To end the Schism?

[maryofoxford]

Perhaps there are major doctrinal differences, but at the parish level, theology in the RCC has gone to pot. The college I was studied at recently had a great deal of liberal / post modern ideas, which totally undermine true theology.

If you were at a Catholic University, and it behaved liberally, then it was NOT doing it with the blessing of the Church. Theology at the RCC level hasn't gone to pot; the teaching of correct theology of the RCC may have in SOME schools and universities. Some of them aren't even controlled by Catholic board members any longer, leaving many to wonder why or when Rome will pull their ability to use the term "Catholic" in their descriptions.

 

[Esdra]

If you were at a Catholic University, and it behaved liberally, then it was NOT doing it with the blessing of the Church. Theology at the RCC level hasn't gone to pot; the teaching of correct theology of the RCC may have in SOME schools and universities. Some of them aren't even controlled by Catholic board members any longer, leaving many to wonder why or when Rome will pull their ability to use the term "Catholic" in their descriptions.

Is it really that worse in the us that the Church will pull their ability to use the term "Catholic" in their descriptions?

 

[Albion]

If you were at a Catholic University, and it behaved liberally, then it was NOT doing it with the blessing of the Church.

Unfortunately, that no longer holds true. There was a time when the few profs or priests who got out of line were clearly on their own and got reprimanded as a result. But there is no credible way to deny that, in today's Catholic Church in the USA, liberal theology is standard, usual, typical.

There are a few hot button issues where that wouldn't be so, such as abortion or women's ordination, and even there, disagreement with the official church policy is often winked at so long as it doesn't become a public demonstration. But as for liberal theology in general...that war is over. The Roman Catholic Church in the USA is ordinarily on the liberal side of things political and theological, and quite happily so, thank you.

the teaching of correct theology of the RCC may have in SOME schools and universities. Some of them aren't even controlled by Catholic board members any longer

Yes, but even in the ones that are, there is no difference.

 

[Sean611]

Unfortunately, that no longer holds true. There was a time when the few profs or priests who got out of line were clearly on their own and got reprimanded as a result. But there is no credible way to deny that, in today's Catholic Church in the USA, liberal theology is standard, usual, typical.

There are a few hot button issues where that wouldn't be so, such as abortion or women's ordination, and even there, disagreement with the official church policy is often winked at so long as it doesn't become a public demonstration. But as for liberal theology in general...that war is over. The Roman Catholic Church in the USA is ordinarily on the liberal side of things political and theological, and quite happily so, thank you.

I think that this is largely correct. I use to think that if things got bad enough in TEC, Rome may be the answer. However, Rome and Canterbury is the same headache with the same problems in so many ways. It amazes me that traditionalist Anglicans and traditionalist Roman Catholics use the same arguments. Both of us say that our "official" canons/beliefs have not been changed and that those who espouse something different are disagreeing with what the church "officially" believes. The question is, if most of the laity, priests, and bishops have moved on from what the church "officially" believes on paper, what is really left? We can appeal to papers all day long, but it doesn't really make much difference if very few people pay attention to such documents and "official" beliefs.

Also, I understand that the laity in the RCC in the U.S., overall, is quite liberal. Most U.S. Roman Catholics support abortion, gay marriage, and the use of contraceptives. I also understand that there are many RCC priests who are as liberal as the laity. The RCC is also quite economically liberal (in a big government progressive sense, not classically liberal). That said, are the majority of RCC priests and bishops in the U.S. liberal theologically? When I say liberal theologically, I say it meaning denial of the Trinity, miracles, virgin birth, resurrection, Christ's divinity, and so on.

 

[ChesterKhan]

To both of the Anglicans above: what do you make of EWTN? Relevant Radio? That sort of thing?

There are plenty of orthodox Catholic theologians and places to learn orthodox Catholic thought. Franciscan University of Steubenville. Benedictine College. Thomas Aquinas College. To name a few. And we still believe abortion is wrong, gay marriage is not possible, contraception is a sin, and of course the Nicene Creed.

