Father [Jeffrey] Steenson said he expected more former Episcopalians to join after they saw how the new group operated. He said that he personally had always longed for closer ties with the Catholics, a feeling that only intensified as the Episcopal Church broke with tradition on female priests and acceptance of homosexuality, dividing the churches further. But he is also overjoyed to preserve elements of the Anglican liturgy, he said. The expectation is that this parallel structure will continue indefinitely.
When the Vatican authorized creation of these entities in 2009, some Anglican leaders, especially in England, expressed concern that it was trying to take advantage of their turmoil. In England, where a similar grouping was formed last year, about 60 priests and more than 1,000 members have joined so far.
But Cardinal [Donald] Wuerl and Father [Scott] Hurd said that the system was developed in response to a growing demand.
[blockquote]When the Vatican authorized creation of these entities in 2009, some Anglican leaders, especially in England, expressed concern that it was trying to take advantage of their turmoil. [/blockquote]
Then do something about the turmoil.
Problem solved.
The AC did nothing to help the orthodox Anglicans in the US. In fact the ABC pulled the rug out from under them. On the other hand Rome is offering real help and real refuge. The “Anglican leaders” have only themselves to blame.
What horrible comments at the referenced article!
Susan Peterson
The comments were fascinating. Goodness, not many are fans of Rome — not even the Eastern Rite and Orthodox folks who injected some practical realism into the equation.
I’m just wondering how and why this is coming down in DFW. The actions of and litigation surrounding Rudy Kos were very, very painful to the people in and around the Metroplex. And, of course, it darn near bankrupted the Diocese of Dallas. Is Rome so out of touch that they think there’s going to be a huge celebration of Catholicism in DFW and stampede of conservative Protestants to the RCC?
Seriously, those comments there highlight some serious bigotry against the Catholic church. I love all the finger waging about bigotry, double standards, and hatred when the comments themselves are full of bigotry, double standards, and hatred. Anything the liberal NY Times readers hate that badly, I must look into further.
The Ordinariate action is more in Fort Worth, although Dallas has more than doubled it’s Catholic population since the Rudy Kos business.
http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/diocese/ddall.html
Fort Worth has also doubled over the past few years. A lot has come from the Hispanic in-migration, but there are large, suburban parishes growing up as well. The largest parish in FW has an ASA of about 8000, which is what the Episcopal diocese was before the split. It was founded by and continues to be staffed by men where were formerly Episcopalians.
Fort Worth has had two Anglican Use parishes, one now suppressed due to the priest shortage. It already has two nascent Ordinariate groups, one of them actually three small groups attending local parishes but meeting together on Sunday afternoon. Dallas may have one, but I’m not sure. I met an Episcopal priest who’s vestry had extended an invitation, but I don’t know the status.
Comments under newspaper articles about religion are seldom worth reading. Those folks hate Christianity in general and the Catholic Faith in particular. Atheists style themselves “the Brights”, but the things they write are more suggestive of Romper Room.
The comments are indeed the best part of the article. It is important to understand the hatred harbored by the liberal left and the lies they spread. Of course, they bring up the clergy abuse scandal, a horrific thing but probably no larger than in other denominations and very much present in the Episcopal denomination. Protecting of pedophiles? The Episcopalians can look to the head. We have this jewel: “The Roman Catholic Church wants to force other people’s children (teenagers) to have unwanted babies.” Such is the welcome that is offered by the moribund Episcopal denomination..if you pass our liberal litmus test, you can join us hurling invectives at Roman Catholics and “fundamentalists”. It’s great fun!
These are the types that conservatives are fleeing from. Kudos to the diocese of South Carolina for trying to bear witness to these true hateful ideologues. I had to protect my family from them.
