priest was likely meaning continence, restraint from sexual relations

      He is right and this should probaly apply to married deacons as well but seems to have been overlooked?

    44. Leo XIII October 24, 2009 at 12:33 am

      Actually you will find the married priests that have come over do not have the rule of continence applied to them, just like eastern priests. Indeed one of the Anglican Use priests I am in touch with just had a brand new baby daughter and I can tell you he has been a priest for longer than 9 months!

      Normally continence is the case for a married priest in the Latin Rite, indeed I know a guy who is married but was in talks to enter the seminary in Auckland. As I said before if you are a Catholic you know and you know the rule (its your choice), but if you are converting exceptions can be made (and that’s fair and just).

      There is quite an issue regarding continence for married deacons in the Latin Rite which is a matter not being handled well. I have been told JP II changed the regulations so deacons had to practice continence. In Hamilton diocese it is made clear to deacons they are to practice continence, but in Auckland diocese the potential deacons in training are told they do not have to practice continence. This is something that needs to be sorted out sooner rather than later.

    45. Chris Sullivan October 24, 2009 at 10:05 am

      Celibate just means unmarried, so married priests cannot take a vow of celibacy as that would be against their marriage vows.

      Leo XIII is correct in that married priests are not required to take any vow of continence and neither are married permanent deacons.

      The situation in Hamilton and Auckland is the same – in neither diocese is continence required of married permanent deacons – which has been confirmed to be by the Deacons who lead the permanent diaconate programmes in these dioceses.

      There is no Vatican regulation issued by John Paul II or anyone else requiring continence of permanent deacons.

      God Bless

    46. Chris Sullivan October 24, 2009 at 10:43 am

      Some great commentary from John Allen

      http://ncronline.org/news/what-vaticans-welcome-anglicans-means

      God Bless

    47. Leo XIII October 24, 2009 at 11:07 am

      Chris remember what I said about checking your facts first?

      There ARE Vatican regulations regarding the matter, one being in Canon Law. Canon 277 section 1 state clerics (that means all levels of Holy Orders including deacons) must practice continence. Continence for deacons is something which is an issue being debated in Canon Law, it is a difficult issue.

      Also Chris I did not say that “married priests are not required to take any vow of continence”. I said if you are a Catholic and of the Latin Rite and are married if you get ordained you have to practice continence as was the case of the guy I knew who was married and applied for the seminary. This was what was explained to him.

      Exceptions for continence for converting Anglican clergy is cover in Canon 277 section 3 “The diocesan bishop has the authority… to pass judgement on the observance of the obligation in PARTICULAR cases.” (So exceptions can be granted for them).

      As I said I did not want my mentioning it to start a debate on the topic, as they are rarely well informed.

    48. Leo XIII October 24, 2009 at 12:51 pm

      I would like to explore Filia’s comment:

      “Perhaps most importantly, it sets a precedent for reunion with Orthodox churches whose Holy Orders the Catholic Church already recognizes as valid. [And the SSPX.]”

      This is true in regards to the SSPX, not so much concerning the Orthodox. We already have Eastern churches in union with Rome so if an Eastern church came into union they would rather become their own Unite church and if it was only a small number of converting Orthodox they might be assigned to an existing Unite church. With the SSPX and the Anglicans it can more be considered a “Latin Rite issue”.

      The SSPX starts the big talks with Rome this Monday 26th Oct 2009, please pray for this as Rome is rumoured to be laying down the law in these talks to try and put and end to the matter, and it seems the SSPX is trying to dictate terms already stating to its people it will not be accepting a number of Church decrees. It could get ugly or it could be a time of great joy.

      The structure proposed by the provision for the Anglicans might be the exact same structure Rome might offer the SSPX and their allies (which is an important point).

      The SSPX order are the leaders but there are 26 other orders of priest, brothers and nuns that come under them (not including 3rd orders). This is not to mention their alliance with the Priestly Society of Saint Josaphat and an order of nuns from the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church (the largest Eastern Catholic Church). The Transalpine Redemptorists use to be apart of this alliance before happily coming back into full union with Rome. So these talks are not just with one rouge order but a collation SSPX heads.

      The SSPX hold this position as Archbishop Lefebvre their founder is regarded as starting “the resistance” (as the SSPX and their allies claim to be “in resistance”), but most importantly the SSPX have the bishops to perform ordinations, confirmations, allow religious to take vows etc.

      The Personal Ordinariates would be a good way of “accommodating” the “special powers” the SSPX have claimed to justify their activities (like setting up anywhere they like) and the mindset they have after operating like that for so long. Another weird example some parts of SSPX have granted marriage annulments by their own authority (and strangely some SSPX sections have refused to recognise annulments granted by the Church).

      If the SSPX talks go well and such a deal is struck (sadly this might be a big if) this would mean the traditional mass could be made available in the areas the SSPX exist (remember there are only around 1 million people in the SSPX coalition in only so many countries). This could bypass liberal bishops resistant to having the extra-ordinary form of the Roman Rite available.

      And this is very important. Opus Dei was given its Personal Prelature status so they could set up anywhere they like (which is places they see a need) as some bishops were resistance to this very orthodox group. Many Anglican parishes in England and Canada applied to become Anglican Use parishes like the ones in the US but were turned down for unsatisfactory reasons, I believe many of these communities did not end up converting.

      So lets hope the talks on Monday go well, but do not be surprised if they do not.

      Keep in mind there is absolutely no barriers to them coming back, if they do not it is they who are at fault. Our great Pope Benedict XVI has sort to make the extraordinary form of the mass available to the masses (excuse the pun). In 1988 a group of SSPX came back into union as The Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter. In 2006 the Brazilian branch of the SSPX decided it was time to end the separation and came into union as the Institute of the Good Shepherd. A number of individual SSPX priests have come back into union.The Transalpines have been able to come back into union.

      There is no reason for the SSPX not to return, and if they chose not to they could rightly be declared in schism.

    49. Leo XIII October 24, 2009 at 1:46 pm

      I will expand more about Personal Ordinariates and its future uses.

      In regards to the Anglicans, although they have a “Worldwide Anglican Communion” they are not exactly worldwide (only the Catholic Church can claim to be the only global faith). Anglicanism for centuries was just “the Church of England” until colonisation and missionary work within the British Empire (although you have cases of it in non-Empire countries like the Anglican Church of Japan). The new Personal Ordinariates will not be effecting the Church in China or most of continental Europe etc Anglicans did not make it everywhere.

      And in a lot of places where there are Anglican churches they are no large like the Anglican province of the Southern Cone in South America (as you can imagine there are not a lot of Anglicans in South America). I mention all this as being in New Zealand where on paper the Anglican Church of New Zealand is the largest Christian group (although they have around 4-5% Sunday attendance rate, we have around 13-14% if you do the numbers more Catholics go to Church on Sundays than Anglicans and we are ranked at number three. As the Catholic Church is the only one growing in the not to distant future we will be the largest Christian group in NZ).

      So the Personal Ordinariates are a big deal but to put it in perspective it will only effect certain countries and some more than others. There will be 2 foreseeable waves of Anglican conversions, the first wave which is the result of the Personal Ordinariates and after things have settled down there will be a second wave when things deterirate more in the Anglican Communion in future years (Andrewsman being one of them).

      The numbers of groups which Personal Ordinariates can be used to bring other Christians home to Rome are actually quite small and I will look at some of this in my next one (as soon as I have finished writing it- I love talking about this stuff!!!).

    50. Leo XIII October 24, 2009 at 3:14 pm

      As I said in my last post the number of future groups Personal Ordinariates could be used for are few and there needs to be good reason for it. Anglicanism broke away from Catholicism and has kept much of the Catholic way of doing things to a degree (except of course Apostolic Succession), have good and distinctive liturgical traditions and of course there being something like 80 million Anglicans (including “Continuing Anglicans”). So there is cause regarding good liturgical tradition and sizeable numbers to make it “a thing”.

      But really what other groups are there? There is what is theoretically possible and what is really possible. As mentioned before Orthodox groups would be dealt with in a different way. So who?

      In Leo XIII’s humble but learned view I would say “High Church” Lutherans and possibly groups from the “Independent Catholic Movement” (groups that try to be Catholic without the Pope, full of errors although Rome does recognise the Apostolic Succession of the big break away groups but not the hoard of smaller freaky ones).

      Although Lutherans are considered to be “the original Protestants” there still is a lot of Catholic teaching and thought there. Just like the Anglicans had the Oxford Movement of the 19th century (an Anglo-catholic/High Church revival movement), Lutherans have had similar such things. (Indeed as a result of such movements both Anglicans and Lutherans created Religious orders based on Catholic saints!).

      Of course like Anglicans we are only really talking about a small group of Lutherans but they are there. In Scandinavia there are the Episcopal Lutherans who have “bishops” (please note the Lutheran ideas about Holy Orders are very different and are in no way valid). There churches (buildings) look more like Catholic churches (indeed more so than the major of churches in NZ). They even pray the Rosary. (Please note most Scandinavian Lutherans are raving liberals so not a “lost tribe” as such). Go down more Germany way and they have a more protestant church structure not bishops, very much shaped by Reformed thought.

      Moving onto the case studies:

      In Germany you have Hochkirchliche Vereinigung (High Church Union of the Augsburg Confession) which sees the need to restore Apostolic Succession and the 7 sacraments to Lutheranism and return to union with Rome. They seek to restore Apostolic Succession through a religious order apart of the Union Hochkirchliche St. Johannes-Bruderschaft (High Church Brotherhood of St John) which attained valid orders.

      Going up to Scandinavia you have the Nordic Catholic Church in Norway. They came into being over a Pro-life issue. Norway might be liberal but it still has the traditional structures in place like a Monarchy and a state church which of course is the Norwegian Lutheran Church. When the government makes a law the head bishop of the state church has to sign it into law (symbolically). The split happened when Norway passed abortion laws and the bishop who is head of the church signed it into law). This lead a very High Church group of Lutherans into exile. They looked at the Catholic Church but in Norway it is mostly full of foreigners. In the end they became associated with the Polish National Catholic Church (which is strangely solely American) which is a break away Catholic groups which Rome recognises the Orders of, and they became the Nordic Catholic Church. Why I bring up this group is because it is very associated with the Anglican group “Forward in Faith” which is mostly Anglo-Catholic.

      Though their connections they will be associated with people coming over to join Personal Ordinariates and could possibly be interested in entering talks with Rome themselves.

      Moving onto America you will find a group called the Anglo-Lutheran Catholic Church ALCC who were of course Lutherans and now claim to be Papists. I should have mentioned this before but amongst Anglo-Catholics there is a small group called Anglo-Papists who see the Pope as the leader of all Christians and seek to bring the Anglican Communion back under Rome (good luck with that). So the ALCC got Apostolic Succession proclaim the Catechism of the Catholic Church, every thing that comes out of Rome needs followed etc. The Anglo bit in the title is they use the Anglican Use for their worship. Two big issues with them. 1. If they are so Papist why have they no sort union with Rome. 2. They do not view Martin Luther as a Protestant reformer but some things got away from and whose associates where really protestant (good luck with that).

      There is also the Lutheran Orthodox Church which views itself as a “Lutheran-Rite Catholic church”. The list of such groups goes on (but not very long).

      So Lutherans might be such a group but is only the really Protestant group that this might be a thing for, and their conversion will require a lot more distance than Anglo-Catholics will have to travel (also in my opinion a new title will need to be found as referencing Martin Luther will not do really).

      As for “Independent Catholics” they usually tend to be more Anti-Papal than the Orthodox so although theoretically its possible it there is no clear contender. Of course the groups I mention above are also classified as “Independent Catholics” but only the High Church Union of the Augsburg Confession is working toward Christian unity and their Lutheran heritage might potentially for Personal Ordinariates.

      Of course the above is theoretical but I hope someone out there is enjoying my rants. The potential for Personal Ordinariates is great although does not do away with the need for slow and painfully ecumenical dialog.