 

[Albion]

There are plenty of orthodox Catholic theologians and places to learn orthodox Catholic thought. Franciscan University of Steubenville. Benedictine College. Thomas Aquinas College. To name a few..

And "few" would be the word to use. Or "atypical."

 

[ChesterKhan]

And "few" would be the word to use. Or "atypical."

Well, if by this you mean "mainstream", I will admit most Catholics in this country are not the way I and many others are.

But somehow, these apostolates, as we call 'em, manage to scrape enough together to keep afloat. Considering they're funded by private pledge drives - like PBS - and EWTN is on cable, radio, and the Internet, I can't imagine the orthodox contingency of Catholics is small.

Now, there are small apostolates. Vericast, for example, which is a relatively level-headed Catholic podcast with perhaps 20 regular live listeners, and maybe a few dozen on-demand. But when we're talking about 24/7 cable, radio stations in every state in the lower 48, we're not talking chump change, or a small contingency.

But more importantly, Catholicism is not a democracy. This has been rather fortunate, considering the number of areas the bark of Peter might have been wrecked in the past. Arianism, iconoclasm, Monophysitism, Catharism, modernism, and of course the present worship of human sexuality.

So while 90% of baptised Catholics may use contraception, just like the rest of Protestants, Anglicans, and I don't doubt Orthodox, the Catholic Church will not become a democracy. Can your bishops say the same? Are they like St. Nicholas, St. Athanasius against the world? Or are they like Eusebius - very educated, but erroneous? Are they like Novatian? Are they like Hippolytus before or after he reconciled with Pope Pontian?

Are they like Martin Luther, whom the Pope forgave, but the nobles threatened? Or are they like Pope St. Martin I, whom the bishops supported but the emperor imprisoned and exiled?

Vatican II may point to liberties the laity may take, but it does not give them the liberty of changing the Church God founded. Changes of custom may come from the bottom-up, but if changes of doctrine occur, it will come from the top down - just as all truth comes.

 

[Albion]

Well, if by this you mean "mainstream", I will admit most Catholics in this country are not the way I and many others are.

I'm still trying to figure out how "atypical" means "mainstream," but maybe you meant it's NOT mainstream.

But more importantly, Catholicism is not a democracy. This has been rather fortunate, considering the number of areas the bark of Peter might have been wrecked in the past. Arianism, iconoclasm, Monophysitism, Catharism, modernism, and of course the present worship of human sexuality.

So while 90% of baptised Catholics may use contraception, just like the rest of Protestants, Anglicans, and I don't doubt Orthodox, the Catholic Church will not become a democracy. Can your bishops say the same?

I don't think any of our bishops feel that there's a likelihood of their churches becoming "democracies," no.

Are they like St. Nicholas, St. Athanasius against the world?

For sure.

Or are they like Eusebius - very educated, but erroneous?

No, they're quite orthodox and it matters to them.

Changes of custom may come from the bottom-up, but if changes of doctrine occur, it will come from the top down - just as all truth comes.

That may be where we diverge; there's no interest in our churches for doctrine to be changed, whether by the people or by the bishops.

However, it was the Roman Catholic Church that was being discussed and it is well-known that, in the USA at least, most of its decision-makers are very much on the liberal side of things.

 

[Sean611]

The Pope's top adviser recently said that Catholicism and Libertarianism are incompatible:

An adviser to Pope Francis says Catholicism is incompatible with libertarianism. He's right. - The Week

Economically speaking, one would be hard pressed to find a more progressive liberal church than the RCC. There was even a conference that was hosted by a Cardinal (the same one from above), were the only goal was to bash libertarians.

 

[Albion]

The Pope's top adviser recently said that Catholicism and Libertarianism are incompatible:

An adviser to Pope Francis says Catholicism is incompatible with libertarianism. He's right. - The Week

Economically speaking, one would be hard pressed to find a more progressive liberal church than the RCC. There was even a conference that was hosted by a Cardinal (the same one from above), were the only goal was to bash libertarians.