I’m happy to agree enthusiastically with robroy (#7), as usual. Yes, many of the comments are truly atrocious and repugnant, and so very revealing of the deep, vicious anti-Catholic prejudice still rampant in American culture. But what also struck me forcibly was the sheer pride and arrogance of many Episcopal commenters, including some TEC clergy. Lots of gleeful stress on the fact that the tiny number of folks entering the Ordinariate so far are dwarfed by the ex-Catholics who’ve “wum the Hudson” (i.e., gone the other way).
The ugly, vehement, vicious prejudice and disdain of orthodoxy that so many commenters feel free to display openly and publicly on the NYT website all too clearly shows the more general bigotry that now exists toward biblical, traditional Christianity in general. It should be a wake-up call for any T19 reader that hasn’t yet grasped how vast and pervasive is the sea change in American culture, away from the old Christendom social world that privileged Christianity and toward a frightening new social order that heaps contempt on biblical Christianity. For any church with a state church heritage like Anglicanism, that cultural revolution, i.e., the transition to a post-Christendom society, poses HUGE challenges that we’ve scarcely begun to face. The implications of that fateful, momentous shift are very far-reaching indeed.
FWIW, I though the actual reporting in this Times piece was pretty good and unusually fair.
Thanks especially to Charles52 (#6), for adding the local data about the growth of Catholicism in the Dallas/Ft. Worth region.
David Handy+
Oops, I mean “swum the Hudson” as opposed to the Tiber.
David Handy+
Everyone seems to recognize the benefit to the Catholic Church when those of strong Christian orthodoxy swim the Tiber. But those swimming away from Rome also benefit the Catholic Church. Yes, I realize some leave the Catholic Church because of the priest scandals of the past few years. But most who officially leave do so because they have decided that the morality of the secular world is their morality of choice including the Gay agenda, abortion-on-demand, radical feminism, and the permanence of marriage as a joke. And people who espouse this anti-Christian agenda leaving the Catholic Church helps make it easier to preserve Christian orthodoxy in the Catholic Church.
I suppose it’s easy to dismiss all of the comments as emanating from the haters in the “loony left” but that’s not the case. Some important and troubling issues were addressed, as well. As some pointed out, it is truly bizarre how the RCC can make allowances when it wants to do so for some people but continue to maintain that the official policies are unaffected and continue to be the truth as Jesus would want it.
The obvious example of this is priestly celibacy. If the RCC wants to maintain it, then it needs to be maintained for EVERYONE. That includes incoming Anglican, Lutheran, renegade Orthodox, and any or all other clergy. No passes. Want to be an RC priest? Great! But you’ll either have to annul your marriage and put aside your family or wait until you’re a widower. Otherwise, welcome to the diaconate or the laity. Harsh, yes, but honest.
#12 — I gather the present exemption will run out in time. One of the people interviewed said that this was so.
My question is: how can those who are married be leaders in an arrangement that will not actually ever allow a similar set of circumstances to obtain over time?
So, e.g.,
Cardinal Wuerl said, “The commitment to celibate clergy in the Latin church is a very deeply rooted, long-lived tradition.†Future seminary applicants who want to enter the ordinariate must commit to celibacy, so married priests will disappear over time, he said.
There is no real explanation in #6. A large RC immigrant population and some tony parishes in the ‘burbs aren’t unique to DFW or Texas cities, in general, so that wouldn’t contribute to a greater-than-anywhere interest in their Anglican hybrid. However, Anglican Use has its flagship parishes in SA and near Austin so you’d think that would be the logical choice.
Or, wait! Are they thinking/hoping +Iker might deliver his flock to the RCC pretty much en masse? There isn’t a lot of turmoil in the Episcopal Diocese of West Texas (San Antonio) they could use to promote the ordinariate so perhaps that’s why they didn’t set up shop via the Anglican Use parishes such as Atonement.