    51. the enthusiastic border-collie October 24, 2009 at 5:33 pm

      Well, Leo XIII that’s a commendable effort above.

      For me it puts a sharp light on our collective unconscious Anglocentrism.

      As an English speaking people in a Commonwealth state positioned at the bottom of the world, England and the UK have a special place in our imaginations. Also, our liturgies are in English and are not dramatically different, our clergy dress the same and our buildings look similar. Indeed, England and Anglicanism are arguably more familiar to Kiwi Catholics than the Catholic but still foreign cultures of Spain, France, Italy, Eastern Europe or Germany.

      This is ultimately why I am receptive to arguments for Anglicanism such as those made by Andrewesman for example, deep down I have a cultural prejudice against the Continentals; I don’t speak their language, I don’t read their papers or watch their news, I don’t know their art, I don’t play their games, I don’t read their books.
      I do, however, know Shakespeare, understand cricket and like Scotch. The easy path.

      Yet, when I am reminded of European state churches and monarchies and am told of Norwegian Lutheran Bishops rubber stamping law, as organs of state, I am unable to see the difference between the state Nordic Bishop and the Archbishop of Canterbury.

    52. Chris Sullivan October 24, 2009 at 5:53 pm

      Canon 277 papa 1 does not require continence of married permanent deacons as it speaks of celibacy, which is the unmarried state.

      The only barrier to the SSPX coming into full communion with the Catholic Church is that they will have to accept what ex-Anglicans and everyone else will have to accept: Catholic doctrine, specifically Vatican II in the SSPX case, and papal authority.

      God Bless

    53. Scary White Conservative with a Banjo October 24, 2009 at 7:30 pm

      This great video explains the new Anglican/Catholic development…

    54. Leo XIII October 24, 2009 at 8:11 pm

      CHRIS, MY GOODNESS MAN CAN YOU READ!!!!

      The first line of Can 277 section 1: Clerics are obliged to observe perfect and perpetual continence for the sake of the Kingdom of heaven, and are therefore bound to celibacy.

      How did you miss the “perfect and perpetual continence” part. The “therefore” part means celibacy is a flow on effect: A therefore B

      As Lucy M brought up before it has been this way since the early Church from example quotes from St Jerome from 405 AD:

      “What do the churches of Egypt and the Orient do? They choose clerics who are virgins or continent; and if they have a wife, they cease to be husbands.”

      “Priests and deacons must be either virgins or widowers before being ordained, or at least observe perpetual continence after their ordination”

      Of course there are the cases of continence being the case for married men looking to receive Holy Orders in present day New Zealand.

      As I said lets leave the topic alone, indeed lets talk about the actual topic (and I believe this was discussed last week).

    55. Leo XIII October 24, 2009 at 8:28 pm

      News Flash!!!!

      A friend of mine contacted me and asked me to plug an ecumenical group of Catholics and Anglicans that are organising a monthly “Evensong” to be held in Catholic churches.

      Evensong is exactly Evening Prayer (as in prayer of the Church- singing the scriptures) although in the distinctive Anglican style with Anglican music etc. I have been told the Auckland Boys choir will be doing the music it should be very beautiful and lets face it we need to do more Prayer of the Church (its liturgical).

      I imagine with Wednesdays announcement the project takes on a new significance, indeed a number of Anglicans might attend just to have see how things are on the other side.

      So if you live in Auckland and would like to be added to the email list the contact email I was given for the project was sarum.nz@gmail.com

    56. Leo XIII October 24, 2009 at 9:45 pm

      I was reading on Fr Z’s blog “What does the Prayer really say?” today and he was talking about ecumenism. Of course the Catholic aim of Ecumenism is to try and get our separated brothers and sisters in Christ to return. Fr Z made statement he sees many Liberals will go on about how the recent Anglican provision is not true ecumenism.

      So I thought I would write a bit about The Anglican Communion and false ecumenism to show why many Anglicans are realising they are in the wrong place.

      The Anglican Communion has signed many agreements stating they are in “full communion” with a number of other Christian groups who are completely at odds with on a number of major doctrinal issues. Of course being in “full communion” means they practice inter-communion despite their Eucharistic theology being very different.

      For example The Anglican Communion is meant to be in full communion with the “Union of Utrecht” of which most of the “Old Catholics” subsist in. Old Catholics broke away from the Catholic Church after the 1st Vatican Council over Papal Infallibility. The Diocese of Utrecht lead the small numbers of dissenters and formed the Union of Utrecht. They called themselves “Old Catholic” to show they followed the traditional or old Catholic faith but ironically and sadly became extremely Liberal.

      The Old Catholics have valid Holy Orders (and therefore a valid Eucharist). So these rouge Catholics are meant to be in full union with the Anglican Protestant Low Church? These Old Catholics who hold “the Old faith” are meant to be in full union with the Anglican Liberals who believe in nothing? These Old Catholics who “ordain” women are meant to be in full union with the traditionalist Anglo-Catholics?

      Yeah Right!

      This brings us to the Porvoo Agreement between only certain European provinces of the Anglican Communion (most importantly the Church of England) and the Scandinavian Episcopal Lutheran churches, which says they are in full communion. More continental Lutherans were not included as they did not have a historical episcopacy. Although the Anglican and Scandinavian Episcopal Lutheran teachings on Holy Orders is completely different (not to mention Eucharistic teaching). And they are meant to be in full communion?

      Apparently, just apparently, the Independent Catholic Church of the Philippines (a break away Catholic group with 3 million members making it the largest “Independent Catholic church”) is considered in union with the entire Anglican Communion as it has a “full communion” agreement with the wacky Episcopalians!

      Our final puzzlement is that the Anglican Communion is in full communion with the Malankara Mar Thoma Syrian Church in India. They, get this, are a Reformed Oriental Orthodox church (thankfully the only one). So one claims to be both “Catholic and Protestant”, the other “Oriental Orthodox and Protestant”. There is a big division between western Christianity and Oriental Orthodoxy but they are in full union?

      THE LIE OF IT ALL!!! This is false ecumenism par excellence.

      Of course this all makes sense when you look at the Frankenstein’s monster the Anglican Communion is. You have Protestant to Catholic and every thing in between camps, and even those camps are deeply divided.

      Is it any wonder with the Anglican Communion bring in many un apostolic and unchristian things that many Anglicans are waking up to they are not in the right place.

      Come on Andrewsman give it up, I will adopt you, I love you buddy

    57. muerk October 24, 2009 at 10:02 pm

      Thanks for all this information Leo XIII. Good job.

    58. Andrewesman October 25, 2009 at 1:52 am

      I thank you, Leo, but even if we were to go through the formality of a proper introduction, I doubt I should convert.I’ll see you at Evensong, though.

      I do, however, know Shakespeare, understand cricket and like Scotch. The easy path.

      It isn’t, actually.

      If I were to convert, I would be conceding the argument made here–that Anglicanism as a Church is simply an expression of Anglocentrism, Shakespeare, and Cricket. It isn’t.

      It is culturally English (although there are Anglicans in South America, and in Japan, and, sed contra in China), but the Anglican Communion is also much more than that–it is a genuinely evangelical, and genuinely Catholic, Church, which I happen to think has the balance about right. Yes, we have some issues with the Church and the State–although Catholic Europe doesn’t seem to be in any better shape. But we’re still here, and still alive.

      Give up?

      No.

      For the honour of God, we dare not, neither of us.

    59. Chris Sullivan October 25, 2009 at 7:28 am

      Leo,

      As celibacy is obviously NOT a flow on effect in the case of married permanent deacons (as their marriage means they are not celibate), then it is clear that the continence does not apply to them.

      If deacons at the time of their ordination declare they must marry, and that they cannot be continent, and if accordingly they marry, they may continue in their ministry, because the bishop gave them permission to marry.

      Council of Ancyra 314AD quoted in New Commentary on the code of Canon Law pg 358 in a footnote to Can 277

      Its fascinating to watch the traditionalists go thru all sorts of contradictions trying to reconcile their insistence on clerical celibacy on the one hand with their desire to support Personal Ordinariates on the other.

      The reality is that celibacy, while valuable on its own merits, simply isn’t necessary for the priesthood, it never has been, and the new rules for Anglicans recognise that (as did the existing rules).

      God bless

    60. Chris Sullivan October 25, 2009 at 7:40 am

      Refering to the Anglican Communion as a Frankenstein’s monster certainly isn’t true ecumenism.

      True ecumenism is recognising the great good of the other’s faith, welcoming and celebrating that, and trying to learn from that.

      True ecumenism is not proselytism (agressively trying to convert others to Catholicism) and neither is it uniatism (setting up particular churches to try to win converts from others – which was condemned by the Catholic Church during the discussions with the Orthodox).

      Andrewsman is quite right – there are not a few excellent things in Anglicanism which the Catholic Church could well take on board and one of the many good things about the Personal Ordinariates is that it will facilitate that.

      God Bless

    61. Dei Verbum October 25, 2009 at 8:27 am

      A’man
      but shakespere was Catholic! (albiet a secret one)
      http://www.cummingsstudyguides.net/xCatholic.html

      Christopher
      leo said “Of course this all makes sense when you look at the Frankenstein’s monster the Anglican Communion is”
      leo is entitled to that analogy given the changes that continued after Henry etc the evolving ‘monster’ is apt, the ‘morph of Churchs’ is not the anglican Church as of old.

      You say #60

      True ecumenism is recognising the great good of the other’s faith, welcoming and celebrating that, and trying to learn from that.

      That is not what the catechism says;
      CCC819 recognises that many elements are found outside the visible Catholic Church,(and we should celebrate that) but Jesus wanted more than spritual unity he wanted a unity that others could see. This requires unity with the visible Catholic Church, and it our duty to foster this as per CCC 821.

      Pray for the Church!

    62. bamac October 25, 2009 at 10:43 am

      Chris,

      You seem very fond of hanging labels on people …. Catholics of the right, those of the left, conservative, mainstream, and now traditionalists …. The modern idea seems to be that if if one can hang a label on another , or group , then one can treat the opinions of that person ,or group , as of inferior or lesser value than their own supposed superior knowledge
      The church is the body of Christ, right? with Christ as its head … now man seems to be trying to return the compliment by trying to make the Body of Christ into the image of man or what man feels that Body should be.
      Tradition has been a valued part of our Church for centuaries ( and still is ) We were taught in our Catholic schools in religion class that there were four marks of the church … that it is one , holy, catholic and apostolic …. so many now seem out to dismember that unity of oneness.

      Shallom

    63. noelekim October 25, 2009 at 10:49 am

      On the topic of reports in the secular press on the new Apostolic Constitution, I do a weekly roundup of local news of Catholic interest and publish it at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/kiwicath/ and http://kiwicathnewsandnotes.blogspot.com

      In this (Sunday) morning’s News & Notes, for instance, there’s a report on New Zealand reactions to the Apostolic Constitution in the Fairfax newspapers, and a press release from the Anglican Archbishops.

      Cheers and God bless,
      Mike Leon

    64. the enthusiastic border-collie October 25, 2009 at 11:30 am

      Like I said, the only reason A’man seems reasonable is because of cultural familiarity. Why Anglicanism? Where is the thread earnestly discussing Scandinavian Lutheranism, their royalty and state arrangements? Is Anglicanism really the special case A’man makes it out to be?

      As Leo XIII has pointed out, for the Anglican position expressed here to be practical it must be more than an exposition of “why I’m not Catholic” addressed to other white Commonwealth English speakers.

      It must simultaneously explain the historic logic and what is so beautiful about alignment with the Reformed Oriental Orthodox of India and Scandinavian Episcopal Lutheran, or not aligned as the local Province may be, as well as all the variations listed above as well as why Catholicism is rejected. A reexamination of why the state-sponsored Scandinavians aren’t legitimate branches of the true universal Church might be handy also. Has anyone come up with a “coppice” theory? i.e. a pruned branch that sprouts anew? Like additional dimensions in string theory it might come in handy.
      What is the overarching logic beyond cultural momentum and pragmatism?

