Vatican now accepts Anglicans

[Tony]

Vatican now accepts Anglicans

Apostolic Constitution to Establish "Personal Ordinariates"

VATICAN CITY, OCT. 20, 2009 (Zenit.org).- Groups of Anglicans will now be able to enter full communion with the Catholic Church while preserving elements of the Anglican spiritual and liturgical tradition.

This policy has been established in a forthcoming apostolic constitution the Vatican announced today.

It responds to requests from Anglicans who have expressed wishes to become Catholic, particularly as the Anglican Tradition continues to take steps toward opening their priesthood and episcopate to women and active homosexuals, and blessing same-sex unions.

continues here (http://www.zenit.org/article-27270?l=english)

Welcomes Pope's Offer of Personal Ordinariates

BLACKWOOD, South Australia, OCT. 20, 2009 (Zenit.org).- The prayers of Anglicans wishing to enter into full communion with the Catholic Church have been more than answered today, according to the primate of the Traditional Anglican Communion.

Archbishop John Hepworth said this today in a statement that responded to the Vatican announcement that Benedict XVI would allow Anglicans to enter full communion with the Catholic Church while preserving elements of the Anglican spiritual and liturgical tradition.

continues here (Welcomes Pope's Offer of Personal Ordinariates)

what do you Apricity Catholic members think about it?

[Murphy]

In a Vatican press conference today, Cardinal William Levada, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, announced that an Apostolic Constitution has been prepared in response to “many requests” from groups of Anglican clergy and faithful wanting to enter into full communion with the Church.

SOURCE (http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=17437)

I for one am very happy that traditional Anglicans have saught full communion with the Pope of Rome, and I will welcome them with open arms.

Regards,
Eóin.

[Wölfin]

That's actually quite fascinating. Thanks for the post!

[Loki]

I always knew Anglicans were not real Protestants. :rolleyes:

[Sol Invictus]

What the fuck?!

[Adalwulf]

A better title would be 'Anglicans now Accept the Catholic Church'. They are the ones giving up.

[Murphy]

I think it should be kept in mind that these are not just any old Anglicans. They are traditionalist Anglicans and the Church is allowing for them to keep their married clergy and Anglican Use liturgy.

Traditionalist Anglicans tend to be more Catholic than most Catholics. They should not be confused with the bastard Anglicans of England.

Regards,
Eóin.

[Lutiferre]

I always knew Anglicans were not real Protestants. :rolleyes:
It seems Anglicans are mixed. Some Anglicans are somewhat protestant, others tend towards Catholicism, and others are just in the middle.

And then the many modern, liberal Anglicans.

[Bjólf]

I wonder if some swedish priests will turn to catholicism, since gay marriage now have been made official in the swedish church (not that I care, I don't pay taxes to them so).

[MeorgeGichaels]

Ha! Pragmatic survivalism. Christianity is dying in Europe and the remaining Christians need to band together if they want to survive-brutal conditions need absurd tactics.

[Lutiferre]

Ha! Pragmatic survivalism. Christianity is dying in Europe and the remaining Christians need to band together if they want to survive-brutal conditions need absurd tactics.
It's precisely not an "absurd" tactic if you are right that it's necessary for surviving to band together. Then it is precisely a necessary and rational tactic.

[MeorgeGichaels]

It's precisely not an "absurd" tactic if you are right that it's necessary for surviving to band together. Then it is precisely a necessary and rational tactic.

Sorry, I meant otherwise absurd. For now, it makes sense. But if you go back a few hundred years, such a move would either cause overwhelming anger or universal ridicule.

[Lutiferre]

Sorry, I meant otherwise absurd. For now, it makes sense. But if you go back a few hundred years, such a move would either cause overwhelming anger or universal ridicule.
But perhaps what Christians need to come together again is exactly the trial of time. In times with no challenge to Christian dominance in society, it is easier to forget the need for Christian unity and instead focus on conflicts with other Christians rather than the agreements which we share and which become apparent especially today in the sparsity of numbers of true, orthodox Christians.

[MeorgeGichaels]

But perhaps what Christians need to come together again is exactly the trial of time. In times with no challenge to Christian dominance in society, it is easier to forget the need for Christian unity and instead focus on conflicts with other Christians rather than the agreements which we share and which become apparent especially today in the sparsity of numbers of true, orthodox Christians.

No it's a good move on their part, but it doesn't change the fact that Christianity appears to be dying. This won't make atheists/agnostics/"Cultural Christians" suddenly change their opinions and beliefs and turn them back to Christianity hence strengthening it.