#11: You are confusing doctrine and discipline. Doctrine is unchangeable. Discipline is more malleable. Priestly celibacy is a discipline. An all male priesthood is doctrine. The Roman Catholic Church includes [url=http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/catholic_rites_and_churches.htm]many Rites[/url], several of whom allow married priests. The largest of the Roman Catholic Rites is the Latin Rite whose discipline is normally celibate priests. However, exceptions can be made. Such an exception is being made for the Anglicans. Numerous Eastern Rite Catholics who are in full communion with Rome have married priests. The priests usually designate at the time of their ordination whether they are following the married priest or the celibate priest track. Bishops only come from the celibate priests.
The Catholic Church has always had married priests in the Eastern Catholic Churches. In fact, the Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches all enforce celibacy in the Order of Bishops, as they always have. They also all enforce the rule that an ordained man cannot marry. Of course, monks and religious order members are celibate.
The Latin Rite extended celibacy to the secular priesthood as a discipline. It is not now and never has been a doctrine nothing about marriage, at least any more than St. Paul had to say in First Corinthians. It’s actually a discipline that works rather well for us and I always wonder why non-Catholics feel called upon to pontificate on it. A Baptist friend (who never goes to church) felt it necessary to tell me how wrong it is that Catholic priests don’t marry. I asked her why she would concern herself with that? We aren’t saying that non-Catholic clergy shouldn’t marry.
As to my #6, I wasn’t explaining anyway, only noting some relevant facts to the effect that the Diocese of Dallas is far from dying, and, more important, it’s Fort Worth, not Dallas, where Anglicans have been swimming the Tiber for 20 years now. Why that should be, I have only the vaguest ideas.
And, to pick a nit:
The flagship Anglican Use parishes are in San Antonio, Houston, and Arlington (diocese of Fort Worth). St. Margaret of Scotland in Austin exists on the books, but is dormant, why I don’t know.
Teatime2 writes:
[blockquote] The obvious example of this is priestly celibacy. If the RCC wants to maintain it, then it needs to be maintained for EVERYONE. That includes incoming Anglican, Lutheran, renegade Orthodox, and any or all other clergy. No passes. Want to be an RC priest? Great! But you’ll either have to annul your marriage and put aside your family or wait until you’re a widower. Otherwise, welcome to the diaconate or the laity. Harsh, yes, but honest. [/blockquote]
No. For one thing annulment because you want to be a priest wouldn’t fly. Secondly, Catholics believe that marriage is for life. The celibacy rule was brought in the 13th century(?). It is not an absolute. The allowance for married priests converting is not new, the ordinariate is. The RCC doesn’t blame them for actions before the conversion (is that the right word).
More like the 10th century, robroy, although some local synods imposed celibacy as early as (I think) the 3rd century. I’ve read that in some times and places, when a married man was ordained, he was expected to maintain continence in his marriage.
This can, of course, decay into a gnostic kind of hyper-spirituality, but it can also be a powerful witness to a world that believes sex to as necessary as food.
My question is: how can those who are married be leaders in an arrangement that will not actually ever allow a similar set of circumstances to obtain over time?
Oh, #5, I’m surprised. You really didn’t know that the people who talk such a good game about [i]tolerance[/i] and [i]diversity[/i] and [i]inclusion[/i] are often the most intolerant towards those with whom they disagree? That’s what betrays the small-mindedness of their bumper-sticker wisdom: they can’t reasonably argue their own position, and they can’t appreciate the measure of truth in their opponents’ positions. Little blue signs everywhere saying, The Episcopal Church Welcomes You … fat chance.
But more to the point of the article: I’m also unclear why exactly a married clergy would die out eventually in the Ordinariate. Unless they’re assuming the Episcopal Church will soon die out (et quid rides, amici romani? de te fabula narratur), why wouldn’t there be future married Anglican priests who would see the light in ten, twenty, thirty years’ time? As long as there’s an Episcopal Church and an Ordinariate, there’ll be someone tempted to do this.