      In a simpler time it was much easier for CS Lewis to reject Catholicism, if he’s a model, but now there are many more plates spinning at the same time.

    65. Andrewesman October 25, 2009 at 3:17 pm

      The Anglican Communion is a vessel for sanctification, not simply an exercise in logic.

      Yes, there is a theological and historical logic past pragmatism and cultural momentum, and it’s found in our doctrinal formularies–we are not simply cultural, but an expression of authentic reformed Catholicism.

      anyone come up with a “coppice” theory? i.e. a pruned branch that sprouts anew?

      Yes, actually. I refer you to Abp Cranmer’s “Of Ceremonies, why some be abolished and some retained” in the prefatory to the Prayer Book, and also his preface to the Great Bible.

      Further, intercommunion does not mean agreement on all doctrine, but mutual recognition–as you are likely to find out if you ever get to that point with the Eastern Orthodox.

    66. Andrewesman October 25, 2009 at 3:21 pm

      There is evidence Shakespeare’s father was Catholic. His own religious opinions are harder to quantify, and he certainly conformed to the Church of England at several points.

    67. Dei Verbum October 25, 2009 at 5:51 pm

      A ‘man;
      I guess the real issue is; would he have joined an ordinariate?

    68. dave morgan October 25, 2009 at 6:09 pm

      bonjourno!! howdy doody cobbers :tongue_laugh_ee:

      first big fish to say he’ll convert !

      Senior Anglican bishop reveals he is ready to convert to Roman Catholicism

      some ‘pearler’ quotes from this guy: :tongue_laugh_ee:

      “Anglicanism has become a joke because it has singularly failed to deal with any of its contentious issues,” said the bishop, who is chairman of Forward in Faith, the Anglo-Catholic network that represents around 1,000 traditionalist priests.”

      *

      “I personally think it has gone past the point of no return. The Anglican experiment is over.”

      *

      “The ship of Anglicanism seems to be going down,” he said. “We should be grateful that a lifeboat has been sent.

      *

      “I shall be seeking to move to Rome. To stay in the Church of England would be suicide.”

      ciao cobbers :)

    69. Don the Kiwi October 25, 2009 at 6:09 pm

      It’s fair to say that in Shakespeare’s time, the Church in England was still very Catholic, apart from it’s denial of Papal Authority. Many people would have been quite confused, and simply gone along with the Church of England because the “propaganda” of the day was, that there was little difference in praxis, although the butchery at Tyburn of Catholic priests and other Catholics was well under way in his time.

      I guess many Catholics hid their adherence to the Catholic faith for fear of death – attended Church of England services because there was nothing else – only hidden masses were said by Catholics.

    70. Andrewesman October 25, 2009 at 8:26 pm

      Those quotes, btw, come from different people.

    71. dave morgan October 25, 2009 at 9:01 pm

      Those quotes, btw, come from different people.

      ok, i should have said, “some pearla quotes from these guys” :grin2_ee:

      okey dokey ?? :)

      peace

    72. Leo XIII October 26, 2009 at 1:55 am

      It’s good to see other people besides me posting!

      I would like to disagree with my dear and personal friend Andrewesman here (as it is easier doing it to his face: although I do that too). This is my take on the Anglican Crisis.

      It was said Anglicanism is “an expression of authentic reformed Catholicism”, which could be legitimately followed up by the liberal statement “what does this mean for you”. Clearly it means different things to different Anglicans. In the Protestant Low Church you have disciples of all stands of Protestant thought, At the High Church end you have Anglo-Catholicism which is divided again.

      The simple truth is Anglicanism is bound by ideology rather than by truth. Truth is regarded as subjective/relative in the Anglican Communion. “What’s true for you might not be true for me” so I choose myself what I think is true be it Low Church Protestantism or Anglo-Catholicism or a mixture. I choose! Me!

      The root word heresy is derived from means “to choose”, indeed heresy is choosing something else than what Christians must believe, choosing something not actually Christian. One of my theology lecturers once said “Catholicism is true Christianity, Reformed thought is Christianity with a denial of Christianity worked into it”. If this so called “reformed Catholicism” was inspired by God it would be uniformed, but the reforms where done by man, indeed they are actually deforming the Christian faith.

      The Christian faith requires humble submission to God’s truths but once you judge one doctrine of the faith you have set yourself up as a higher authority and have really judged the whole faith wrong.

      The Anglican Communion is compromised itself and Christ’s faith as it itself is based on compromise. This Anglican expression sums up their church’s policy on Confession “all can, some should, none must”. Weak! The policy of the Catholic Church “all must!!!” in no uncertain terms.

      The Catholic Church teaches in no uncertain terms as the truth cannot be compromised on. I have the up most respect for Protestants who have tried to convert me as they believe if I retain my Catholicism I will go to Hell; they are acting out of love (sort of). I have little respect on a human level for lukewarm Catholics who will not profess the faith: they are not acting in love, indeed their non-action is unloving. Anglicans, both Catholic and Protestant, sit in services together in the relativist “I’m ok, your ok, where all Anglican”. That’s not ok! If you believe your brother is in error it is most unloving and merciless not to correct them to try and save their soul!

      This is why I pointed out the Anglican Communions ecumenical agreements and pointed out it mirrors their own internal workings. It’s just not they practice inter-communion but they claim to be in communion and that it does not matter if their doctrines match up. Ecumenism is not the “Sisters City” project where your city is linked up to 1 or more cities in other countries with different cultures, languages etc this is not unity!!! We can only have unity by proclaiming the same faith.

      In the Anglican Communion some believe it two Holy Sacraments, some seven, others numbers in between. It is of note the two sacraments all Anglicans can agree upon, marriage and baptism, cannot be agreed upon as the Reformed thought conflicts with its different camps and with Catholic thought.

      From the earliest Church, even amongst those groups that automatically when to the furthest extent of the known world and were cut off only to be rediscovered centuries later expressive the same 7 sacraments. In the face of such historic evidence presented by the Early Church fathers. This so called “Reformed Catholicism” cannot claim to be the work of the Holy Spirit. The majority of all Christians reside within the Catholic Church under Rome. By the time you add the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox to this that’s well over 75% of all Christians. By the time you add the so called “Independent Catholic churches” it is more. All of these share at least 95% of teaching with each other. The Anglican Communion is out of step with the majority of Chrisitians, indeed individual Anglicans are out of step with each other. The Anglican Communion is moved more by human Reformers than the Holy Spirit.

      A quote from the article David referenced:

      “Anglicanism has become a joke because it has singularly failed to deal with any of its contentious issues”

      Liberal reforms is not the crisis in Anglicanism, it was the catalyst. The crisis is really who has the authority? More to the point who has the authority to teach, who should be listened to? All authority comes from God, so who did he give authority too?

      Many Anglicans are realising “Peter you are the Rock, upon you I build my Church and the gates of Hell will not prevail against it” (like the gates of Hell are prevailing against the Anglican Communion).

      Anglicans are waking up to the fact they disagree on major points of doctrine with their fellow Anglicans, and to be in the Anglican Communion is to declare yourself in union with heretics.

      This United Nations/Sister City arrangement is not Christian unity, nor will it result in it. We will only be united in one body with one head, under Christ’s Vicar who has the authority to “bind and loose”.

      The Catholic Church proclaims the truth, the Anglican Communion compromises on it. This is what Anglicans are realising as they meet their new parish lesbian priestess.

    73. Andrewesman October 26, 2009 at 5:59 am

      Joined the dots now, Leo. Took me long enough….

      It will not suprise you that I disgaree.

      Your confusion is a simple one–you have confused matters of dogma with matters of Christian practice which are adiaphora (matters indifferent).

      The Communion has always had diversity of opinion on theological matters which are indifferent to the Christian faith, but never any legitimate diversity of opinion on, say, the Creed. (Yes, I know that just as in your Church, there are people who don’t like it, but they don’t represent the Communion or our teaching).

      The Archbishop of Canterbury puts it this way in “The Challenge and Hope of being an Anglican Today”
      http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/640

      We do have a distinctive historic tradition – a reformed commitment to the absolute priority of the Bible for deciding doctrine, a catholic loyalty to the sacraments and the threefold ministry of bishops, priests and deacons, and a habit of cultural sensitivity and intellectual flexibility that does not seek to close down unexpected questions too quickly. But for this to survive with all its aspects intact, we need closer and more visible formal commitments to each other. And it is not going to look exactly like anything we have known so far. Some may find this unfamiliar future conscientiously unacceptable, and that view deserves respect. But if we are to continue to be any sort of ‘Catholic’ church, if we believe that we are answerable to something more than our immediate environment and its priorities and are held in unity by something more than just the consensus of the moment, we have some very hard work to do to embody this more clearly. The next Lambeth Conference ought to address this matter directly and fully as part of its agenda.

      The different components in our heritage can, up to a point, flourish in isolation from each other. But any one of them pursued on its own would lead in a direction ultimately outside historic Anglicanism The reformed concern may lead towards a looser form of ministerial order and a stronger emphasis on the sole, unmediated authority of the Bible. The catholic concern may lead to a high doctrine of visible and structural unification of the ordained ministry around a focal point. The cultural and intellectual concern may lead to a style of Christian life aimed at giving spiritual depth to the general shape of the culture around and de-emphasising revelation and history. Pursued far enough in isolation, each of these would lead to a different place – to strict evangelical Protestantism, to Roman Catholicism, to religious liberalism. To accept that each of these has a place in the church’s life and that they need each other means that the enthusiasts for each aspect have to be prepared to live with certain tensions or even sacrifices – with a tradition of being positive about a responsible critical approach to Scripture, with the anomalies of a historic ministry not universally recognised in the Catholic world, with limits on the degree of adjustment to the culture and its habits that is thought possible or acceptable.

      Conclusion

      The only reason for being an Anglican is that this balance seems to you to be healthy for the Church Catholic overall, and that it helps people grow in discernment and holiness. Being an Anglican in the way I have sketched involves certain concessions and unclarities but provides at least for ways of sharing responsibility and making decisions that will hold and that will be mutually intelligible.

    74. Andrewesman October 26, 2009 at 6:07 am

      I do want to say something else.

      1. Taking a poll on the movement of the Holy Spirit is uncharacteristically democratic, Leo.

      2. One of the things which really frustrates me about the Roman Church is the obsession with making everything tidy, nailing everything down, defining everything. One of the good things about the catholic tradition in the C of E is that we have large patience with muddle and messiness. As Leo and others have pointed out, this can turn into a negative. But it is also profoundly generous and good.

      You will all be familiar with Cardinal Newman, one of the founders of the Oxford Movement. But the real founder of the Movement was his friend, Father John Keble, whose Assize sermon on National Apostasy brought the Church back to catholic roots. After Newman’s conversion, when the whole Movement was teetering on the bring of collapse, Father Keble was written to by a curate experiencing religious doubts. His biography records “Father Keble moved in with the curate. He said no word of controversy, but lived”

      The priest stayed put.

      As +Cantuar points out above, Anglicanism is a way of sanctification–not the whole Church, or even most of it (to say we claim this puts a Roman frame on Anglicanism, which doesn’t claim to be either the whole Church or the true Church). But we remain humble before revealed mystery, and pray to be better. As we all must.

      3. Yes, I am an observant member of a Church containing heretics. As is Leo.
      Bl. Richard Hooker draws an important distinction between the Mystical Church, which is in heaven and on earth and contains all true Christians, and Christ’s Visible Church, of which “all members are not equally sound or sincere” yet we are all members of Her by baptism. Yes, my Church contains heretics, damnable sinners, of whom I am chief, false doctrines and “gross and grievous abominations”. So does yours.

      So what?

    75. Chris Sullivan October 26, 2009 at 8:11 am

      Well said Andrewsman.

