Reunification...

[Albion]

I think this is certainly true.
But, then one could also suggest that some (not a vast majority) of Episcopalians (laity and clergy) in practice and attitude are in fact practicing Methodists.

It's an interesting point, one that caused me to mull it over a bit. As one who may be as close to that situation as anyone around here, I'd have to say that although there are strong similarities in some obvious areas, the comparison is not accurate except as a very loose generalization.

If you were to go back and look again at the lives and themes times that made the Wesleys what they were, for instance, you'd see some important differences (not that a passing observation requires that we go into that in further detail here).

 

[gtsecc]

Well, Wesley was a good Anglo-Catholic.
I think we would all agree to that.

 

[gtsecc]

I don't entirely disagree.



Ah, but Methodists are just schismatic Anglicans so.. um.. kittens?

not intentionaly schismatic.
Revolutionary war made confirmation of Priests difficult.

 

[Albion]

Well, Wesley was a good Anglo-Catholic.
I think we would all agree to that.

I must say that I have no idea what you might mean by that.

(Happy, not offended, but scratching head)

 

[Epiphanygirl]

Perhaps there is hope. This does make my perception of Benedict XVI a bit brighter and my hopes have become slightly more optimistic, but I am still too weary.

There is always hope!!!

 

[Iron Sun 254]

As far as the validity of our orders being in question, yes our Bishops and Priests could all be reconsecrated....

Well, only the male ones....

 

[Dominus Fidelis]

That, of course, is not so. First, the Roman Catholic Church would not be united with another if the faiths were different. Are you suggesting that a laying on of hands with no acceptance of Roman Catholic teachings including Papal Infallibility, for instance, would make for a reunited church and that this would be fine with the Vatican? And second, the RCC already aknowledges the validity of some other churches' bishops. Yet they remain separated, so we know that the lines of succession are not the big issue. Besides, we already know the approach to reunification because it's been worked on for many years between the Vatican and Lutherans, the Vatican and Anglicans, etc. That's to address doctrines first. Regularizing the Orders would be the LAST item to fall into place.

Yes, my position is that the orders would be the last item to fall into place.

 

[Robbie_James_Francis]

Just a few things that have come up...

Mary as co-redemptrix simply means that Mary's acceptance of God's Will in allowing the Holy Spirit to come upon her was necessary for Christ to enter the world, and then to save us. It does not mean that it is necessary for Mary to suffer for our sins or that she by her own power saves us or helps us.

Catholics believe, as was stated in the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification between the Catholic Church and the Lutheran Church, that we are saved by grace alone, and that grace inspires in us faith and good deeds. We must accept this grace and choose to follow it's call by virtue of our free will, thereby participating in our salvation. [I apologise if this is not fully correct, I'm far less than an entirely reliable authority on Catholic teaching]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Full reunification into one Communion would require acceptance of the doctrine that the Bishop of Rome is the Vicar of Christ and successor of Saint Peter, on whom the Church was founded by Christ (in Catholic belief). It is not that Catholics want to impose authority on others, it is that this is what we sincerely believe to be true. I'm truly sorry if any animosity and division is caused by this but I will not apologise for what I believe is the Truth. I hope that, as sincere people, as religious people and as Christians, you can understand that we are conscience bound to follow what we believe to be true, and even if we wanted more than anything else to change a dogma, we could not. Note-not we would not, we literally cannot.

I would truly love to see a united Church, and if you asked me, if the Truth of my Faith (as I see It to be true) was not clear to me, then I would not say I personally think it necessary for one bishop to have supremacy. I would reject this rather than endanger unity. But I cannot reject this, because I believe it to be true, and we are slaves to the Truth.

I respect your Church as a Christian Church, and I consider your faith to hold a great deal of Truth. I believe God the Holy Spirit is working in your Church, and the faithful and good among your Church are certainly part of the invisible Communion of Christ's Body, the Universal Church. Also, they share much of that visible Communion by their profession of Christ and many doctrines.

In love and in Christ,

Your brother Robbie.

 

[julian the apostate]

good post robbie

 

[Robbie_James_Francis]

good post robbie

Thank you.

In Christ and His Love,

Robbie

 

[Fish and Bread]

Mary as co-redemptrix simply means that Mary's acceptance of God's Will in allowing the Holy Spirit to come upon her was necessary for Christ to enter the world, and then to save us. It does not mean that it is necessary for Mary to suffer for our sins or that she by her own power saves us or helps us.

Even if your definition were the one that most Roman Catholics have of Mary as co-redemptrix, I'd still disagree with it. God chose Mary, but had she rejected God, Jesus would have still been born to someone else. Mary was a willing instrument that God used to give birth to his Son and should be honored for that, but she was not the one who brought about the redemption of the world, that was God alone. Anything else would serve to diminish our understanding of God's power and authority and the unique nature of his goodness. We can't bestow grace upon ourselves or redeem ourselves, God alone can do that.

But the Roman Catholic supporters of Mary as co-redemtrix don't even usually stop there. Here's a quote from http://www.catholicsource.net/articles/coredemptrix.html:

And at the foot of the cross of our Saviour (Jn.19:26), Mary's intense sufferings, united with those of her Son, as Pope John Paul II tells us, were, "also a contribution to the Redemption of us all" (Salvifici Doloris, n.25). Because of this intimate sharing in the redemption accomplished by the Lord, the Mother of the Redeemer is uniquely and rightly referred to by Pope John Paul II and the Church as the "Coredemptrix."