Which brings me to my real point. I solemnly propose between our two churches a “prisoner (of conscience) exchange.” We Anglicans will trade to the Roman Catholic Church all of our co-religionists who have so longed to be re-united with the Chair of Peter, together with all their birettas and monstrances and confessionals and spurious ebay-relics and Solemn High Masses of the Immaculate Conception. And for its part, Rome will hand over to us with blessings and best wishes, those millions of disaffected, alienated, tormented Catholics — good Christian folk — who just can’t square their consciences with the innumerable violations of scripture, tradition, and reason, they are daily subject to.
Now that’s a plan for church growth.
Re the Times Article:
The number of Roman Catholics leaving to become Episcopalians is not properly compared with the number of Episcopalians leaving to join the Anglican Ordinariate.
The number of Roman Catholics leaving to become Episcopalians is properly compared with the number of Episcopalians leaving to become Roman Catholics.
Re # 10
As an ex-Roman I would have to take exception to your rather broad brush characterization of those who leave Rome. I am quite Orthodox and know more than a few other ex Catholics who are similarly Orthodox. And I can assure you none of us bolted from Rome to promote the Gay agenda, women’s ordination, abortion on demand or any other such nonsense. Contrary to your apparent views Rome does not have a monopoly on morality.
I and most of my fellow former Catholics- now Orthodox- because we became convinced that the Roman Catholic Church has departed from Orthodoxy and promotes doctrinal novelties that are heretical.
#11 and 12- I was initially euphoric when the Pope introduced this prelature. He was especially generous to the current clergy and leadership of Anglicans coming in. I still feel this will be a great place for Anglo Catholics who feel alienated to join.
However, I was disheartened to learn that the Ordinariate had no plans to allow for the continuance of a married priesthood beyond this first wave. To me that means it’s on a track to become less Anglican over time. I think this is especially true in England where, from an article I read, many of the Anglo Catholic parishes that are considering the Ordinariate are using Novus Ordo. Celebate priests and the Novus Ordo Mass, this is Anglican, how?
That being said, the RCC has every right to enforce whatever rules it sees fit. The “big, unyielding Church” might not be as gracious as one would like to bend its rules, but it also helps create conformity and an enforcement mechanism to keep its members, particularly clergy to follow its official Dogma.
#24 — I was not speaking of the ‘right’ of the RCC to hold this or that teaching. I was wondering about the general morality/pastoral implications of placing in leadership a married priest when that state of affairs will not allowed long term, viz.,encouraging people to enter an arrangement that obtains presently for the leader but will not obtain for them.
#25 – The Pastoral Provision is exactly that; a Provision, yes, but for Pastoral reasons. It is reserved for married men whose Protestant upbringing placed them in a state of ignorance, and/or who are bringing a formerly Protestant congregation with them into the Church. Thus, a man raised in ignorance of the discipline of clerical celibacy is not punished by rejecting his genuine call to the Catholic priesthood, nor is a congregation deprived of its beloved Pastor as they come into the Church together.
The oldest Anglican Use congregations are already producing vocations to the Catholic priesthood, and it is self-evident to these men that the exceptions made for their own Pastors do not obtain in their own cases; they cheerfully answer the call to their vocations as celibates. Like any Catholic priest should, they view celibacy not as a burden they must unfairly bear in contrast to their married Pastors, but as the gift it is, to them and to the Church. They know that the married priesthood and celibate priesthood are not gift and burden, respectively; they are both gifts.
#26 I am trying to be as charitable in my phrasing as is possible. I also value the friendship and time I have spent with Fr Steenson.
I believe I would have difficulty as an anglican Priest accepting a role as a married man to serve as the Ordinary, and in turn encourage men to enter the priesthood under conditions that do not obtain for me. But perhaps this does not matter in the end as clerical celibacy will be the final word in the Roman Church. It just seems odd not to have a celibate Ordinary since this appears so crucial, witness the comments of #26 (‘a state of ignorance’ — was this really so for Fr Steenson? has he acknowledged this? has his family?).