      You make a good point about the tendency to want to nail everything down too quickly.

      God Bless

    76. Dei Verbum October 26, 2009 at 9:10 am

      Leo amd A’man it is all about authority

      Jesus instituted a visible church that he knew would be needed to sort out doctrinal issues and keeping everyone on an even keel. He was after all leaving men in charge and he had already experienced discontent and disagreement amongst the followers. Many had already left because they couldnt accept the teachings even from him directly!(John 6:66)

      The difference between the Catholic Church and Anglicanism is that when Catholics get things askew they are still bound by the Truth and this is recognised eventually. If Luther hadnt been so impatient then reform would have come,(as it did eventually and probably already was) but meanwhile many found life outside the Church comfortable, convenient and even advantagous.

      Anglicanism when confronted by dissent can only look to democracy and as a consequence rather than seek Truth the process makes its own inexorable compromise. Thus we see divorce, remarriage, contraception, woman ordination, homosexuality all gradually become entrenched, and there is no restraint to this.

      The Catholic Church still has its lukewarm adherents and even heretics going their own way but the difference is in the Truth that guides its doctrine and is rooted in the past. In Catholicism you can choose to ignore a belief or believe differently but you cant claim your views are right when they vary from the Church’s stated teaching. We may seek to change the Church, as many try and do,(even on this forum), but we cant change Truth; we can mature in understanding of that truth but it cant contradict itself. Even the Popes and Bishops are bound by this, even if some of our Bishops forget this at times.

      Anglicanism may even have had a greater claim to authentic Christian belief and practice at some time but it has long ago forsaken that position. Those anglicans that still remain faithful will find more comfort in Mother Church where they are still welcome and recognised. This is part of the Church’s permanent renewal stated in CCC 821 and makes this initiative from B16 all the more exciting! The true shepherd is calling for the lost sheep and they hear and recognise his voice!

      Pray for the Church and all our separated brothers and Sisters in Christ!

    77. the enthusiastic border-collie October 26, 2009 at 9:22 am

      “Muddle and messiness” is code for an “English” aesthetic, bookish oxbridge don romanticism. (i.e. would a German or American ever laud muddle and mess??)
      The reality of “messiness” is the division over priestly and Episcopal ordinations, a situation where +Jenny of Dunedin was not in communion with most of the Anglican world.

      Further on “muddle”, reading the perennial columns by Anglican bishops at Easter and Christmas, they often seems to “muddle” the ideas of incarnation and resurrection. Is that supposed to be charming and beautiful?
      It’s a pity even that can’t be reliably “nailed down”.

    78. Andrewesman October 26, 2009 at 10:34 am

      I meant messiness on things indifferent, tension and diversity, not on dogma, but on things like worship style. And not English romanticism, simply life.

      There is much twaddle talked about Anglican diversity. Here, I’ll show you.

      http://subtuum.blogspot.com/2009/10/anglican-worship-show-dont-tell.html

      The services you can see clips of there are very different, but in my view all very valid. I’d be happy attending and receiving the Sacrament at any of the above–and would do so before I sang The Galilee Song at my local Catholic parish. Just sayin’.

    79. Andrewesman October 26, 2009 at 10:35 am

      By the way, if you’re referring to She-who-styled-herself Bishop of Dunedin, it’s Penny, not Jenny.

      I tripped over this this morning, and it may amuse you, as it did me.

      http://anglicanhistory.org/levity/levity2.html

      The Holy Father I extol in fervid perorations,

      The Cardinals in Curia, the Sacred Congregations;

      And, though I’ve not submitted yet, as all my friends expected,

      I should have gone last Tuesday week, had not my wife objected.

    80. Don the Kiwi October 26, 2009 at 11:06 am

      Love the poems, A’man. :lol_wp:

    81. Leo XIII October 26, 2009 at 12:28 pm

      To reply to two comments. Yes Dei V, I do agree the matter is about authority: that’s why I said the matter is one of authority!

      Also Andrewesman my friend I am confused about nothing and I hope it was clear I was not having ago at you personally. When I talked about the vast majority of Christianity I was not talking about democracy as that is not how the Catholic faith works (although of note this is how the Anglican Communion operates). The better accusation (not that I think you are having ago at me) would be to say I was engaging in the fallacy of appealing to numbers.

      What I was pointing out is the vast bulk of Christianity follows what I would term the “Apostolic faith” as in priesthood, seven sacraments etc. I believe the Catholic Church is the one true Church but also recognise the Orthodox, both Eastern and Orthodox, keeping almost all of the Catholic faith, but of course not in full union.

      This contrasts with the rest, less than a quarter of Christianity divided into over 10,000 Protestant denominations which contrast so much it is fair to say they cant agree on the colour of an orange: the Holy Spirit is not the spirit of disunity. The result of this disunity is human reformers who think they know best. Of course this reformers disunity is reflected within the Anglican Communion following the doctrines of men and not of God. What I am getting at is the Anglican Communion is not proclaiming the faith that has been held always and everywhere based on the Faith of the Apostles.

      Andrewesman I full agree there are heretics within the Catholic Church (especially in the Church in NZ, Chris proclaims condemned heresies all the time). But this is where we get back to the God given authority to Peter and his successors, these people can be judged in light of their contrast to the teachings of the Church’s Magestrium and the Deposit of the Faith which included Scripture and the Tradition of the Apostles. If a Catholic is a heretic he is wrong and out of step with the Church.

      If an Anglican is against any teaching of the Apostles or Scripture they are entitled to their opinion according to the rule of the Anglican Communion. To quote from the Episcopalian book “Understanding the Faith of the Church”:

      “… it is neither possible nor perhaps even desirable today to produce a definitive series of books setting forth specific teaching…”.

      This is typical of the Anglican Communion, we cannot teach specifically on anything. To resolve the current crisis the Archbishop of Canterbury put forward the idea of an Anglican covenant to outline specific Church teaching, this was widely rejected within the Communion. This is a far cry from what St Irenaeus wrote in his great work “Against Heresy” around 180 AD when there was a number of movements threatening to turn Christianity into Sullivanism. He wrote you can show someone the authentic faith and defend them again heresy:

      “…by pointing to the tradition, derived from the apostles, of that great and illustrious Church founded and organised at Rome by the two glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, and to the faith declared to mankind and handed down to our time through its bishops in its succession.”

      “All can, some should, none must” is not the teaching nor the faith of the Apostles and the Anglican Communion is dying because of it.

    82. the enthusiastic border-collie October 26, 2009 at 12:35 pm

      +Penny of Dunedin didn’t “style herself a bishop” she WAS an elected Bishop of the Anglican Church in New Zealand for some 14 years!

      What then of +Victoria Matthews in Christchurch?
      Bishop there since last year, is she too just as easily devalued and disregarded?
      Such idiosyncratic idealization must be what’s called “muddling”.

    83. Andrewesman October 26, 2009 at 1:14 pm

      Oh, she was Administrator of the Diocese all right. But election and consecration do not a bishop make–or are we all for WO now? (Must say as a side note that you are wonderful fun to tease)

      Quoting from an Episcopalian book written by God-knows-who as the authoritative teaching of Anglicanism is like me quoting Hans Kung and Marcus Borg as Catholic.

      “All can, some should, none must” is not the teaching nor the faith of the Apostles

      It is, actually. St. Paul formulates it on matters non-essential (like genuflecting, which is what Elizabeth I was talking about), or food, or vestments, and it comes to us via Augustine.

      No one classically Anglican says “None must” about the Creed. Not even the Archbishop, whose book I have in front of me.

    84. Andrewesman October 26, 2009 at 1:33 pm
    85. Leo XIII October 26, 2009 at 1:41 pm

      Actually funnily enough Andrewesman “Understanding the Faith of the Church” was put together by the Episcopalian Church itself (1979 edition) as their sort of catechism (its quite well known series so I assumed wrongly you knew this).

      Also of note the first line in the preface is “This is a book about the church’s creed.” So when they are saying they cannot teach specifically about the faith they are actually talking about the matters of the Creed.

      I think you are right “God knows who put it together” as God knows who put Anglican teaching together. It was not the Apostles competely.

      I am curious Andrewesman, what Bible do you use? Does it have the Book of Wisdom in it?

    86. Leo XIII October 26, 2009 at 1:45 pm

      There is news about the Personal Ordinatiates, it seems the Anglican tradition of allowing a married priesthood to continue. This from a recent interview with the head of the Traditional Anglican Communion:

      “Inquirer: Critics who insist on seeing the Pope as God’s rottweiler will be hard pressed to explain the fact that he is prepared to create a parallel jurisdiction with married Catholic priests. Even more surprisingly, the option won’t just extend to the present crop of married men in Anglican orders, which most observers expected, but to future generations of clergy.

      JH: The Anglican tradition has had married clergy for 500 years. It has a long experience of having a clerical family at the heart of the parish. Apart from Ireland, it was only with the expansion of the British Empire that the situation arose where married Anglican clergy worked in the same place as celibate Catholic clergy. The two traditions will continue to live side by side. Indeed, it would be hard to imagine how an Anglican tradition within Catholicism could sustain itself in the long term without married clergy. Permitting it is not in any way intended as a challenge to the rule of celibacy, but it is allowing the vision of a family at the heart of the parish to flourish at a time when the family is under great stress. On the other hand, Anglican Catholics are going to have to relearn the value of the celibate vocation. The TAC already has a number of celibate bishops and celibate communities of priests and nuns, so perhaps the lesson has begun to be learned.”

      Please note a married priesthood is not new, we have had married priests from the Eastern Catholic Churches for some time (although of course they also have celibate priests as well and recognise celibacy is best). As Archbishop Hepworth acknowledges this is an exception and not “a challenge to the rule of celibacy” and “Anglican Catholics are going to have to relearn the value of the celibate vocation”.

      Also from the interview Hepworth said:

      “We also know that the Orthodox are watching the Anglican process very closely to try to assess the extent to which Rome is serious about tolerating many different traditions of Christianity within the scope of the Catholic Church.”

      This is an exciting time in Christian history, receiving the Anglicans might be key to ending the Great Schism between East and West.

      Just another word on clerical continence. It is the tradition from the earliest Church records that state the teaching from the Apostles was for clerical continence and as such lead on to clerical celibacy. Indeed I believe this is why clerics cannot be married after ordination as due to continence they are not able to consummate the marriage. The earliest records showed that continence was the practice of married clerics, indeed some of the earliest church scandals that some clerics continued to have sexual relations with their wives after ordination.

      The non- continent married priest tradition in the East came about after the matter of these scandals were brought to a Church council and it was stated it was the tradition of the Apostles was continence and it should be practiced by all clerics. But in the East someone circulated a falsified declaration of the council saying that priests and deacons could be married and not practice continence. The practice became so wide spread that Rome, using the power to bind and loose, allowed this practice (just like receiving communion on the hand after Vatican II was a “force concession”). During the various East/West schisms the Eastern Christians got behind the married priesthood as a point of distinction/patriotism against Rome.

      Indeed it seems one of the first things groups do when they break away from the Catholic Church is to allow priest and deacons (and some groups bishops) to marry. Lets be clear the practice originates in schism with Rome, not from the Apostles.

      Continence and Celibacy is recognised as best for a clerics as they can give their life wholly over to their vocation and God. There are a lot of Maori Catholics in Northland as when Bishop Pompellier came he did not bring a family like other missionaries, he had forsaken that so he could serve them and they respected that greatly (plus he had the really cool chief like robes of office which gave him great Mana in the eyes of Maori).

      Continence and Celibacy is the rule for clerics, that exceptions are made for some based on circumstances by the Successor of Peter is within his power. No one has the right to be a cleric in Gods Church, the entry of men into Holy Orders is up to Gods Church. Authority has been exercised justly, those that complaint of injustice of not being allowed to not practice Continence and Celibacy should be reminded they are the ones being unjust: they have not the right.