Well, I guess we'd readily admit that authoritarianism is incompatible with liberty and libertarianism, so....

 

[ChesterKhan]

I'm still trying to figure out how "atypical" means "mainstream," but maybe you meant it's NOT mainstream.

I might have been a bit confusing. Yes, I meant the Church in communion with Rome is not mainstream. Never has been. Much of American history, up to the present, has been rather anti-Catholic, in fact.

I don't think any of our bishops feel that there's a likelihood of their churches becoming "democracies," no.

Maybe I was a bit too poetic there.

Let's put it another way: do you really wish to say that the latitudinarianism of the Anglican Communion (for example, not taking either Real Presence or spiritual presence as being true, but allowing latitude on this and many other subjects of doctrine) has been the habit of the Church since the beginning?

No, they're quite orthodox and it matters to them.

As latitudinarianism seems to be the rule of the day in Anglican doctrine and among Anglican bishops, I don't believe it matters to them. The ordination of Schori as a "bishop", in spite of the complaining of high-churchmen, is a fine example of that.

That may be where we diverge; there's no interest in our churches for doctrine to be changed, whether by the people or by the bishops.

Depends on how you mean "change". If you mean "added on to", that could very well be legitimate. Your bishops have seen fit to that. As have mine (Immaculate Conception etc). If you mean, "alter", I think we both disagree, and want the ancient faith of the Apostles. Although why our doctrines "change"... ay, that's the point of impact.

However, it was the Roman Catholic Church that was being discussed and it is well-known that, in the USA at least, most of its decision-makers are very much on the liberal side of things.

No bishop, nor any incomplete collection of bishops, by themselves, has the ability, much less the right, to change doctrine. Whether they follow it or not is a different issue.

But I maintain that the Anglican Communion and many other Protestant groups, especially mainline ones, have added the heresy of latitude into their doctrines, so that the Church may be lead by the followers, so it leads the followers - but where the followers want to go. Another image: the king rules so that he may rule, not so that he may serve his people. And so, ironically, the king becomes the slave of the people's wants and cravings, just to maintain his golden crown and his guards. A true king, such as Our Lord, would die to give them what they really need. Even if he had to give up his crown, a king acting like a King would not abdicate his servitude.

 

[luckyfredsdad]

RCC & EOC - what exactly would it take to end the schism between the two

The Roman side would have to abandon, I imagine, both Papal Jurisdiction and Infallibility!

The Roman Bishops would have to come to some arrangement about their lack of freedom, in that they surrendered theirs at the Council if Trent. 1545/ 1565 and put all their responsibilities upon the shoulders of Rome.

Just as the Anglican Church holds to Seven Councils, so do Orthodoxy, Rome has twenty three or so? Unless they come to some agreement they would have to abandon ,what (?) sixteen or so! including Trent, the Robber Council!Further, though Orthodoxy refer to Transubstantiation, when referring to the Houseling, infact they believe in the Real Presence as do traditional Anglicans. Also Orthodoxy do not hold to the Immaculate Conception, believing the Lady Mary was not freed from sin at her Conception, but possibly some time after that event.They do believe that Mary is the Theotokos , is All Holy and Immaculate as well as being Ever Virgin. It seems to me that they have more in common with Anglicanism than Rome!

The Bishop of Rome would, I think have to surrender his magisterium, which in Orthodoxy is centred within the Seven Councils of the first 1000 years.
Neither should there be any upset regarding the Bishop of Rome being Patriarch of Europe! It was not a Church appointment, but a gift from the Roman Emperors!

 

[Albion]

I might have been a bit confusing. Yes, I meant the Church in communion with Rome is not mainstream. Never has been. Much of American history, up to the present, has been rather anti-Catholic, in fact.

Maybe I was a bit too poetic there.

Let's put it another way: do you really wish to say that the latitudinarianism of the Anglican Communion (for example, not taking either Real Presence or spiritual presence as being true, but allowing latitude on this and many other subjects of doctrine) has been the habit of the Church since the beginning?

No.