Dr. Seitz, I didn’t take your comments to mean the RCC didn’t have the right to decide rules for its priests, I was just putting in a caveat since as a Protestant I don’t presume to tell the RCC how to run their Church.
I believe whether the “one generation only married priest” presents a moral dilemma is dependent on each priest who confronts it. If they believe the RCC is in error in requiring celebate priests as a rule, they should not convert or be a part of the Ordinariate. The RCC expects submission to the Magisterium, not conscientious objectors, and priests whether in the Ordinariate or not who do not hold to Catholic teaching can undermine the Catholic faith and probably should question whether they should become or remain Catholic.
I don’t see a moral dilemma for priests who don’t have a problem with the celebate priesthood but are married themselves as long as they believe the Church has both the 1) right to require celebacy, and 2) that a celebate priesthood is a gift to the Church and her members (which is basically just the RCC teachings on priesthood.)
I do think one can raise an issue of just how “Anglican” the Ordinariate will be in the future a generation or two down the line. Will they use Cranmerian language for the liturgy adapted for RCC use? Will they use the same Coverdale liturgy (his reader’s translation of the Old Sarum Rite) that Anglican Use parishes now use? Or will they eventually just use Novus Ordo like most Catholic parishes. I’m not knocking Novus Ordo, just pointing out that it’s not Anglican, it’s Roman Catholic.
I do think as some of these details have become known that it’s less likely there will be the huge influx of disaffected Anglicans many of us predicted. That being said, I wish them well, sad though I am, that Anglicanism did not do enough to keep them part of us.
[blockquote] “So far, more than 100 priests and groups of members totaling more than 1,320, including six congregations of 70 or more, have asked to join the ordinariate, said Father Scott Hurd, a Catholic priest in Washington, D.C., and a former Episcopalian who helped design the new system.” [/blockquote]
I suspect that Katherine Jefferts Schori, leader of the Episcopal Church, is not exactly quaking in her boots just yet.
The number of Anglican Use parishes in the Roman Catholic Church as a result of the 1980 Pastoral Provision is less than 10, after 30 years. It may be that the Ordinariate in North America will be significantly more successful than the Pastoral Provision, but at the moment there is no sign of it.
Another reason why Ms Schori won’t care is that most of the new membership of the Ordinariate appear to be coming from groups that have already left TEC. She has been losing far greater numbers to other protestant churches for years, so losing a few hundreds to the RCC is unlikely to worry her.
Although the idea of celibate priests is put forth as the future Ordinariate model I can’t help but feel that there will be a long exodus of married Episcopal priests filling the ranks for many years to come. And I do think TEC has cause to worry as the church is daily being bled of committed Christians while it has all these expensive and aging properties to keep up and heat. Of course it seems that anyone who has been baptized and confirmed in the Roman Catholic church can’t decide to become an Anglican priest and marry and then seek entrance to the Ordinariate as a priest because the previous R.C. membership precludes that.
#30 — ‘filling the ranks for many years to come’ — just for the record:
Cardinal Wuerl said, “The commitment to celibate clergy in the Latin church is a very deeply rooted, long-lived tradition.†Future seminary applicants who want to enter the ordinariate must commit to celibacy, so married priests will disappear over time, he said.
Dr. Seitz,
I also mean nothing ill (uncharitable) by this, but I truly don’t understand your concern over whether the Ordinariate does or does not have married priests 50 years from now. Speaking of the general morality/pastoral implications seems odd to me: how can it be a moral matter? Do you believe a married clergy essential to the Anglican ethos? Do you believe the married state essential to the priesthood? If the latter, then your monks could not be ordained, eh? Except by the very sort of exception being made for Anglicans turned Catholic.
Married priests or not, it is quite possible that over time, Ordinariate parishes will blend into the Latin Rite more and more, but maybe not, since the structure does not relate directly to the Latin Rite diocesan system; there are signs of hope that the Latin Rite is slowly changing, and may pick up more characteristics of the Anglican ethos.