      Let us not get bogged down in petty jealousy, let us rejoice at the reconciliation with our Brothers and Sisters in Christ and make them feel welcome.

    87. Gianna October 26, 2009 at 1:59 pm

      I love people are “surprised” at Gods “rottweiler” (a term I HATE)

      Shoes NO understanding of the role he has played in the Church or the person is hes.

      Go BXI

    88. Man For Some Seasons October 26, 2009 at 2:02 pm

      Andrewesman:

      Richard Hooker draws an important distinction between the Mystical Church, which is in heaven and on earth and contains all true Christians, and Christ’s Visible Church, of which “all members are not equally sound or sincere” yet we are all members of Her by baptism

      That is probably the most fundamental differences between Catholicism and Protestantism when it comes to the Church. Catholics teach that the true Church and the visible Church are one and the same. That is why in Anglicanism is ok for a number of mutually exclusive views to exist in the same church. Also why Protestants seem always to be splitting – “it doesn’t matter how one treats the Church here on earth, because the real Church is in heaven”.

      I think there once was a time that Catholics could like a lot about the Anglicans – it did seem to allow for difference yet unity at the same time. However, with the liberal positions becoming the norm in England, US, and here in NZ I think those days are coming to an end. Above was quoted Archbishop Williams before the last Lambeth Conference where he talks about the Bible being the sole source of authority. Every single protestant group claims that yet there are so many different views – the issue we seem to come back to again and again is authority. Who gets to decide what the Bible says?

      I agree there are times when some mutually exclusive views can be held by different people within the Church and it probably doesn’t matter that much. However, certain views cannot really co-exist. Women bishops would be a good example – either you have them or you don’t. The two track model that Archbishop Williams was/is suggesting seems ridiculous. Because even if one is in the non-women Bishop track one’s Church still ordains women bishops.

      Unlike some of my Catholic brothers posting here I admire Archbishop Williams, I wouldn’t agree with all his theology but he is definitely a clever and sensitive person that allows for nuance – the qualities that seem to epitomise the Anglicans for a number of years. He has been courageous in trying to keep the Anglicans together, and I do pray for Anglian unity. However, the days of the Anglican broad Church is probably coming to an end. The offer from Pope Benedict probably means that the Anglican Church in England will only have the liberals and evangelicals left. It won’t long before the evangelicals and the liberals split – not sure who will be left holding the Church of England title.

    89. Helens Bay October 26, 2009 at 3:09 pm

      The Vatican’s embrace of Anglican priests and their wives may just signal the end of Roman Catholicism’s clerical celibacy, according to many commentators.

      Andrew Brown of the U.K.-based Guardian newspaper was emphatic: “This establishes a tradition of married Roman Catholic clergy in the West.”

      He wrote: “It is ironic that Anglican efforts to deal honestly with the problem of sexuality should have provided the Catholics with the excuse they needed to strike this decisive blow. God always did move in mysterious ways

    90. Andrewesman October 26, 2009 at 3:58 pm

      “If any man desires the office of a bishop, he must be the husband of but one wife…”

      “Do we not also have the right to take a believing wife along, as have some of the other Apostles, and Cephas?”

      “Now Simon Peter’s mother-in-law was sick, of a fever…”

      Want to take another run at proving clerical marriage wasn’t permitted in the Apostolic Age?

    91. Man For Some Seasons October 26, 2009 at 4:00 pm

      Obviously this story has been getting a bit of attention – even in New Zealand (although just picking up the foreign stories; be good to see what the Anglicans here think of the matter). But as far as I can tell most reporters seem to be in never-never land. The idea this will somehow end clerical celibacy is rather non-sensenical. There have been married priests in the West for quite a while. Both the Anglicans that left when women were ordained and of course Eastern Rite Catholics living in western countries. The details of the Apostolic Constitution have not be released yet but it has already been stated that there will be no married Bishops (the Ordinary may have to be a priest) and it seems rather clear that the married priests and seminarians will be an exception rather than the new rule. It should also be remembered that some of the Anglicans priests are celibate.

      I also see many commentators are also looking at the fact that many of these new Anglicans are conservative and that this will shape the Catholic Church – not necessarily globally but in England at least. But this is a false dichotomy. The Church is not right wing or left wing. There are certain issues in which it may appear more than the other but it’s not conservative or liberal in the political sense of the word. I don’t think reporters get that – to them it always have to be binary; one or the other. It can never be and/both or neither. Finally, reporters also don’t understand the difference between Cultural Catholic and active Catholic. The Pew Research Centre in the US recently issued it’s survey on abortion. It showed that only 26% of Catholics who attend Mass weekly think abortion should be legal, however, 62% of Catholics who attend Mass less than weekly think abortion should be legal. A lot of the commentators who are making grand statements fall into the attend less than weekly category – there is a big difference in their views of the Church and her dogma and of us that are faithful to the Church.

    92. Gianna October 26, 2009 at 4:03 pm

      i don’t think the catholic churches stance on no marriage was born out of this, nor is dogma. it evolved in the church for a variety of reasons, and has some good reasons for it. There are good reasons for married clergy too.

      You know that A’man :)

    93. Leo XIII October 26, 2009 at 4:19 pm

      Firstly Andrewesmen dont go Chris Sullivan on us! Everyone knows St Peter was a married man but that he did not live “as man and wife” after Christ called him (although he still looked after his wife and mother in law etc).Also the whole “must be husband to one wife”. Priests marry the Bride of Christ the Church, you heard of it? They had to choose between their wife or the Church.

      Secondly Helens Bay the only media reporting that rubbish is the secular press who have no understanding about Church matters. Read some good Catholic media (NOT TUI MOTU!!! I can only imagine the trash they will come out with). The secular press are talking all sorts of crap and their are many errors in their articles because religion is not their area of expertise. This is no liberal triumph, indeed it could be a major blow against liberalism within the Catholic Church.

      Thridly here is a good article from Zenit about the experience of an Eastern Catholic Church with married priests:

      Tendency for Priests Is Toward Celibacy, Says Egyptian Bishop
      http://www.zenit.org/article-27318?l=english

    94. Leo XIII October 26, 2009 at 4:22 pm

      Man of All Seasons has brought up something I have been thinking about. I think it is wrong to say who will be left; as we are talking about only a minority of Anglicans who will come over (although to add perspective the number will be more than most Eastern Catholic Churches). The question is more what will the character of the Communion be? Indeed this could be a catalyst for an all out civil war which threatens to destroy the Anglican communion.

      In a Communion/”church” which claims to be both Catholic and Protestant, how will most of the Anglo-Catholics leaving effects its Catholicisity? Will their be a backlash against Anglo-Catholics out of resentment for this blow to Anglicanism or as an attempt to get rid of a rival camp?

      I am predicting things are only going to get harder for Anglo-Catholics in the Anglican Communion as the Protestant and Liberals get stronger. Many will be driven out and as I said before they will not necessarily come to Rome. It will be interesting to see how Anglo-Catholic “Continuing Anglican” churches do out of this, as well as Orthodox churches with Western Rite parishes, Old Catholic churches etc.

      It should be noted that for the estimates for those coming over to Rome the per capita number are clergy seems high. These are of course key voices for Catholic belief that will be now gone and will have to be replaced. But by whom?

      Of course with the decline of this traditionalist group the Liberal Anglicans are well pleased. Do you think the woman priestesses care they are driving people out? No not at all. Of course it is being reported that now the Church of England can allow woman bishops now that the Anglo-Catholics are going (Woman Bishopesses already exist in the communion but now will be seen as a normal thing). To replace the number of clergy leaving it is possible a wave of woman and homosexuals will want to fill those roles to bring about a Liberal Revolution which will not be Christian and will destroy any parts of the Communion they manage to get their hands on and try to crush all opposition. Take for example the mad cow who heads the Episcopalians who is constantly using the Anglican version of excommunication to remove opposition called “deposing” when done to clergy. A couple of weeks ago she “deposed” a retired bishop: how do you depose someone not in a chair of authority?

      Liberalism started the crisis, but remember the Liberal push is only happening in the decadent western world. The bulk of all Anglicans reside in Africa and they are socially conservative and theologically Protestant. Their individual provinces are not divided by the crisis, it’s a conflict with the Western provinces. I can see their being an Anglican civil war between the provinces behind the Church of England (including the inconvenient Episcopalians) and the provinces behind Nigeria (the Nigerians are the largest Anglican province and lead the rest of the African Anglicans).

      Although in the Anglican Communion you are meant to respect the geographic territory of another province the Nigerians have for years now been setting up “missions” in the USA to attract disaffected Episcopalians committing the Anglican sin of stealing from another’s flock. In the USA 4 dioceses and a number of clergy and parishes have “transferred” to the small Anglican provinces in South American collectively referred to as “the Southern Cone”. Again in North America a group of Episcopalians broke away to form their church. This church is not a recognized member of the Anglican communion, but it and the Africans Anglican provinces have declared themselves in communion with each other.

      To my mind one of the great signs of Christian disunity is “overlapping diocese”. For example even in New Zealand you have the Catholic diocese, the over lapping Anglican one not to mention 5 other diocese from different Orthodox churches (unusually labeled “the (blank) Orthodox diocese of Australia and New Zealand”). With is example in mind if there is an Anglican civil war then it is possible several Anglican groups will claim territory worldwide. How soon will we see Nigerian “missions” in England?

    95. Man For Some Seasons October 26, 2009 at 4:56 pm

      Leo XIII: You are right in some regards when it comes to who will be left – although the character of the Anglican Communion will be determined by who remains in the communion. However, at this stage the only group who has voice more than support is the Traditional Anglican Communion who are not in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury anyway. Interesting there is one parish here in NZ and one mission (not really sure what a mission is). The website is here.

      The Anglican Church has a shortage of priests in the West and it will be interesting to see who does fill this void if as many priests leave as indicated. I think seeing more women and homosexual priests will only further divide the Church of England. There is a chance that the Church of England will collapse and the remaining factions fighting over the scraps – after-all there is quite a bit of property involved. Although, it will probably mean the disestablishment of the Church of England and the State taking the property.

    96. Leo XIII October 26, 2009 at 6:07 pm

      Man For All Seasons: Yes I am familar with the TAC presence in NZ, I know the TAC priest in Auckland, he should make a fine addition to the diocese. A mission is like a parish getting established. For a while it just had a deacon but he was recently ordained.

      Also there is a different between the Anglican Communion, also called the “Anglican Church”, and the Church of England. It was the Church of England when it was just a state church but due to its expansion became so big it was divided into provinces. I doubt the Church of England will stop existing although I wonder who does “own” the Church of England? (As in properties). Imagine if the Queen did and she did convert. That would be awesome!!!

    97. Helens Bay October 26, 2009 at 10:12 pm

      Leo
      For your information TUI MOTU is good Catholic media and has the support of the Bishops of New Zealand,just check Catholic communication right here on ABF.
      Your all knowing sanctimonious, long winded, advocacy for Anglican reunification will go down like a lead balloon especially in Ireland where memories of centuries of Catholic persceution and famine endure to this day.

    98. bamac October 26, 2009 at 10:44 pm

      Helens Bay,

      Maybe some of the the bishops , if not all .back Tui Motu but the true catholicity of many articles says otherwise surely a magazine is to be judged by its integrity not by who reads it.
      All my Irish friends here and in laws in Ireland are praying for the success of Pope Benedict’s initiative … doubt that there is as much lead in that balloon as you seem to hope.
      Am sorry that you seem to sound/feel so bitter

      God Bless

    99. bamac October 26, 2009 at 10:49 pm

      Oops ! That should read lack of true catho;icity in the articles….
      sorry

      Shallom

    100. Man For Some Seasons October 26, 2009 at 10:57 pm

      Helens Bay: I’m not sure you are right when it comes to Ireland. There have been some huge advances in Catholic / Church of Ireland relations. My family is Irish and many of those rifts have been healed. And of course in Northern Ireland it’s the Presbyterian Churches (ie Paisley) that have been the most divisive. Although it would be kind of nice to get our Cathedral back rather than having a pro-Cathedral.

