Wikileaks: British ambassador worried by Pope's outreach to Anglicans

Jester Minute

American diplomats believed that Pope Benedict XVI was thinking of Anglicans in the US and Australia as well as Great Britain when he extended an invitation to Anglicans in Anglicanorum Coetibus, according to documents revealed by Wikileaks.

The US diplomatic communications show that the Pope’s gesture was opposed by Anglican leaders. The British government also was concerned about the move, and the British ambassador reportedly warned against angry—even possibly violent—reactions against Catholics if Pope Benedict went through with his plans.

The Wikileaks documents—in this as in other cases—show that American (and in this case also British) diplomatic personnel had a limited understanding of Vatican policies.

http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=8553

This is crazy if it's true. I can just see it now... aged congregations of (mostly women) Anglicans turning on their fellow Catholics. Blast bombs left at Catholic schools and churches.... violent demonstrations, ethnic cleansing in the English middle-class suburbs... priests beaten and left for dead by members of the Women's Institute...

philologos

I would understand how people could be annoyed at the prospect of an offer. It is damaging to ecumenism to begin with. I gave my own thoughts on this matter a few months ago.

Jakkass wrote: »

Personally, I think it's awful. People know how to unaffiliate with the Anglican Church if they want to.

The Anglican Church is much more complex than "liberal or traditional".

There are broadly three lines: 1) Anglo-Catholic, 2) Broad Church, 3) Reformed / Evangelical.

What is effectively being discussed is more conservative Anglo-Catholics going to Rome. None of 2 or 3 would even consider it. This is a small portion of the church.

The RCC has enough of its own problems without fiddling around in an unwelcome manner with other churches.

The point about the three types of Anglicans is quite important to this discussion to pre-empt someone saying that all conservative Anglicans are actually Anglo-Catholic.

See more in this thread.

Jester Minute

Jakkass wrote: »

The RCC has enough of its own problems without fiddling around in an unwelcome manner with other churches.

The RCC is not 'fiddling around in an unwelcome manner with other churches'.

The Anglicans approached Rome with a view to coming across. The Pope responded generously with his Apostolic Constitution ANGLICANORUM COETIBUS which allows them to come home to Rome, but retain some of their Anglican identity.

The RCC views any fish wanting to swim across as special and it doesn't matter how 'small' the shoal may be. It is not, as Cardinal Kasper said, a matter of Rome fishing in Anglican territorial waters. These fish want to swim across of their own accord, and Pope Benedict wants to prepare a special place for them.

johnfás

The moves by the Catholic Church aren't half as significant as the media often likes to spin it. It isn't quite making a story out of nothing but it is certainly overblown. The number of Anglicans in England who would actually wish to cross to the Catholic Church is extremely small proportionately. The fact that those who do shout and roar alot simply gives an air of them having more numbers than they do. The number is even more limited in Ireland. Quite a number of Anglicans (in both countries) aren't particularly happy with the direction of their Church - but they would be even less enamoured with the Catholic Church.

To be terribly realpolitik about it - although certain factions of the Anglican Church may share common enemies (e.g. liberal Anglicans) within their own communion - they certainly do not share common friends outside of it.

In respect of ecumenism. There is no doubt that the Vatican is doing a bit of stirring here and going beyond simply offering a home for a disaffected group of Anglicans who could have moved of their own volition anyway. I suppose that is a bit damaging but of course ecumenical relations at an ecclesiastical level between the churches has never reflected the level of ecumenical relations at a local level. Beyond which, the evangelical churches have been fishing in the Catholic pond for generations so lets not be too precious about it.

It'll blow over.

Jester Minute

johnfás wrote: »

The moves by the Catholic Church aren't half as significant as the media often likes to spin it. It isn't quite making a story out of nothing but it is certainly overblown. The number of Anglicans in England who would actually wish to cross to the Catholic Church is extremely small proportionately. The fact that those who do shout and roar alot simply gives an air of them having more numbers than they do. The number is even more limited in Ireland. Quite a number of Anglicans (in both countries) aren't particularly happy with the direction of their Church - but they would be even less enamoured with the Catholic Church.

To be terribly realpolitik about it - although certain factions of the Anglican Church may share common enemies (e.g. liberal Anglicans) within their own communion - they certainly do not share common friends outside of it.

In respect of ecumenism. There is no doubt that the Vatican is doing a bit of stirring here and going beyond simply offering a home for a disaffected group of Anglicans who could have moved of their own volition anyway. I suppose that is a bit damaging but of course ecumenical relations at an ecclesiastical level between the churches has never reflected the level of ecumenical relations at a local level. Beyond which, the evangelical churches have been fishing in the Catholic pond for generations so lets not be too precious about it.