It's the opposite, this is a bad sign for your religion-as an ideology. Christianity will live forever in Europe as a culture, but no one wants to believe anymore.

[Loxias]

No it's a good move on their part, but it doesn't change the fact that Christianity appears to be dying. This won't make atheists/agnostics/"Cultural Christians" suddenly change their opinions and beliefs and turn them back to Christianity hence strengthening it.

It's the opposite, this is a bad sign for your religion-as an ideology. Christianity will live forever in Europe as a culture, but no one wants to believe anymore.

The XXIst century might surprise us on that point. If we don't blow ourselves up too soon, I am confident Christianity will be on the rise again. If it's not this generation it will be the next one.

[MeorgeGichaels]

The XXIst century might surprise us on that point. If we don't blow ourselves up too soon, I am confident Christianity will be on the rise again. If it's not this generation it will be the next one.

What in God's name would give Christianity a rise? If we have clear scientific answers, easily available knowledge and a society based on reason, why would we want to return to the age of superstition?

[Lahtari]

This won't make atheists/agnostics/"Cultural Christians" suddenly change their opinions and beliefs and turn them back to Christianity hence strengthening it.

But isn't it better that the conservative Christians band together to offer an alternative to those believers who are now under watered-down modern liberal churches?

[Loxias]

What in God's name would give Christianity a rise? If we have clear scientific answers, easily available knowledge and a society based on reason, why would we want to return to the age of superstition?

Because humans have spiritual needs and aspirations, at least many among them. That's why we witnessed the rise of New Age and neo-heathen movements from the second part of the XIXth century until now. Christianity grew out of fashion due to science and modernism, so, people from formerly Christian populations sought spiritual material elsewhere.
However, nowadays, it seems to me at least, that New Age visions, in spite of their huge influence on contemporary culture, have failed to implement themselves as institutions anywhere, and that their popularity is on the decrease.
That's why I think, a lot of people will turn back to Christianity, or Islam.
Actually Islam might be even more succesfull.

[MeorgeGichaels]

But isn't it better that the conservative Christians band together to offer an alternative to those believers who are now under watered-down modern liberal churches?

Depends on your viewpoint. Doesn't mean it'll work at all. I'm a realist and I don't deal in "better" if there's no reason for it.

And, are you saying the Vatican is conservative? You'd have to be kidding, pal. The US democratic party is more socially conservative than the Vatican. The Vatican don't care about politics or principles, they only care about their own self-sustained existence and as long as they can occupy thrones they would make deals with the devil himself!

Not that it matters, but the way I see this move is that the Catholics know where Euro-Catholicism is going, and a few voodoo churches in Africa or loco-churches in South America aren't going to keep them going. At least the Anglicans still have a dash of power here and there, so they need some sort of alliance.

[Lutiferre]

Depends on your viewpoint. Doesn't mean it'll work at all. I'm a realist and I don't deal in "better" if there's no reason for it.

And, are you saying the Vatican is conservative? You'd have to be kidding, pal. The US democratic party is more socially conservative than the Vatican. The Vatican don't care about politics or principles, they only care about their own self-sustained existence and as long as they can occupy thrones they would make deals with the devil himself!


The Vatican is neither conservative nor liberal but simply Christian.

And being Christian, it is against such things as gay marriage, contraception and abortion.

Which to many minds surely translates as conservative.

It does not compromise with it's principles like other "Christians" do.

[MeorgeGichaels]

The Vatican is neither conservative nor liberal but simply Christian.

And being Christian, it is against such things as gay marriage, contraception and abortion.

Which to many minds surely translates as conservative.

It does not compromise with it's principles like other "Christians" do.

Interesting how it makes a lot of "Satanic" Muslim friends like other Christians do.

Since when was making friends and bowing down to Muslims a Christian principle?

Also, interesting how the official "Christians" as you present them also claim that Darwinism is compatible with Christianity.

It's a very Christian thing to do. Rather than do what those stubborn non-Christian American creationists do and fight tooth and nail to try and prove Creationism.

[Lahtari]

And, are you saying the Vatican is conservative? You'd have to be kidding, pal.

Don't know about the Anglicans, I might be looking things in my own narrow perspective: EVERYTHING is more conservative than a Nordic Evangelic-Lutheran state church.

On another thought, maybe the conservative Christians should form something new instead.

[MeorgeGichaels]

Don't know about the Anglicans, I might be looking things in my own narrow perspective: EVERYTHING is more conservative than a Nordic Evangelic-Lutheran state church.

On another thought, maybe the conservative Christians should form something new instead.