And MichaelA is correct: the Ordinate is not going to drain large numbers from TEC or anyone. It will likely consist of the Anglican Use parishes (3 relatively large, 3 more smaller ones, and several tiny groups), a few TEC small TEC parishes (2 so far), two groups in Fort Worth, and probably a few more). I doubt that the whole affair will ever have more ASA than a mid-sized Catholic parish (my parish ASA is 2000) or a large Baptist congregation. But like the Episcopal Church, which always had a place in American society larger than it’s numbers, the Ordinariate will have a disproportionate influence in the Catholic Church. At least I hope so.
Dr. Seitz and others,
On the odd paradox of Rome allowing married priests in the Ordinariate only as a temporary measure, I would note that this seeming inconsistency isn’t unprecedented. Most notably, although it’s true that the Eastern Rite churches in communion with Rome do allow for married clergy IN THEIR HOME TERRITORIES (Ukraine, Lebanon, or wherever), Eastern Rite Catholic churches IN AMERICA are normally restricted to celibate clergy. That has been the norm in practice for generations, as glaringly inconsistent as it is.
And yes, I think that flagrantly inconsistent Roman policy has everything to do with the attempt to manage (control) public perceptions about the acceptability of married priests in general. It’s plainly a containment, or quarrantine policy.
Robroy,
My friend, the virtually universal requirement of clerical celibacy was imposed by the great reforming pope Gregory VII (Hildebrand), who was pope from AD 1073-1085 (hence the correct answer is that compulsory celibacy began in the Latin Church in the late 11th century). The imposition of mandatory celibacy was largely motivated by the need to purify the church from corruption caused by widespread nepotism and simony. It was also related to the so-called “investitute Controversy” that involved the fierce power struggle between the pope and the Holy Roman Emperor (Henry IV). Gregory VII’s new policy as a way of helping to firm up papal control (as opposed to secular, imperial control) over the appointment of senior clergy. Emperors and monarchs tended to want to appoint political cronies or wealthy, married men to rich benefices, and the papal reform helped put an end to that gross abuse. At least, church positions could then no longer be passed down to priest’s children.
Lest I be misunderstood, let me go on record as lamenting the Roman policy of not usually allowing Eastern Catholic rite churches in North America to enjoy the freedom to have married priests that is standard in their homelands. Recently, the new Melkite archbishop in America caused a little tempest of controversy by openly and officially requesting permission from the Vatican for Melkite congregations here in America to have that same freedom, in order to compensate for the growing shortage of Melkite priests. Personally, I think it’s foolish of Rome to try to maintain such an obsolete and futile policy, but I’m not an RC.
David Handy+
Dear #32
#31 was an effort to clarify what has been said, not an evaluation.
If you will read what I have written, you will see that my concern has to do with the RCC using a married priest as Ordinary — it had nothing to do with clerical celibacy qua clerical celibacy. You spoke of ‘ignorance’ and the implication of that would appear to be, Fr Steenson did not know what he was doing and will have acknowledged that! That is of course your language and not that of the RCC but it could be inferred by some.
It was not my language.
As for your other points, I have said nothing about them. If asked, I would tend to agree that the ordinariate is only vaguely anglican and one ought not join it on those grounds.
My response in #27 was specifically to,
“married men whose Protestant upbringing placed them in a state of ignorance”
I see it was made by another commentator, not #32. Apologies for the confusion.
RE: “To me that means it’s on a track to become less Anglican over time.”
Good grief — the Ordinariate is not “on a track to become less Anglican” — it [i]isn’t Anglican at all.[/i]
You can’t be an Anglican and also Roman Catholic. The Ordinariate is Roman Catholic, with perhaps a bit more tasteful liturgy [yeh, I know — in the eyes of certain Anglicans]. ; > )
I’m happy for Bishop Steenson. I like him, although of course I think the RC church’s delusions about itself are quite damaging and dysfunctional.