It'll blow over.

The story is an old story. What is new is the Wikileaks cable which revealed that apparently the British ambassador to the Holy See was worried about a violent backlash against Catholics. I have to wonder what planet he was on when he thought that up. Somehow, I can't see the Anglicans attacking Catholics in England. I really can't see it.

As regards the Anglicans who want to accept the Pope's offer, they have to accept in full the Catechism of the Catholic Church as a statement of belief.

Jimbob1977

I was astonished by his comments when I read them over the weekend. England is effectively a secular and atheist country today. The old bastions of Christianity (Britain and France) are the most anti-clerical now.

I would contend that attendance at religious services is highest among Roman Catholics and Islam in England.

The thoughts of a crazed and drunken Anglican teenage mob attacking Catholic businesses and churches is laughable.

The only place in the UK where it could become an issue is Scotland - if the Catholic Church welcomed disaffected Presbyterians and Methodists.

Jester Minute

Jimbob1977 wrote: »

I was astonished by his comments when I read them over the weekend. England is effectively a secular and atheist country today. The old bastions of Christianity (Britain and France) are the most anti-clerical now.

I would contend that attendance at religious services is highest among Roman Catholics and Islam in England.

The thoughts of a crazed and drunken Anglican teenage mob attacking Catholic businesses and churches is laughable.

The only place in the UK where it could become an issue is Scotland - if the Catholic Church welcomed disaffected Presbyterians and Methodists.

Yeah I can see the Scots getting violent if such a thing happened.

But the idea of the WI ladies turning violent is really quite amusing.

I'd say that Ireland would be close to the situation in France and Britain. I'd say there's a very vehement anti-Catholicism in the State such as you wouldn't see in the north. There's nothing so anti-Catholic as a lapsed Catholic who has turned against his Church.

PDN

Jester Minute wrote: »

But the idea of the WI ladies turning violent is really quite amusing.

Yes, the idea is laughable. Just another example of the detachment from reality that comes when paranoid people get a persecution complex.

Festus

sarcasm is so underused these days. it's good to see a refreshing take on this genre

Jester Minute

PDN wrote: »

Yes, the idea is laughable. Just another example of the detachment from reality that comes when paranoid people get a persecution complex.

Actually, I don't think it's a matter of paranoia.

It seems like you've taken another opportunity to make a snide remark about Catholics.

PDN

Jester Minute wrote: »

It seems like you've taken another opportunity to make a snide remark about Catholics.

Look, when you post stuff on an internet discussion board, are you just looking for people to agree with you, or do you genuinely want discussion?

Like you I am bemused at this portrayal of Catholics in Britain as a huddled minority at risk of violent attacks from militant Anglicans. If the guy was not being paranoid then what? Do you think he's just dumb?

Jester Minute

PDN wrote: »

Look, when you post stuff on an internet discussion board, are you just looking for people to agree with you, or do you genuinely want discussion?

Like you I am bemused at this portrayal of Catholics in Britain as a huddled minority at risk of violent attacks from militant Anglicans. If the guy was not being paranoid then what? Do you think he's just dumb?

The guy was either dumb or woefully misinformed or else he was misunderstood or misquoted.

We must remember that Wikileaks is not an account of what was said but an account of somebody else's interpretation of what had been said. SO the British ambassador may not be quite so foolish after all. The Vatican made it clear that there were inaccuracies in some of the Wikileaks pertaining to some matters on other subjects: http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/otn.cfm?id=739

homer911

Jester - It would be lovely to see you post something of interest to all Christians, and not just some exclusively Catholic view

The number of threads you have started recently, all with an exclusively catholic perspective invites counter/anti-catholic perspectives.

Happy Christmas!

Jester Minute

homer911 wrote: »

Jester - It would be lovely to see you post something of interest to all Christians, and not just some exclusively Catholic view

The number of threads you have started recently, all with an exclusively catholic perspective invites counter/anti-catholic perspectives.

Happy Christmas!

What, you mean like my 'What did Jesus look like?' thread? I think that was not just a Catholic thread.

I am a Catholic, I am interested in Catholic matters. There are Catholics on this board, albeit a very small number. There aren't even that many resident non-Catholic Christians here to be honest.

Seasons greetings and merry Christmas to you also.

homer911

Jester Minute wrote: »

What, you mean like my 'What did Jesus look like?' thread? I think that was not just a Catholic thread.