      Leo XIII: I know there is a difference between the Church of England and the Anglican Communion. Maybe I wasn’t clear in what I was saying; this will effect the Anglican Communion but even more so the Church of England. I think if the Church of England continues shrinking the way it has in the last few decades and, perhaps given this new thing even more so, eventually the Church of England will be disestablished. Archbishop Williams isn’t against disestablishment saying that it wouldn’t be the end of the world. After all he is Welsh and Church in Wales was disestablished in 1920. It seems ridiculous that the established church less people going to mass or any other service than the Catholics.

      Also I wouldn’t bet on the Queen converting – not if she wants to stay been Queen.

    101. the enthusiastic border-collie October 26, 2009 at 11:00 pm

      Hey #97, not arguing with your point that the Catholic Church has acted like a heel in many instances but you’d have to be an ignorant illiterate rube to swallow all your breathless agitprop…

      …the Catholic Church caused the Irish famine eh! In collaboration with the Illuminati Lizard men no doubt and the Zionists and George W’s gtgtgtgt grandfather. And the designer of Vista.
      If so much self-loathing bubbles within the Church one wonders whether Helen’s TuiMoto reading circle should shift to the local Freemason lodge.

      Currently the Catholic Church is suppressing the water powered car, cold fusion, and it is well know that the Catholic Church released swine flue to increase Church attendance, as they also have major interests in Roche the makers of Tamiflu. You saw it smeared here first!

    102. Helens Bay October 26, 2009 at 11:47 pm

      EBC
      The British Government along with the Anglican Church were responsible for the genocide of TWO MILLION Irish people during the Famine of 1845,the majority of whom were Catholic.
      In Fact the Anglican church declared that the Famine was God`s punishment.
      Try reading Irish history of that time.
      You appear to have a problem with reading though as you think I infered that the Catholic Church was responsible for the genocide of the Famine?
      Bamac
      I don`t feel bitter but just like the Jewish nation we never forget the Irish Holocaust

      MFSS
      I am exactly right about Irish History.
      That is not to say that events today in Ireland haven`t changed for the better of course they have.
      Who knows maybe one day Big Ian will convert to the Papists!

    103. Leo XIII October 27, 2009 at 12:42 am

      Man For All Seasons you are quite right, I just wanted to make sure no one got confused but on reflection it was un-necessary.

      I had to write my last post quickly before I was picked up for dinner so did not get to talk about reasons for the disestablishment of the Church of England. As MFASeasons pointed out CoE could deteriorate to the point even symbolically being the state church is a joke leading to disestablishment.

      With my futurist hat on (and this sort of analysis is what my undergrad degree was in) I would speculate before such a decline could happen naturally schism within the provinces of the Church of England (there are 2) might accelerate this decline. It is possible any potential schism might be between more than two factions, although factions might form alliances.

      That Liberals who are gaining increasing hold of the Church of England structure will no doubt be one side, probably hiding behind a reluctant Archbishop of Canterbury. On the other would be traditionalists of uncertain strength. Defections to other groups would come more from Traditionalists feeling the madness which might weaken their side. Of course they might get reinforcements from other Anglican provinces and Continuing Anglicans rather joining a faction or forming an alliance with it. Whether the Traditionalists could find a single leader to united behind is another question.

      As stated before there are 2 provinces within the Church of England, one in the north and one in the south. The south is ruled by the Archbishop of Canterbury which as spiritual head of the Anglican communion and as such will have to try and balance all groups which will no doubt endear him to Traditionalists. In the North is the second most revered See of York, the Archbishop of which is the is head of the province of York. For historic reasons the Archbishop of York is referred to as the Primate for England. If traditionalist reformers/line in the sanders get a hold of this See it will be North against South and no England if you get my meaning).

      Of course there are the three other major historic Sees which hold great mana (the Bishops of which automatically hold a seat in the House of Lords). These are Durham, London and Winchester and could make creditable centres for traditionalist resistance. Of course a strong faction could just point a rally point in any dioceses they control or set up a new See and market it as the “New Jerusalem”. Of course as Anglican dioceses hold clerics and parishes of different theological camps intertwined, any schism would be an unwinding of these threads with individual threads left laying next to each other across the land.

      As someone said the Anglicans, especially the Church of England could be respected by Catholics but now is a joke This is very sad considering there was the highest hopes for reunification between our church and theirs during the 1960s. Also if the Church of England is disestablished what will happen to the 5 seats the top Anglican bishops have? Churches should not aspirer for earthly political power but the loss of these Christian voices at the highest levels could be a big loss for England.

      The scariest thing of all is Liberals within the Catholic Church will still push for the disastrous reforms which are tearing the once proud Anglican communion apart. They would gladly visit the conflict, division and the woe the Anglicans are experience on our own Church to get their way. They can see the results of what they want and yet still want to go ahead full steam. They have not learned the lesson and cannot claim uninformed innocence. They would destroy so much for the misguided intentions of their few. Liberalism is dangerous, a lesson the NZ Bishops would do well to learn.

    104. Leo XIII October 27, 2009 at 1:20 am

      As I cannot sleep I thought I would do one more post to share an oddity and through it something really beautiful. As you people know I am excited about the Anglican provision and the potential it has. But of course these things are very complex, with lots of details and potential gems.

      The oddity I wish to share is the Anglican Church of Portugal which consists of one diocese and 15 parishes. I have no idea if they are interested in this recent development, but as with all Christians I hope they will return to Rome.

      After Vatican I small groups broke away from the Church to become so-called “Old Catholics”. The small group of Old Catholics in Portugal applied to enter into the Anglican Communion and were recieved in 1884.

      What is most interesting about this group is its liturgy. It has had three main influences two of which is Anglican and what is now called the extraordinary form of the Roman Rite. But this indigenous group wanting to keep a special character was heavily influenced by the Mozarabic Rite of the Catholic Church. Before the Reformation the Mozarabic Rite was the main liturgy of Spain and Portugal and is quite ancient. It is still used today but only in very few places in Spain.

      Giving their reasonably recent Catholic origins and being in a very Catholic nation they might come over and bring at least some more of the beautiful Mozarabic liturgical tradition into the Church.

      So now I wish to share some of this beauty with you. Below are Youtube links to two pieces of Mozarabic chant which I really love, I hope you enjoy them. The Church is full of such beauty that proclaims the glory of God, we are so blessed.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ob_YOmaW8Z8&feature=PlayList&p=EBF85197A14CAC29&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=35

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qAxJbqTCr3M&feature=PlayList&p=EBF85197A14CAC29&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=34

    105. NeoPhoneix October 27, 2009 at 1:52 am

      I’ll add my belated comments as someone who feels at home with the Anglican Communion. There is a couple of things I got while skim reading all your arguments over theology? Whatever it was at any rate.
      Firstly – how on EARTH do you know the will of the Almighty? Do you have a special telephone straight to his throne? Even the pope is human. There is no such telephone in the Vatican. Even he must pray for guidance like we all must do. I respect the pope as a man of God and a brother in the Body of Christ.
      Secondly – I feel called to celibacy so does that mean I’m destined to be a nun since I’m not allowed to be a priest in the Roman Catholic Church? I don’t feel any nun like qualities about me.
      Thirdly – If a man has been ordained in the Anglican Communion and wishes to become Roman Catholic specifically because of political issues shouldn’t be allowed to serve in the Roman Catholic Church. However, if he feels closer to God in a Roman church then that great! I’m happy for you. I feel that this is just “cashing in” on unhappy people just to augment the numbers, after all being Catholic means accepting everything right?

    106. Dei Verbum October 27, 2009 at 7:36 am

      HB
      ‘TUI MOTU is good Catholic media’; isn’t that an oxymoron? :) cant wait to see TM’s take on this issue…..

      Sad to hear such anger in your post, regurgitating the pains of the past?, but perhaps we need to remember many still live with the hurt of historical injustices.

      I am sure if I had said the things you do you would have questioned my Christian response?
      Love your enemy? The prodigal son?

      Neophoneix

      the will of Jesus is expressed in John 17;21-23 how do you read this?

      you could be called to the chaste single life? why should being celibate, mean only priestly vocation?

    107. Chris Sullivan October 27, 2009 at 8:00 am

      NeoPhoneix,

      As a Catholic who also feels quite at home in the Anglican Communion, I think you touch on some good points.

      While it is true that the Pope enjoys the gift of infallibility, which does protect his rare dogmatic ex-Cathedra definitions (we’ve only seen two in the last 150 years), it is also true that some on the Catholic side do have an unfortunate tendency to overinflate the Catholic faith, to attempt to be “more Catholic than the Pope” and to claim more certainty about some Catholic teachings than the Church herself claims.

      Anglicanism is a more humble faith, less inclined towards over certainty and narrowness and I think that’s a very welcome contribution.

      The irony is that ex-Anglicans seeking to join the Catholic Church because they don’t like ordaining women or ordaining homosexuals will be joining a Catholic Church the majority of whose members also support ordaining women, and which will one day also ordain women, and will be joining a Catholic Church which also has very many homosexual priests.

      You are exactly right about the dangers, and intellectual dishonesty, of exAnglicans seeking to become Catholics for political reasons. The decision to become Catholic should always be a decision to embrace the totality of the Catholic faith and the reality is that the ordination or women and homosexuals is by no means central to the Catholic faith.

      One thing the Anglicans do seem to do better is the use of proper English in the liturgy. Catholics have a tendency to want to latinise everything.

      http://ncronline.org/news/faith-parish/slavishly-literal-translation-missal-criticized

      Tui Motu is an excellent Catholic magazine but it needs to be remembered that it is an ecumenical discussion magazine and many articles are not written by Catholics.

      Some interesting comment today from NZ Anglican and Catholic bishops (love the “darth vader” photo!)
      http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10605568

      God Bless

    108. Chris Sullivan October 27, 2009 at 8:47 am

      NT Wright, Anglican Bishop of Durham and David Stancliffe, Anglican Bishop of Salisbury have responded admirably to claim of some that women cannot possibly be fit for ordination :-

      http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/news/2006/20060721kasper.cfm?doc=126

      They conclude

      It may be that the prophetic witness in this matter to which the Church of England is, we believe, called is a greater contribution to the unity of the whole people of God for which our Lord prayed so deeply.

      God Bless

    109. Leo XIII October 27, 2009 at 11:55 am

      Greetings Neo Phoenix

      Regarding your comment about the Papacy I can direct you material about the Catholic teaching on the Papacy. But to give a sort answer here One God set up One Church with One head to teach the One true faith and this Church has One head, which is the Pope. Christ said he would not allow error into his Church and the Holy Spirit would guide it (which included special graces for the Pope). The church refers to other Christian groups as “ecclesial communities” as they are not actual churches (although we recognise the Orthodox as churches). To us there is one authority and although other groups can be moved by the Holy Spirit by the grace all baptised people receive, only the Catholic Churhc is the one true Church (and you not likely to get to support against this on a Catholic forum).

      Regarding your call for celibacy the Catholic Church recognises what is called the vocation to the single life, were ordinary lay people are called by God to be single. This is often so they can devout their time to the community, although not like religious nuns do just being an active member of the community.

      You do bring up a good point those Anglican clergy who just do not like woman priests should not be allowed to be Catholic priests. But these are rally point issues, not the sole cause, and for the vast majority the matter is one of tradition and theology rather than sexism. For example when the Traditional Anglican Communion was trying to unite all Anglo-Catholics in the Continuing Anglican movement they assessed the reason for their breaking away. The TAC avoided groups that the matter it was women being ordained, out of sexism, instead of theological objections.