At any rate, at least Bishop Steenson was one of the [apparently] few TEC bishops who seems to have converted with some degree of actual knowledge about RC doctrine and practice, rather than “fond illusion” resulting in a scuttling back to Anglicanism that seems to be so depressingly common amongst our bishops. [Depressing only because it demonstrates astounding theological and practical ignorance of *conservative* bishops, but there we are . . . ]
Dr. Seitz,
Thank you for your reply. You are correct: I did not and would not use the term “ignorance” wrt to an man like Fr. Steenson. His erudition and fundamental decency seem to be one of those things upon which we can all agree.
Perhaps someone can clarify this for me: If an Episcopal priest wants to participate in this RCC program, wouldn’t he have to essentially declare that all his past pastoral actions (marriages, baptisms, absolution, etc.) were void? And what does he do with such doctrine as immaculate conception of Mary?
No action sincerely offered in the Name of Christ is “void”.
If one does not accept the Immaculate Conception, indeed does not accept that ”all that the Catholic Church teaches is revealed by God”, then one doesn’t join the Catholic Church.
At least one doesn’t join with integrity.
Re #38
Shumanbean
[blockquote] If an Episcopal priest wants to participate in this RCC program, wouldn’t he have to essentially declare that all his past pastoral actions (marriages, baptisms, absolution, etc.) were void?[/blockquote]
This will vary depending on exactly which pastoral actions we are talking about. Rome generally recognizes Protestant baptisms (with a few exceptions not applicable here) and marriages. Most Episcopalians aren’t all that big on sacramental confession, but those would not be recognized as such by Rome. The dividing line will basically be on the line of what sacraments Rome believes anyone can perform and which require a validly ordained priest. Rome doesn’t recognize Anglican Holy Orders, so those that fall into the ‘priest only’ category would not be recognized, at least as being the same as what a Catholic priest does.
[blockquote] And what does he do with such doctrine as immaculate conception of Mary? [/blockquote]
As Charles52 noted, you accept Rome’s doctrines, or you don’t join their church. Agree with them or not, the Roman Catholic Church is not a doctrinal buffet where you pick what you like and leave the rest.
#40 , “accept Rome’s doctrines, or you don’t join their church. Agree with them or not, the Roman Catholic Church is not a doctrinal buffet where you pick what you like and leave the rest. ”
— it’s not a buffet, it’s the cemetery of authentic Christian freedom (see the references to the de fide doctrine of the Immaculate Conception above).
Re #41
jhp,
I don’t know if I can agree with that. If by “authentic Christian freedom” you mean the right to join a church while disagreeing with its doctrines and faith and still demand communion, then yea I suppose that would be true. I don’t however consider that ACF is defined as such. You have freedom to join or not join the Roman Church. And if you were raised in the Roman Church and later come to conclude it is wrong you can leave it. On the latter point I speak from personal experience.
JHP,
I note your reference to your initial post at #21.
I am curious as to why you consider that a “prisoner (of conscience) exchange†is required? The fact is that anyone who wants to go to the Roman Catholic Church can walk down the road right now. The Ordinariate is only there for those that want to keep a bit of Anglican veneer.
Similarly, the “millions of disaffected, alienated, tormented Catholics” over whom you express such concern, can also go to TEC or another protestant church if they wish.
In fact, many RCs do move to protestant churches. I suspect that not many of them go to TEC, which I believe by its own admission is haemorrhaging about net 50,000 parishioners per year!
I don’t really care either way – I am very happy as an Anglican both catholic and protestant, who has absolutely no interest in Rome’s claims to supremacy, nor any interest in TEC’s liberal faux “gospel”. But I am having difficulty seeing how your adverse comments about the RCC in #21 really strike home!
Oops, when I wrote “TEC’s faux gospel” that was a little unfair. I meant the same faux gospel that is peddled by liberals in many countries in the western world, including where I live (Australia). I singled out TEC only because this article is in reference to the Ordinariate in the USA.