In fairness, what relevance is Jesus' outwards appearance? Should our view of him be skin deep? This is generally viewed as a Catholic obsession as you will only occasionally find images of Christ in a Protestant church(apologies for going down a "Catholics Vs Protestants" road, but you raised the question and I'm attempting to answer it)

I am a Catholic, I am interested in Catholic matters. There are Catholics on this board, albeit a very small number.

Granted, but this is the Christianity Forum, not the Catholic Forum

There aren't even that many resident non-Catholic Christians here to be honest.

Residency is irrelevant and I dont see why you raise this as an issue - your residency is also unknown

Festus

homer911 wrote: »

Jester - It would be lovely to see you post something of interest to all Christians, and not just some exclusively Catholic view

The number of threads you have started recently, all with an exclusively catholic perspective invites counter/anti-catholic perspectives.

Happy Christmas!

is this thread not of intrest to Anglicans?

johnfás

I don't see what you are getting so het up about Homer. People are free to open a thread relating to any Christian issue on this forum. Given that the Catholic Church is the largest numerically of any denomination on this island (by a country mile) it is not that surprising that a number of posters would start threads relating to that Church.

Nobody is forced to respond to every thread which appears on the board. Beyond which, the threads opened on the board seem to flow periodically from what might be termed church politics and on into ecclesiology and back again.

If you want there to be more plentiful discussion of one rather than the other the obvious answer seems, to me at least, to be that you or other interested posters should open a few more threads on whatever interests you.

I say that as somebody who is not Catholic and has no particular interest in the Catholic Church beyond its ecumenical relations with my church and a general concern for everybody in society including Catholics.

Jester Minute

homer911 wrote: »

Residency is irrelevant and I dont see why you raise this as an issue - your residency is also unknown

I meant resident on the forum, not resident on the island of Ireland.

I wouldn't categorise Jesus outward appearance as a Catholic obsession. But it is something that interests me. I had one very good response which I found personally very helpful on that other thread.

Festus wrote: »

is this thread not of intrest to Anglicans?

Good point.

PDN

Moderating Note

Let's stick to the subject of the thread please. Posts accusing others of "always being too Catholic" or being "anti-Catholic" are the kind of squabbling we can do without.

philologos

Jester Minute wrote: »

The RCC is not 'fiddling around in an unwelcome manner with other churches'.

It's not only with the notion of welcoming those who have already accepted. Indeed if it was it wouldn't have been presented as an "offer" to many other Anglo-Catholic groups specifically. This could have been done without any alteration to either church. Indeed, it could be done without the level of pomp and circumstance that surrounded it.

Issues within Anglicanism need to be resolved without external interference, and likewise issues in Roman Catholicism need to be resolved without external interference.

Jester Minute wrote: »

The Anglicans approached Rome with a view to coming across. The Pope responded generously with his Apostolic Constitution ANGLICANORUM COETIBUS which allows them to come home to Rome, but retain some of their Anglican identity.

I guess the way I would see it would be if you want to be Roman Catholic join the RCC. If you wish to be Anglican, stay in the Anglican Communion.

Jester Minute wrote: »

The RCC views any fish wanting to swim across as special and it doesn't matter how 'small' the shoal may be. It is not, as Cardinal Kasper said, a matter of Rome fishing in Anglican territorial waters. These fish want to swim across of their own accord, and Pope Benedict wants to prepare a special place for them.

I think the logic of ecumenism is something that needs to be asked. Is the RCC interested in co-operating with other Christians for the sake of mere co-operation or is it so that these Christians must become a part of the RCC.

Festus wrote: »

is this thread not of intrest to Anglicans?

I've not seen a thread here recently about Anglicanism and this offer by the Pope that didn't result in several misconceptions being posted.

Jester Minute

Jakkass wrote: »

It's not only with the notion of welcoming those who have already accepted. Indeed if it was it wouldn't have been presented as an "offer" to many other Anglo-Catholic groups specifically. This could have been done without any alteration to either church. Indeed, it could be done without the level of pomp and circumstance that surrounded it.

Issues within Anglicanism need to be resolved without external interference, and likewise issues in Roman Catholicism need to be resolved without external interference.



I guess the way I would see it would be if you want to be Roman Catholic join the RCC. If you wish to be Anglican, stay in the Anglican Communion.



I think the logic of ecumenism is something that needs to be asked. Is the RCC interested in co-operating with other Christians for the sake of mere co-operation or is it so that these Christians must become a part of the RCC.