      We see this in other cases such as the Priestly Society of Pius X whose rally issue is the Latin Mass although the issue goes deeper than that. There is a schism in the Orthodox Church with traditional groups breaking off over a revision to the liturgical calendar. These groups are call “Old Calendarists” but the issue goes deeper than a calendar. They are against ecumenism especially with the Catholic Church and as the calendar revisions brought the Eastern calendar in union with the Roman one they claimed to was a step to unity with the Catholic Church which they wanted none of.

      The issues are deep and many but you continuously cite big differences as rally points.

      Also Chris, claiming you are also a member of the Anglican Communion now? So you are now a Catholic, Anglican, Muslim, Jew etc etc Also Chris most Tui Motu articles are written by Catholics and many attack the Church. My favourite Tui Motu moment was when they said why cannot ex-priests organise “Eucharist Clubs” i.e. celebrate Holy Mass which the author said “what permission is needed for this? None really”. Catholics writers for Tui Motu aren’t really.

      Of course this brings us on the Rev Glen Cardy writes for Tui Motu. He is an Anglican Minister and is Archdeacon for the Anglican Diocese of Auckland (which means hes number 2 in the diocese). The trash he has spouted over the years: he denied the Virgin Birth in the NZ Herald in an article called “Mary was a victim of Rape”, he has denied the resurrection, he is a big advocate for the erroneous “Jesus of History, Christ of Faith” (as in the two are different), he denies Holy Orders in general, he does not think people have to be baptised in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, he supports the feminist construct “Christ Sophia”, he supports homosexuality etc. Many have noticed the “interesting” billboards outside St Matthew in the City which is his parish. My favourite one was the painting of the multiplication of the loafs and fishes. Over a corner of the painting was a magnifying glass which was of course magnifying a small detail in the corner (The slogan at the bottom of the billboard was “look closer”. In the lens you see a truck which the apostles are getting many fish out the back of. On the side of the truck it says “fishy catering”. Of course this is publicly proclaiming a denial of the miracle of the multiplications of the loafs and the fishes.

      So when the second in charge in the biggest Anglican diocese in the country is publicly proclaiming he believes in really nothing of the Christian faith and yet is in no danger of loosing his position is it any wondering some Anglicans want out?

      Please note most of these denials have be published in Tui Motu, a supposedly Catholic publication which is not support by the Diocese of Christchurch which according to Christchurch friends the last 3 bishops have not allowed it to be promoted or sold in parishes.

      What are we to say to Anglicans who flee the Anglican Church for such denials of faith, and pick up a copy of a supposedly Catholic publication to find they are printing them? Its not a good look as it is not a good thing (indeed not a good magazine).

    110. Andrewesman October 27, 2009 at 11:58 am

      The Lord Bishop of Rochester, Michael Nazir-Ali, has appealed to the Forward in Faith Assembly and asked them to stay.

      I expect many will–he is deeply respected.

      Some will go–but some of the wilder fantasies about Methodists and Portugese are–unlikely. You’ll get those prepared to join in the Vatican Rag:
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3f72CTDe4-0&feature=related

      Most of us aren’t, and will remain faithful to the faith of Christ as this Church and Realm have recieved it. Lord have mercy on us.

    111. bamac October 27, 2009 at 12:07 pm

      Chris,

      You talk glibly about vast numbers of mainstream Catholics wanting to see more changes in the Catholic Church and now you are claiming that the majority of members of our church are in favour of ordaining women priests.Really? Where do you draw such fanciful figures from? Tui Motu maybe? The articles I was refering to in Tui Motu are ones written by Catholics , ones written by others of different faiths do not concern me.

      Shallom

    112. Chris Sullivan October 27, 2009 at 12:15 pm

      bamac,

      Opinion polls in the US show 67% of US Catholics support ordaining women. Similar polls in Ireland and Europe show similar Catholic majorities in favour of ordaining women.

      The reality is that 100 years ago noone was ordainign women but today almost everyone is.

      It will only be a matter of time until the Catholic Church, ever reluctant to move with the times, follows suit and starts ordaining women too.

      God Bless

    113. Helens Bay October 27, 2009 at 12:16 pm

      Leo
      “Please note most of these denials have be published in Tui Motu, a supposedly Catholic publication which is not support by the Diocese of Christchurch which according to Christchurch friends the last 3 bishops have not allowed it to be promoted or sold in parishes.”
      Wrong again Leo, Tui Motu is sold and promoted in many Christchurch Parishes alnong with NZ Catholic & Marist Messenger.Your friends are telling “Porkies”,and need to go to Confession!

    114. Chris Sullivan October 27, 2009 at 12:19 pm

      Leo XIII,

      I welcome your frank admission that some of the arguments against ordaining women are pure sexism.

      Many of the theological arguments used in Catholicism to justify the ban on ordaining women are also sexist. For example, St Thomas Aquinas’ appalling view in his Summa that women could not be ordained because they were in submission to men !

      The SCDF documents readily admit that the theological arguments in the so-called “tradition” against ordaining women will not stand because they are misogynist.

      God Bless

    115. Leo XIII October 27, 2009 at 12:22 pm

      You trumipthism is sad Helens Bay. So my friends were mistaken but I know Bishop Jones opinions about Tui Motu and they are not in favour!

    116. Chris Sullivan October 27, 2009 at 12:23 pm

      Helen is right.

      Tui Motu is sold and promoted in many parishes.

      In our parish the parish priest invited a speaker from Tui Motu to address Sunday masses and take subscriptions in the foyer afterwards.

      I think that Tui Motu plays an important role in stimulating discussion and promoting ecumenical understanding.

      It is a great blessing to have a spiritual magazine of the quality of Tui Motu in New Zealand.

      God Bless

    117. Scribe October 27, 2009 at 12:24 pm

      It will only be a matter of time until the Catholic Church, ever reluctant to move with the times, follows suit and starts ordaining women too.

      Chris,

      You are the only person who isn’t tired of your incessant rants about women’s ordination and how the Church will bend on various matters because everyone else has.

      The path back to Anglicanism is wide, Chris.

    118. Scribe October 27, 2009 at 12:32 pm

      I think that Tui Motu plays an important role in stimulating discussion and promoting ecumenical understanding.

      It is a great blessing to have a spiritual magazine of the quality of Tui Motu in New Zealand.

      :gulp_ee: :sick_ee: :shuteye_ee:

    119. MrTipsNZ October 27, 2009 at 12:33 pm

      Some facts:
      1) Leo XIII, your friends are not wrong.
      2) Tui motu is not supported for sale in parishes by the Catholic bishop of Christchurch. I know, he has told me. And this is a pre-existing policy.
      3) It is not sold in many parishes in ChCh, it is only sold in the one Helens Bay attends.
      4) Lies do not help anyone.
      5) Chris Sullivan does not live in ChCh, so he does not know anything on the matter.
      6) Lies do not help anyone.

    120. Helens Bay October 27, 2009 at 12:40 pm

      Leo
      Regarding you attack on Glyn Cardy,on a scale of one to ten how does he compare to the many Bishops who preached love,purity of heart,love thy neighbour and were then exposed as paedophile protectors,or the Bishop from Newffoundland who only weeks ago was apprehended by customs on his return from Asia with his lap top full of child pornography?

    121. Helens Bay October 27, 2009 at 12:46 pm

      Mr Tips
      i do not attend Mass in Christchurch but I know for a fact Tui Motu is sold in many Parishes in Christchurch as well as the majority of Parishes around New Zealand

    122. Don the Kiwi October 27, 2009 at 12:58 pm

      In our parish, I think most of the Tui Motus are returned.

    123. Andrewesman October 27, 2009 at 1:09 pm

      Tui Motu is quite handy for writing homily notes, making into paper planes, using as a fan, or praising the Lord in a charismatic fit.

      It is not, however, edifying reading material.

      One might (and does) say the same about Anglican Taonga.

      As for Archdeacon Cardy, he’s…different.

      Bless him.

    124. Dei Verbum October 27, 2009 at 1:20 pm

      lets do a deal
      we will have the faithful Anglicans and they can have Tui Motu! as a bonus,when the former sees the later they may be more inclined to jump ship to save us from the same malise they are leaving!

    125. Dei Verbum October 27, 2009 at 1:35 pm

      Christopher 107

      The fact that you feel comfortable in anglicanism says more about you than them.
      this is not a question of whether Catholics can be as stupid as anglicans, human nature takes care of that!
      but what those faithful anglicans will recognise is that there is authority to teach in the CC, that is lacking in the Anglican Communion.

      Tui Motu is evidence that even Cathoilcs can be skewed but the difference is that they cant claim to speak for Catholics.

      Thank God the CC is not a democracy. The fact that the many Catholics may support certain novel ides is why we cant ever allow populism to prevail over truth.

      Your arguments support why the CC will endure even against the might of hell and explains why anglicanism is in the poor state it is.

    126. South Sider October 27, 2009 at 2:13 pm

      Chris, Helens Bay (et alia),

      I’ve heard some information about Tui Motu in the past and wondered if you could shed some light on the matter. Is it true that some religious orders fund Tui Motu — the Dominicans, the Josephites among them? I think those orders have representation on the board of Tui Motu, and wondered if that was the return favour for the cash injection.

      If so, is that good use of the religious orders’ money? And, if so, should Catholic orders be funding a publication that publishes things that are often not all that Catholic?

    127. MrTipsNZ October 27, 2009 at 2:24 pm

      Helens Bay
      I also know for a fact that dogs can get fleas.
      The good Bishop of Christchurch (and his IS a good Bishop) does not support fleas nor Tui motu. Nevertheless, dogs still get fleas and Tui motu still gets sold. If Tui motu de-loused itself, then it may be considered differently in the future.

      I did not say you attend Mass in ChCh. I said Tui motu is sold in the parish you attend.

    128. Chris Sullivan October 27, 2009 at 2:25 pm

      South,

      I don’t know about any Dominican or Josephite funding, but I do think that an ecumenical spiritual magazine like Tui Motu is an excellent asset which we are very fortunate to have.

      I personally find Tui Motu very spiritually helpful.

      God Bless

    129. MrTipsNZ October 27, 2009 at 2:26 pm

      South Sider
      Tui motu has on its board Kathleen Rushton RSM, whom is a disciple/former student of Elaine Wainwright RSM. Enough said.

    130. bamac October 27, 2009 at 2:33 pm

      Chris,
      Am sure that many of the people who attend the 5.30 service at St Ben’s would be Tui Motu fans too … if you took a poll at that service there would no doubt be many who would vote along with you for women priests!
      Shallom

    131. Chris Sullivan October 27, 2009 at 2:43 pm

      bamac,

      I’m given to understand that a synod of the Catholic diocese of Auckland a few years back came out in favour of ordaining women.

      The Catholic Church teaches that Mary is the Meditarix of all Graces.

      As all graces flow to us from God via Mary, including the graces conferred in the sacraments, then it follows that women can be priests.

      There is a very ancient Catholic tradition of Mary as Priest.

      One of the positive things we can learn from Anglicanism is the much greater lay input they have in their synodal structure.

      God Bless

    132. Scribe October 27, 2009 at 3:10 pm

      I’m given to understand that a synod of the Catholic diocese of Auckland a few years back came out in favour of ordaining women.

      Chris,

      Thankfully the Church isn’t a democracy; it’s far too important to be a democracy.

      Just another of a growing list of areas in which Chris Sullivan and the Anglican communion are in agreement…

    133. bamac October 27, 2009 at 3:10 pm

      Chris,

      Maybe or maybe not some or other synod came out in favour of woman priests ( where would I find something on this to read?) but that proves nothing …changes nothing .
      Yes , Mary is the Mediatrix of graces but it is the Holy Spirit who confers the great grace of ordination just as it was the Holy Spirit who gave Mary the wonderful grace of being the Mother of God the Son.
      Where have you seen that there was a very ancient tradition that stated or held that Mary was looked upon a priest?

      Personally I am glad that we do not have more lay input in our synodal structures when I see how far off track some of the ideas that are put forward by certain members of the laity … Chris, do you want our church to become a modern democracy that can change with society ideas?