That could be summed up as saying, basically, that Mary suffered to atone for our sins. It is simply not good theology. Only a perfect sacrifice -- God's sacrifice -- can atone for the sins of mankind.

Catholics believe, as was stated in the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification between the Catholic Church and the Lutheran Church, that we are saved by grace alone, and that grace inspires in us faith and good deeds. We must accept this grace and choose to follow it's call by virtue of our free will, thereby participating in our salvation. [I apologise if this is not fully correct, I'm far less than an entirely reliable authority on Catholic teaching]

I was actually very impressed by the Joint Declaration until a relative of mine pointed out that it actually doesn't address salvation but only justication, and that Roman Catholics tend to divide this two concepts into completely seperate categories whereas most others consider them very similar and even interchangeable concepts. It's a fascinating example of how the same language can mean different things to different people. I really wonder how much new ground was broken at all by this agreement -- it looks startling and wonderful on paper, but I'm not entirely sure that anyone really truly changed their position. The RCC simply changed the way they talk about what they already believe to sound as if their belief is the same as Luther's, even though it actually is not.

Full reunification into one Communion would require acceptance of the doctrine that the Bishop of Rome is the Vicar of Christ

This is not the historic teaching of the Church, at least in the way that Roman Catholics define Vicar of Christ. Please see canon 6 of the first Council of Nicea. No unification will come unless Roman Catholics can allow for the Pope to be considered first in honor without any absolute authority over the Church as a whole.

I hope that, as sincere people, as religious people and as Christians, you can understand that we are conscience bound to follow what we believe to be true

I agree, as do many theologians within and without of the Roman Catholic church. Historically, the Roman Catholic church magisterium has not agreed with that line of reasoning, though, which has been the cause of much strife between the RCC and other members of the body.

John

 

[Iron Sun 254]

Full reunification into one Communion would require acceptance of the doctrine that the Bishop of Rome is the Vicar of Christ and successor of Saint Peter, on whom the Church was founded by Christ (in Catholic belief). It is not that Catholics want to impose authority on others, it is that this is what we sincerely believe to be true. I'm truly sorry if any animosity and division is caused by this but I will not apologise for what I believe is the Truth. I hope that, as sincere people, as religious people and as Christians, you can understand that we are conscience bound to follow what we believe to be true, and even if we wanted more than anything else to change a dogma, we could not. Note-not we would not, we literally cannot...

In otherwords, full reunification happens when we all decide to become Catholics. If that's what we believed, we'd be doing it now.

 

[gitlance]

We just need an Anglican to covertly climb the ladder of the Roman heirarchy and become pope. That would solve everything.

 

[pandg]

We just need an Anglican to covertly climb the ladder of the Roman heirarchy and become pope. That would solve everything.

Yes it might! I saw that prophecied somewhere so who knows
And as so many have said, there is always hope.

 

[Robbie_James_Francis]

Yes, as I have said, reunification would require acceptance of all Catholic dogmas. So...becoming Catholic bascially. But you are equally convinced that it will require the changing of some dogmas...so in some ways we feel the same about each of our Traditions. I certainly feel it is impossible to change any official doctrines and no pope or Council can ever do that.

In Christ,

Robbie

 

[Colabomb]

Yes, as I have said, reunification would require acceptance of all Catholic dogmas. So...becoming Catholic bascially. But you are equally convinced that it will require the changing of some dogmas...so in some ways we feel the same about each of our Traditions. I certainly feel it is impossible to change any official doctrines and no pope or Council can ever do that.

In Christ,

Robbie

I don't know if this is in the same field, and no, I don't think the Roman Catholic Church will be changing anything any time soon....

But the excommunication of the Orthodox was lifted, and the pope has called the Orthodox (who don't believe in the papal doctrines) the Left Lung of the Church. We have difficulty with the fact that we are suddenly the only Apostolic Group left out of the picture.

 

[Iron Sun 254]

Yes, as I have said, reunification would require acceptance of all Catholic dogmas. So...becoming Catholic bascially. But you are equally convinced that it will require the changing of some dogmas...so in some ways we feel the same about each of our Traditions. I certainly feel it is impossible to change any official doctrines and no pope or Council can ever do that.

In Christ,

Robbie

Well...that's why it'll never happen. Anglicans say "It would require some changes to reach this goal" and Catholics say "We won't change at all." We're not asking you to change completely but you're asking us to.

 

[Colabomb]

Well...that's why it'll never happen. Anglicans say "It would require some changes to reach this goal" and Catholics say "We won't change at all." We're not asking you to change completely but you're asking us to.

Because they believe they have the Truth. I disagree with many of their doctrines, but at least I understand why they won't change.

I won't change what I believe to please others. To do so would be betraying God.

 

[gitlance]

Because they believe they have the Truth. I disagree with many of their doctrines, but at least I understand why they won't change.

I won't change what I believe to please others. To do so would be betraying God.

AMEN!

 

[pmcleanj]

I must say, I am impressed by the staunchness of my coreligionists! How well you all discern the core issues of reunification! If you didn't get rep from me today, you had best assume it's because I've already repped you too recently!

(I'm so proud of you all!)