I've not seen a thread here recently about Anglicanism and this offer by the Pope that didn't result in several misconceptions being posted.

Ecumenism must have its goal, one flock, one faith, one baptism, and all the fish netted and gathered on-board the bark of Peter.

philologos

Jester Minute wrote: »

Ecumenism must have its goal, one flock, one faith, one baptism, and all the fish netted and gathered on-board the bark of Peter.

They are all Christians. This seems to satisfy the conditions.

getz

Jakkass wrote: »

They are all Christians. This seems to satisfy the conditions.

just what is a christian,?

philologos

getz wrote: »

just what is a christian,?

A person who believes and trusts in the fullness of God (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) that is manifest in Jesus Christ, but not only this, but one who commits themselves to following Him as Lord as a result of being forgiven their sins by Jesus' crucifixion.

In short that is.

People believe this all over the world, both outside and inside of Roman Catholicism. It's why I'm personally not convinced of the "One true church" argument.

I think when Jesus will return He will judge on how loyal people have been to Him rather than how loyal people have been to the Pope, the Vatican, the Archbishop of Canterbury or anyone else. Why? - Jesus is the only one who can examine hearts and minds. Given how the religious hierarchy reacted when He was here, a lot of us (myself included) could be in for a surprise when He returns.

getz

Jakkass wrote: »

A person who believes and trusts in the fullness of God (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) that is manifest in Jesus Christ, but not only this, but one who commits themselves to following Him as Lord as a result of being forgiven their sins by Jesus' crucifixion.

In short that is.

People believe this all over the world, both outside and inside of Roman Catholicism. It's why I'm personally not convinced of the "One true church" argument.

I think when Jesus will return He will judge on how loyal people have been to Him rather than how loyal people have been to the Pope, the Vatican, the Archbishop of Canterbury or anyone else. Why? - Jesus is the only one who can examine hearts and minds. Given how the religious hierarchy reacted when He was here, a lot of us (myself included) could be in for a surprise when He returns.

not all christains believe in the holy spirit.i think both main stream churches believe they need a transfusion,a quick google tells me that in the US alone,50 anglican priests joined the catholic church,and over 500 catholic priests left to join other protestant churches,

philologos

getz wrote: »

not all christains believe in the holy spirit.i think both main stream churches believe they need a transfusion,a quick google tells me that in the US alone,50 anglican priests joined the catholic church,and over 500 catholic priests left to join other protestant churches,

It's pretty hard to leave it out considering that the Bible mentions it quite clearly.

As for transfusion, what do you mean?

getz

Jakkass wrote: »

It's pretty hard to leave it out considering that the Bible mentions it quite clearly.

As for transfusion, what do you mean?

the bible also says its the spirit of truth that is in us all,[not a separate entity] as for transfusion ,i should be saying that most of the leading christain churches are losing their flock,most books of the new testament had been doctored by the fathers who put their slant in them,one which comes to mind is the rejection of magdalene,of who jesus said ,go out and teach,so much for the male dominated churches,

philologos

getz wrote: »

the bible also says its the spirit of truth that is in us all,[not a separate entity] as for transfusion ,i should be saying that most of the leading christain churches are losing their flock,most books of the new testament had been doctored by the fathers who put their slant in them,one which comes to mind is the rejection of magdalene,of who jesus said ,go out and teach,so much for the male dominated churches,

There is no textual evidence of major alteration since the first century in the New Testament. Roughly 40 verses are thought to be in doubt (meaning 99.6% of the New Testament isn't), of those which are thought to be in doubt most of them are retelling stories told in the other 99.6% of the New Testament which is authentic. For example, the ending of Mark. The woman caught in adultery isn't found anywhere else in the New Testament, but is thought to be in doubt, this is the only case I know of this. Even then, this passage is consistent with the rest of Jesus' teaching.

Rejection of Mary Magdalene isn't in the New Testament, nor is the notion brought up by Pope Gregory at around 500AD that she was a prostitute. The Bible merely says that she had 7 demons which were cast out of her. Who knows what these were.

As for male-dominated, that depends on the church you go to.

As for the Spirit of truth, would you mind citing the passage that you're getting that from.