      Shallom

    134. Chris Sullivan October 27, 2009 at 3:10 pm

      bamac,

      I seem to recall that Tui Motu a few years back published an article on the 5:30 Mass at St Bens (that’s a Mass not a service) which went into what was being done and why.

      If you wanted to know more about it then Tui Motu would be a must read !

      God Bless

    135. Chris Sullivan October 27, 2009 at 3:15 pm

      Scribe,

      Your disdain for democracy is not surprising, but scripture is quite clear that it was in fact the pratice of the early Church, which establishes that is clearly is in the Apostolic Tradtion.

      At that time, as the number of disciples continued to grow, the Hellenists complained against the Hebrews because their widows were being neglected in the daily distribution.
      So the Twelve called together the community of the disciples and said, “It is not right for us to neglect the word of God to serve at table.

      Brothers, select from among you seven reputable men, filled with the Spirit and wisdom, whom we shall appoint to this task, whereas we shall devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word.”

      The proposal was acceptable to the whole community, so they chose Stephen, a man filled with faith and the holy Spirit, also Philip, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicholas of Antioch, a convert to Judaism.

      They presented these men to the apostles who prayed and laid hands on them.

      Acts 6

      It’s quite clear that the WHOLE COMMUNITY got to approve the Apsotles proposal and the the WHOLE COMMUNITY selected the 7 deacons.

      God Bless

    136. Dei Verbum October 27, 2009 at 3:16 pm

      Chris
      what are you suggesting?

      That we should imitate the mistakes made in the anglican communion?

      Do you not see that the failure of the anglican communion is that it cant teach the truth of the Gospel but rather the structure modifes truth to its own common denominator
      . What we see now is 500 years of a slippery slope where as in the meantime the CC has been renewed!
      you seem to be fixated on populist concensus as some sort of arbitor of truth when it is likely the exact oposite. If you want democratic religion then go back to the anglican communion but given its present state expect to reap what you sow (and be careful you arent trampled by those seeking to leave)!

      If we learn nothing from this experience at least let us acknlowledge the advantage of a teaching authority steeped in sacred tradition and sacred scropture that underpins the Church, the anglicans (at least now) appreciate the weakness of its absence.

      The Catholic Church is at its strongest ever thanks to JPII and BXVI and the AC at it weakest. The reasons for this are self evident!

    137. muerk October 27, 2009 at 3:21 pm

      Here in Greymouth (which is in the Christchurch diocese) I have not seen Tui Moto for sale. In fact I haven’t ever seen a Tui Moto for sale in my diocese – I used to live in Christchurch. That’s not to say that they weren’t there, I have just never seen them.

      I do however see the Marist Messenger, NZ Catholic and the Catholic Worker paper – The Common Good – all three publications I enjoy reading.

    138. Chris Sullivan October 27, 2009 at 3:22 pm

      Do you not see that the failure of the anglican communion is that it cant teach the truth of the Gospel

      The Anglican communion does teach the truth of the gospel.

      There is nothing in the gospels about any inability to ordain women or homosexuals.

      God Bless

    139. Dei Verbum October 27, 2009 at 3:41 pm

      Christopher 138;
      there is,
      and more importantly in the sense that Jesus gave the apostles the authority and responsibility to teach, they have unerringly adhered to teaching on these topics.

      when in doubt submit to the Church!

      When I say ‘truth’ I mean the whole package not the cafeiteria ‘pick and choose’!

    140. Chris Sullivan October 27, 2009 at 3:49 pm

      Dei,

      Pray show us where the gospels proclaim the inability to ordain women or homosexuals.

      God Bless

    141. bamac October 27, 2009 at 4:08 pm

      Does anyone else feel that we have been down this track of the ordination of women more than once before ? Like some of the feminist writings that I have read, Chris seems determined to try to change the church from the inside…. he seems to think that he sees things more clearly than the magisterium, church teachings , tradition, magisterium , John Paul 11 God Bless you Chris

      Shallom

    142. Dei Verbum October 27, 2009 at 4:21 pm

      only you claim sola scriptura, Show me where it says that Christ intended woman to be ordained and explain why he didnt choose woman as part of the 12, show me how homosexuality is condoned and can possible be considered appropriate for one considered of ‘impeccable character’ as in Tim 3.

      Why are you Catholic when you dont recognise the teaching authority of the Church?

    143. Chris Sullivan October 28, 2009 at 7:25 am

      Dei,

      According to Romans 16 there was a woman apostle, Junia, and there was a woman deacon, Phoebe.

      And Christ did choose a woman, his mother Mary, as Queen of the Church, ranking above the 12 men, as we pray in the 5th glorious mystery.

      Now, if a woman can rank above all other men in the Church, then that’s an awfully big hint about the power woman ought to enjoy in the Church, isn’t it ?

      And it an awfully big contrast with the actual role women are allowed to play at top leadership levels in the Church.

      The Catholic Marian doctrines, so problematic for ecumenical unity, are given to us for a reason. They are supposed to help us become the kind of Church we ought to be.

      Homosexual acts are not condoned but homosexuality per se (a homosexual orientation) is not an impediment to ministry (as is obvious from the ministry of Catholic priests who happen to be homosexual). To consider that it is seems to smack of homophobia.

      On the other hand I don’t agree that it is wise to appoint persons in sexually active relations outside heterosexual marriage to public ministry – I think that is likely to lead to scandal – encouraging others into harmful lifestyles.

      I think that the encouraging of homosexual lifestyles in the Anglican communion and others is very damaging to the people encouraged to pursue that and I think that the clear position of the Catholic Church is very important.

      I am Catholic because I do recognise the teaching authority of the Church and the truth of everything the Church teaches. I only became Catholic after becoming convinced of the truth of what the Church teaches.

      God Bless

    144. Dei Verbum October 28, 2009 at 8:17 am

      Christopher#143;

      Now, if a woman can rank above all other men in the Church, then that’s an awfully big hint about the power woman ought to enjoy in the Church, isn’t it ?

      so how do you recincile 1Tim 12 “I give no permssion for a woman to teach or to have authority over a man. This is in the context of woman in the liturgy and is not sexist (as you would like it to be) but speaks of our sexual complimentarity. Men and woman are equal but different.

      Homosexual acts are not condoned but homosexuality per se (a homosexual orientation) is not an impediment to ministry (as is obvious from the ministry of Catholic priests who happen to be homosexual). To consider that it is seems to smack of homophobia.

      where have you been? It has been made clear!

      http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccatheduc/documents/rc_con_ccatheduc_doc_20051104_istruzione_en.html
      Instruction Concerning the Criteria for the Discernment of Vocations
      with regard to Persons with Homosexual Tendencies
      in view of their Admission to the Seminary and to Holy Orders
      “…… 20.The spiritual director has the obligation to evaluate all the qualities of the candidate’s personality and to make sure that he does not present disturbances of a sexual nature, which are incompatible with the priesthood. If a candidate practises homosexuality or presents deep-seated homosexual tendencies, his spiritual director as well as his confessor have the duty to dissuade him in conscience from proceeding towards ordination.

      I am Catholic because I do recognise the teaching authority of the Church and the truth of everything the Church teaches. I only became Catholic after becoming convinced of the truth of what the Church teaches.

      So you arent yet catholic in the things that you arent convinced of? e.g. womans ordination, homosexuality……
      …………there is a further step you need to take and that is to trust the Church in matters that you may even disagree with her in, instead of cherry picking scripture to massage and mould the Church’s teaching to what you want it to be. That is true obedience and submission to true authority!

      Pray for humility!

    145. Chris Sullivan October 28, 2009 at 8:36 am

      Re 1Tim 12 “I give no permssion for a woman to teach or to have authority over a man.”

      I think the Church has spoken on that by naming a number of women saints as doctors of the Church, the title doctor denoting a teaching authority.

      The Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI has commented that this verse does not mean women are precluded from teaching authority in the Catholic Church.

      In the Instruction Concerning the Criteria for the Discernment of Vocations, the passage clearly states that excluded are only those who “presents deep-seated homosexual tendencies”. That means their tendencies must be deep-seated and they must be publicly observable (“present”). Numerous bishops have stated that this instruction does not mean that all candidates with homosexual tendencies are excluded.

      One needs to read scripture and Vatican instructions with the mind of the Church.

      God Bless

    146. Scribe October 28, 2009 at 8:50 am

      One needs to read scripture and Vatican instructions with the mind of the Church.

      So true, Chris. Now try doing that yourself with Ordinatio Sacerdotalis

    147. Chris Sullivan October 28, 2009 at 9:02 am

      Scribe,

      OK

      I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.

      This defines (non infallibly) that the Church has no authority to ordain women as priests.

      It does not define that the Church will never have the authority to ordain women.

      Those who claim that Ordinatio Sacerdotalis means that that the Church can NEVER ordain women priests are going far beyond what Ordinatio Sacerdotalis actually teaches.

      Read the text. Carefully.

      God Bless

    148. Dei Verbum October 28, 2009 at 10:17 am

      Christopher 145;
      As I said 1 Tim was stating this in the context of ‘assembly and liturgical prayer’

      never say never but this is the Church’s teaching now, so submit to it or leave, (or at least be quiet).
      The church having stated this matter so strongly cannot contradict itself in the future,this is the role of sacred tradition in the Church’s teaching, and from it the correct understanding of objective truth.

      Discussion on this matter is simply a distraction for more important issues and actually precludes mature debate for the time being on this issue as it becomes a focus of petulant disobedience

      That means their tendencies must be deep-seated and they must be publicly observable (”present”).” .

      no it doesnt it means same sex attraction is incompatable with seminary approval for ordination. Your continued corruption of any teaching you dont agee with is tiresome.

      .One needs to read scripture and Vatican instructions with the mind of the Church

      Really?….then you should practice what you preach (and stop confusing the faithful) least you be accused of being a hypocrite.

    149. Chris Sullivan October 28, 2009 at 10:44 am

      Dei,

      I seem to recall that the rector of the seminary in Auckland was quoted in the NZ Catholic as confirming that the instruction did not mean that all same sex attraction is incompatible with seminary approval for ordination.

      God Bless

    150. Dei Verbum October 28, 2009 at 11:02 am

      Christopher149;
      The rector made his comments in advance of the publication of the instruction (and under media pressure) which I assume he regrets.

      I am sure that the clear instruction caused many Bishops and priests to reevaluate their position on SSA, and thank God for that.
      The confusion, misunderstanding and downright misinformation that is stated against such clear instruction does not change the authentic teaching.

      Christopher;
      you know more than most that you can always find someone (even a dodgey Bishop or two) to support any view and that is why hearing you proclaim;
      “One needs to read scripture and Vatican instructions with the mind of the Church”
      is so very reassuring!

    151. Chris Sullivan October 28, 2009 at 11:23 am

      Dei,

      My recollection is that the NZ Catholic article was published AFTER the instruction was released and that the NZ Catholic asked the rector for his comments AFTER the instruction was published. I expect that bishops and seminary rectors may well have received advance copies well before publication as everyone knew the matter was likely to be contentious.

      What motivated the NZ Catholic to report on the topic was the publication of the instruction.

      Many bishops have issued similar statements in line with the rector’s reported comments.

      Your idea that all candidates of any homosexual orientation are excluded gives scandal because it paints the Catholic position as one based on prejudice against homosexuals, thereby encouraging many to reject the Catholic position on human sexuality as one perceived as based on homophobia.

      God Bless

    152. Dei Verbum October 28, 2009 at 11:45 am

      Christopher;
      Your recollection is wrong
      Your ‘many’ Bishops are also objectively wrong (if this is true and BTW ‘fess up with evidence to support these ‘many’ assertions)

      It is not my idea but “the mind of the Church”

      the Truth cannot give scandal unless it is to someone opposed to it (and that must be a good thing?),rather it is you that continually turns Church teaching on its head that is creating scandal.