Discussion in 'Navigating Through Church Life' started by Aidan, Oct 30, 2016.
Might it be possible for all to unite under a common banner? Would it be of benefit?
Were you thinking of the cross?
Possible, but too much ego and therefore sin prevents it.
I have coffee with an elderly Anglican Catholic Church Priest periodically. I have asked him the same question. His response it that a few
more funeral will have to happen before the Continuing Churches come together. They have talked about it for decades with no positive accomplishments.
Though I am starting to have a glimmer of hope. The APA and the REC have reach agreement and some of the others are starting to come around.
Arch Bishop Haverland, Anglican Catholic Church, if saying many good things.
Each of the jurisdictions overlap dioceses. The Continuing Churches, if they came together, would have far too many Bishops. Would they be willing to transfer parishes and some Bishops set down or retire? If not, there will not be much forward movement. Just what I see from the trenches and here from some sources.
Pride come th before a fall
There would be purists who would refuse to join the union. So you would end up creating three branches: the unified church; the purists Anglican Church; the purists Catholic Church.
In some sense though we are already untied Christians through the one Church, Christ, the Spirit, and through God the Father.
Anglicanism doesn't really work that way. It is extremely hard to schism and this explains why there have been so few schisms in Anglican history, compared to the general landscape of Christian history. First off you must feel like schism is a legitimate and quick solution to whatever problems you're having at your moment in history, which Anglicans have not generally had, due to the education and catechetics. Second, if you do decide to schism you must find a legitimate episcopal oversight for your schism, which is nearly impossible. If you don't have episcopal oversight you're simply non-Anglican, so there's an absolute vital imperative to have it, and again it is very hard to find outside of regular canonical channels. And third, simply the weight of history... it's in our DNA to never consider ourselves as having many denominations, but simply one. Our history has never had Anglican churches. Just one, a single province for every given area. You have one, say the Episcopal Church in the United States, which if it has a crisis there follow shards, which then re-coalesce from our DNA into a new province. We have a genetic aversion to schism, which follows from our apostolic nature as founded by Christ himself and not by men as many other denominations have been.
Interesting thoughts! So do you think it is possible for Catholicism and Anglicanism to ever unite?
Personally, I don't think so given that there are important and significant differences both theological and administrative. Although I'm open to considering the view that it might be possible.
The short answer is No. Not without major theological changes
It's hard to say, long-term. In an overall sweep of history the Roman Church has been drastically revising its beliefs away from what it held at Trent in the sixteenth century, as almost nobody believes them anymore. Those beliefs were the source of all the discord when the church fractured in the 16th century. With Popes like Francis the church is changing and it's not inconceivable that it continues to change. Pope Francis has already repudiated many teachings of Trent out of hand, so if the trend continues, there may come a time when those beliefs will no longer deviate from Scripture much. We will also have to repent of our own sins as well. Who knows what God has in store for the Church in the next thousand years.
As traditional Catholics we continue to very much subscribe to Trent
There are many doctrines which are professed by the modern Roman church which no longer adhere to the teachings of Trent. Such as, for instance, that one doesn't have to be a Roman Catholic to be saved. I'm sorry, but there has been a seachange in RCC's doctrinal teachings, as much as saying this creates scandal in the minds of the faithful and traditional good Roman Catholics.
I totally agree. As traditionalists we don't recognise Vatican 2 as anything other than an aberration. The same can be said of much of what occurred post conciliar. That's why I stress the significance of Trent and the first Vatican council
As many have said, once the mitre goes on the head, the person wearing it doesn't want to let it go. Human nature kicks in.
It seems to me thatVatican 2 is more than just a aberration. Jmo
Are you a sedevacantist?
Absolutely not. Sedevecatism is potentially very dangerous. I believe that the Pope is valid but in error by pressing a modernist agenda, as is the case with his predecessors
It contradicts statements fron earlier councils which the Roman Church has historically required its members and clergy to adhere to upon pain of excommunication. If the clerics now confess a different faith, the faith of Vatican 2, then it would appear to me they are heretics. Since a valid pope must be catholic, he cannot be a heretic...hence, a vacant seat.
We don't say that the Pope is a heretic but that he is in error
Fair enough. As an anglican, the very concept of a pope is wrong. It really makes no difference to me who holds the title. If it works for you that's ok.
Wbat is the difference between being in error and holding heresy?