As for the losing flock, even if the churches wanted full church attendance, there wouldn't be enough buildings to take people in. It's a major reason why I questioned the IONA Institute figure of 38% in Dublin. In a suburb of Dublin, say like Tallaght with 70,000 approx. Divide this by 100 to get 1% and multiply by 38 you get 26,600. I'm thoroughly doubtful that that many make it to mass in a week or the churches in Tallaght could fit 26,600 in a week.

antiskeptic

Jakkass wrote: »

As for the losing flock, even if the churches wanted full church attendance, there wouldn't be enough buildings to take people in. It's a major reason why I questioned the IONA Institute figure of 38% in Dublin. In a suburb of Dublin, say like Tallaght with 70,000 approx. Divide this by 100 to get 1% and multiply by 38 you get 26,600. I'm thoroughly doubtful that that many make it to mass in a week or the churches in Tallaght could fit 26,600 in a week.

Is there any reason for the lesson in how you calculate percentages?

antiskeptic

Jester Minute wrote: »

Ecumenism must have its goal, one flock, one faith, one baptism, and all the fish netted and gathered on-board the bark of Peter.

Looks like it'll be a scoreless draw then

(and what the heck is the bark of Peter?)

PDN

getz wrote: »

the bible also says its the spirit of truth that is in us all,[not a separate entity] as for transfusion ,i should be saying that most of the leading christain churches are losing their flock,most books of the new testament had been doctored by the fathers who put their slant in them,one which comes to mind is the rejection of magdalene,of who jesus said ,go out and teach,so much for the male dominated churches,

Let's not go down those off-topic rabbit holes.

The statistical evidence is very clear and unambiguous. Christianity in general is growing numerically around the world. The branches of Christianity which are growing most rapidly are those that place the strongest emphasis on the Holy Spirit and who are the most dogmatic about adhering to their core teachings. The branches of Christianity which are declining, and losing their flocks, are those which are doctrinally fuzzy.

No church that hold heterodox views about Mary Magdalene a la The Divinci Code have any flock worth talking about.

homer911

antiskeptic wrote: »

(and what the heck is the bark of Peter?)

An acceptable, if unusual variation on barque - a three masted sailing vessel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barque

PDN

homer911 wrote: »

An acceptable, if unusual variation on barque - a three masted sailing vessel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barque

These days, thankfully, Peter's bark is worse than his bite.

antiskeptic

homer911 wrote: »

An acceptable, if unusual variation on barque - a three masted sailing vessel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barque

So if Jesus is the 2nd Adam, then Peter is the 2nd Noah? And the bark The Bark of the Convenant?

Jester Minute

antiskeptic wrote: »

So if Jesus is the 2nd Adam, then Peter is the 2nd Noah? And the bark The Bark of the Convenant?

You are one funny guy. Or gal. 2 out of 3 ain't bad.

And PDN, full marks for your amusing comment on Peter's Bark.

But seriously, the point is, we must believe in all that Jesus taught us. Only the Catholic Church teaches the complete doctrine of Jesus Christ pertaining to salvation and His teachings on the faith and morals. Outside the Catholic Church there are elements of truth and sanctification, for example, the Holy Scriptures, a valid baptism, true teachings on various matters, and so on. But non-Catholic Christians groups condone various sins, and they reject various core teachings of Jesus. This is a problem.

Jester Minute

A jackass-barque, sometimes spelled jackass bark, is a sailing ship with three (or more) masts, of which the foremast is square-rigged and the main is partially square-rigged (topsail, topgallant, etc.) and partially fore-and-aft rigged (course). The mizzen mast is fore-and-aft rigged.

A four-masted jackass barque is square-rigged on the two foremost masts (fore and main masts) and fore-and-aft rigged on the two after masts (the mizzen and spanker or jiggermasts). Some 19th century sailors called such a ship "a fore-and-aft schooner chasing a brig". In general a jackass barque is a sailing ship which is half square-rigged and half fore-and-aft rigged.

Wikipedia

:pac:

Festus

antiskeptic wrote: »

So if Jesus is the 2nd Adam, then Peter is the 2nd Noah?

Jesus is the last Adam, and Peter the first captain of the Last Ark.

antiskeptic

Festus wrote: »

.. and Peter the first captain of the Last Ark.

Shiver me timbers..

antiskeptic

Jester Minute wrote: »

But seriously, the point is, we must believe in all that Jesus taught us. Only the Catholic Church teaches the complete doctrine of Jesus Christ pertaining to salvation and His teachings on the faith and morals. Outside the Catholic Church there are elements of truth and sanctification, for example, the Holy Scriptures, a valid baptism, true teachings on various matters, and so on. But non-Catholic Christians groups condone various sins, and they reject various core teachings of Jesus. This is a problem.

Clearly, it's not a problem to someone who doesn't believe what the Catholic Church claims about the doctrine of Jesus Christ pertaining to salvation and his teaching on the faith and morals.