I wouldn't know how to compare things but from my point of view the Anglican church is ridiculous on social issues. Many of you probably remember Rowan Willians announcing that parts of Sharia Law in the UK is inevitable! This coming from a Christian who should want more Christian Law in the UK. There are plenty of UK-based African churches that are far more conservative than the Anglicans

I do agree with you though, so-called Conservative churches might want to hurry up and form an American-style fellowship-otherwise everything is left to the Liberals.

As far as I know, Orthodox Christianity is the most conservative sect in Europe at the moment, but this is just based on perceptions.

[Lutiferre]

Since when was making friends and bowing down to Muslims a Christian principle?
It is still not a Christian principle, even if some Christians do it. On the other hand, the sacrament of marriage and the sanctity of new life is a Christian principle, and from it follows the opposition to the behaviour of unrepentant homosexuals and fornicators and contraception and abortion. Each of these sins is taken as the orthodoxy of present society, and the Vatican is among the few that still opposes it.


Also, interesting how the official "Christians" as you present them also claim that Darwinism is compatible with Christianity.

It's a very Christian thing to do. Rather than do what those stubborn non-Christian American creationists do and fight tooth and nail to try and prove Creationism.
Intelligent Design and creationism is a protestant phenomenon and indeed a heresy, not representative of Christian tradition.

If you think someone has to be in favour of intelligent design and protestant creationism to be a Christian, then it is your idea of Christianity which is an Americanism in favour of heresy, and you have disqualified yourself from any reasonable debate about what is truly Christian.

[MeorgeGichaels]

It is still not a Christian principle, even if some Christians do it. On the other hand, the sacrament of marriage and the sanctity of new life is a Christian principle, and from it follows the opposition to the behaviour of unrepentant homosexuals and fornicators and contraception and abortion. Each of these sins is taken as the orthodoxy of present society, and the Vatican is among the few that still opposes it.

Intelligent Design and creationism is a protestant phenomenon and indeed a heresy, not representative of Christian tradition.

If you think someone has to be in favour of intelligent design and protestant creationism to be a Christian, then it is your idea of Christianity which is an Americanism in favour of heresy, and you have disqualified yourself from any reasonable debate about what is truly Christian.

That's just it, there's no such thing as "true Christianity". It's your opinion of Christianity and your interpretation of your scriptures. What you tell me as "Christian" is different to what a mormon might tell me, or what a Lutheran might tell me for example. And the three of you could keep quoting verses and passages for hundreds of years and we would still be in the same position. Stuck for an answer.

If there was a definitive "true Christianity" then there wouldn't be many sects, schools of thoughts and offshoots. Because I'm sure every self-proclaimed Christian wants to follow "true Christianity".

Anyway, my point here is, you telling me that the Vatican represent or follow "true Christianity" is futile considering it's all down to perception. I've deviated from the purpose of this thread long enough.

[Lutiferre]

That's just it, there's no such thing as "true Christianity". It's your opinion of Christianity and your interpretation of your scriptures.
When I say true Christianity, I am speaking of historically true. You were the one begging the question that protestant intelligent design-ism is a necessary Christian principle, a denial of which amounts to a denial of some important Christian principle. You were obviously doing so because you thought protestant intelligent-design creationism in America represents historically true Christianity.


What you tell me as "Christian" is different to what a mormon might tell me, or what a Lutheran might tell me for example. And the three of you could keep quoting verses and passages for hundreds of years and we would still be in the same position. Stuck for an answer.
No, we would not be in a state of uncertainty. And we do not need to quote verses and passages and make "prooftexts" - that is an evangelical, sola-scripturist phenomenon.


If there was a definitive "true Christianity" then there wouldn't be many sects, schools of thoughts and offshoots. Because I'm sure every self-proclaimed Christian wants to follow "true Christianity".
Yes, there would exactly. Just like every other ideological, philosophical, scientific or religious doctrine or movement. Theories develop and get perverted, and historical truth gets perverted, and so heresies and offshoots from orthodoxy develops.

[Tony]

I always knew Anglicans were not real Protestants. :rolleyes:
People often mistake Anglicanism as just one more Protestant branch , I think it's due to the fact all of them emerged at the same time , the XVI° century during the Reformation age etc and taught together , at least that's what I've been taught here.
Actually Anglicanism has a doctrine/theology who are pretty similar to that of Catholics , some critics says Anglicanism is just a form of Catholicism save the Pope is a King , I think they're not that far from the truth if we check how Anglicanism , Luteranism and Calvinism arose.
The first has been more a personal choice of a king due to his own personal reasons than out of theological issues....
Luteranism also is different from Calvinism in my view , it lacks that capitalistic spirit who feed itself of greed for example , it's more say Germanic , in a sense.