As latitudinarianism seems to be the rule of the day in Anglican doctrine and among Anglican bishops, I don't believe it matters to them. The ordination of Schori as a "bishop", in spite of the complaining of high-churchmen, is a fine example of that.

OK.

Depends on how you mean "change". If you mean "added on to", that could very well be legitimate. Your bishops have seen fit to that.

MY bishops and MY Church have not IMO...and that's all that I was answering to--just that which you asked of me. I was not answering there for the Anglican Communion or the Episcopal Church, which are other Anglican bodies. I am a Continuing Anglican. You asked about my church and my bishops and that's what my answers referred to.

As have mine (Immaculate Conception etc). If you mean, "alter", I think we both disagree, and want the ancient faith of the Apostles. Although why our doctrines "change"... ay, that's the point of impact.

No bishop, nor any incomplete collection of bishops, by themselves, has the ability, much less the right, to change doctrine. Whether they follow it or not is a different issue.

But I maintain that the Anglican Communion and many other Protestant groups, especially mainline ones, have added the heresy of latitude into their doctrines

That's probably correct to say. So since we have agreed on that, isn't there some obligation on the part of the individual--you or me--to do something about this when faced with it? I mean, you seem to be wringing your hands about something you consider seriously wrong, but you still belong to that denomination, don't you??

 

[ChesterKhan]

MY bishops and MY Church have not IMO...and that's all that I was answering to--just that which you asked of me. I was not answering there for the Anglican Communion or the Episcopal Church, which are other Anglican bodies. I am a Continuing Anglican. You asked about my church and my bishops and that's what my answers referred to.

Ok, I think this was the misunderstanding I was having. I did not know you were a Continuing Anglican. I thought you were part of mainstream Anglicanism. A thousands pardons, offendee. :o I mean that. I appreciate Anglicans who are willing to part company with their mainstream in the name of true doctrine. And I apologise for any implications of latitude where they are not appropriate. (Though, I still believe both our bishops can and do "change doctrine", in a way.)

However, that does leave a somewhat serious problem: where do they get the authority to say the Church of England is wrong and they are right? It's not that I disagree with your not being in the Anglican Communion. That's a good move. But my question would be, "why, then, is mainstream Anglican doctrine wrong?". The "why" is as important as the "it is wrong".

That's probably correct to say. So since we have agreed on that, isn't there some obligation on the part of the individual--you or me--to do something about this when faced with it? I mean, you seem to be wringing your hands about something you consider seriously wrong, but you still belong to that denomination, don't you??

The bishops have rebelled, but the doctrine has not changed. And even then, there are still many faithful bishops and laymen. And the Pope - very orthodox. It is not the first time bishops and laity have defected from true doctrine. As long as we have true doctrine, we will be fine. And thankfully, one of those true doctrines is apostolic authority, particularly Petrine primacy.""

Gotta go!

 

[WisdomTree]

The second coming

This, and for all the schisms.

For Catholics, everyone would have to accept Papal Supremacy as understood within the context of the First Vatican Council.

For Eastern Orthodoxy, Papal Supremacy would have to be rejected as well as the filioque clause and the use of unleavened bread as well as accepting the model of the Pentarchy (though this is subject to change due to the Roman Empire not existing anymore).

For Oriental Orthodoxy, anything post Council of Chalcedon, inclusively, would need to be rejected with the embracement of Miaphysite Christology and the re-establishment of the Petrine Sees.

For the Church of the East, anything post Council of Ephesus, inclusively, would need to be rejected with no bishops having authority over another.

That's the gist of it.

Now all these issues isn't just due to the sin of pride. Though it may seem superficial, the issues are legitimate and all the group genuinely believe that what they believe are correct and believed by our predecessors the Apostles as it is evident in Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. It would take a supreme judge to rule in favour to one side or another, and the only one that could possibly do this is the one who set up the whole thing in the first place, which is Christ himself.

 

[Albion]

However, that does leave a somewhat serious problem: where do they get the authority to say the Church of England is wrong and they are right?