You're barquing up the wrong tree in presenting a circular reason to believe what the Catholic church say of itself. There's a group of people here who don't do circular reasoning.

philologos

antiskeptic wrote: »

Is there any reason for the lesson in how you calculate percentages?

More to make sure that I don't calculate it wrong and end up looking like a plank :pac:

antiskeptic

Jakkass wrote: »

More to make sure that I don't calculate it wrong and end up looking like a plank :pac:

Or worse still ... being forced to walk off the end of it (:rolleyes: mixing the nautical/ R.C. loss of salvation themes)

Festus

antiskeptic wrote: »

Shiver me timbers..

it can be cold in the water - feel free to climb aboard

Jester Minute

Festus wrote: »

it can be cold in the water - feel free to climb aboard

While we're on the nautical theme, the vision of Don Bosco is pretty apt:





I know forums don't like copy and pasting large blocks of text, so here is a link to an explanation of the vision from the man himself:
http://salesianity.blogspot.com/2008/07/don-boscos-dream-and-pope-benedict.html

georgieporgy

and 100 years after that dream of John Bosco we have this photo from Cologne in 2005

Festus

homer911 wrote: »

Granted, but this is the Christianity Forum, not the Catholic Forum

I can't find it

Jester Minute

Festus wrote: »

I can't find it

There isn't a Catholic forum. I think it would be very quiet if there was one. The Christianity forum is fairly quiet as it is. The Catholic forum would be like a dentist's waiting room on a quiet day.

Japer

Jester Minute wrote: »

The Christianity forum is fairly quiet as it is. The Catholic forum would be like a dentist's waiting room on a quiet day.

If there was a Roman Catholic forum, I think there would be plenty for Roman Catholics to chat about there in their own church ...what with all the scandals etc ?

getz wrote: »

a quick google tells me that in the US alone,50 anglican priests joined the catholic church,and over 500 catholic priests left to join other protestant churches

maybe the RCC should think about getting its own house in order before trying to entice people to convert from other Christian churches ?

homer911 wrote: »

Jester - It would be lovely to see you post something of interest to all Christians, and not just some exclusively Catholic view

The number of threads you have started recently, all with an exclusively catholic perspective invites counter/anti-catholic perspectives.

Happy Christmas!

Well said homer911, and Happy Christmas to all.

Jester Minute

Did the WikiLeaks cables attributing an anti-Ordinariate briefing to Francis Campbell, our Ambassador to the Holy See, seriously misrepresent him? A well-informed source tells me that they did. Getting at the truth of this matter will not be easy, but if Mr Campbell has been misreported by a “shoddy” US cable, as my informant claims, then my criticism of him has indeed been too harsh.
This is what I have been told: .......

Read more: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100068215/did-a-shoddy-us-diplomatic-cable-misreport-britains-ambassador-to-the-vatican/

philologos

My informant adds: “I thank God that you’re trying to defend the Ordinariate from the attacks of the Catholic establishment (both here and in Rome, where opposition makes the CBCEW’s obstruction seem utterly insignificant) but, in this case, you’ve given a loyal son of the Church a real kicking for no reason. He’s done a lot of good work in that job, Damian, in the face of serious opposition from the usual suspects.”

I do wonder if attacks are the same thing as valid criticism in this case. Some members of the RCC clearly value the relationship they have with the Anglican Communion.

Jester Minute

Jakkass wrote: »

I do wonder if attacks are the same thing as valid criticism in this case. Some members of the RCC clearly value the relationship they have with the Anglican Communion.

Communion trumps a mere 'relationship'. The whole aim of a 'relationship', of ecumenism, is union with the Bishop of Rome. Some people lost sight of that obviously, but you can only go so far with tea and cake - there have to be solid steps taken, sooner or later. The Ordinariate is a solid step for those Anglicans who wish to be united with Rome at this time, whilst keeping some of their Anglican traditions.

philologos

The Ordinariate is proof that the RCC version of ecumenism isn't about co-operation and dialogue, but about seeking more converts to Catholicism.

It's a confused understanding. Are we all Christians in our own right (and if so what would be the purpose of joining the RCC?) or are we only Christians if we are members of the RCC?

It sounds like opportunism dwelling on the problems (that Anglicans need to sort our amongst themselves) within the Anglican Communion. Dare I say the RCC has enough problems of its own and that you would be outraged if churches decided to go to different orders or groups within the RCC offering them a chance to move church to alleviate themselves from the hurt and pain of child abuse within the church for example.