Scripture, Tradition, and Reason. But, by the way, few (Continuing) Anglican church bodies have separated from the Church of England which has jurisdiction essentially only over England.

It's not that I disagree with your not being in the Anglican Communion. That's a good move. But my question would be, "why, then, is mainstream Anglican doctrine wrong?". The "why" is as important as the "it is wrong".

It changed a number of doctrines and practices. In fact, the original Continuers made the point that the churches from which they separated had apostasized by ordaining women, who are excluded by Scripture from being priests or bishops. I'm not sure that I would say that myself, but I wanted to say that the issues involved what were considered essential doctrines and, of course, were real innovations.

The bishops have rebelled, but the doctrine has not changed.

Of course it's changed. I just gave you one example and there are many more.

then, there are still many faithful bishops and laymen. And the Pope - very orthodox.

It's a question whether it is possible to be orthodox if you give your allegiance to--and witness to the world your membership in--a heterodox church, don't you think?

It is not the first time bishops and laity have defected from true doctrine. As long as we have true doctrine, we will be fine.

Well, you don't anymore. That's why there had to be a Reformation.

And thankfully, one of those true doctrines is apostolic authority, particularly Petrine primacy.

I'll give you credit for not trying to claim the Papal Supremacy and Papal Infallibility as somehow orthodox, but if the Pope wants to keep his little honorarium from the Roman Empire, some Anglicans would be willing to negotiate it. I doubt that it will ever play a significant role in any reunion talks, however, so it's something of an historical footnote.

 

[ChesterKhan]

Scripture, Tradition, and Reason.

And as a Catholic I agree.

What does your particular group of Continuing Anglicans make of apostolic succession? I notice we are in the Apostolic Succession Churches forums. Just to know where to go from here, apostolic succession: yea or nay?

It changed a number of doctrines and practices. In fact, the original Continuers made the point that the churches from which they separated had apostasized by ordaining women,

Sorry, I meant my own Church, the Church in communion with Rome - the "Roman" Catholic Church - not the Anglican Communion. I agree that the Anglican Communion has gone off the rails and into the ravine, on the very issue you posted.

who are excluded by Scripture from being priests or bishops. I'm not sure that I would say that myself, but I wanted to say that the issues involved what were considered essential doctrines and, of course, were real innovations.

Of course it's changed. I just gave you one example and there are many more.

Speaking of the Anglican Communion, yes. Definitely. Christ never gave the position of Apostle to a woman, not even His own Mother, or Mary Magdalene, Martha, or Mary, or any other woman. In 1900 years it had never come up once. It's absolutely nuts.

But there is no analogue in the Roman Catholic Church. None. Nichts da. Nein. There is just no comparison between Rome and Canterbury.

It's a question whether it is possible to be orthodox if you give your allegiance to--and witness to the world your membership in--a heterodox church, don't you think?

I'm confused. First you talk about the Anglican Communion. Now you want to bring up Rome...

What is wrong with Rome?

I'll give you credit for not trying to claim the Papal Supremacy and Papal Infallibility as somehow orthodox,

Depends on what you mean by those phrases.

but if the Pope wants to keep his little honorarium from the Roman Empire, some Anglicans would be willing to negotiate it. I doubt that it will ever play a significant role in any reunion talks, however, so it's something of an historical footnote.

Nonsense. All oecumenical talks center around, really, where one gets his authority from, and what shape that authority takes. That's the real reason Protestants fear the saints, and Mary. They fear we obey the Saints and Mary as if they were God, and they do not want to be sucked into an understandable slavery. It's why branch theory was once popular among Anglicans. It's why myriads of Protestant communities, many out of communion with each other, are scattered like sprinkles across the Earth.

Authority is the only real question that divides our communities, and the only thing that unites every Catholic within the communion of Rome. Something is not right if we disagree about who gives the directions, and how, but still think we're following the right directions.

 

[Albion]

And as a Catholic I agree.

What does your particular group of Continuing Anglicans make of apostolic succession?

Like all Anglican churches, mine believes in Apostolic Succession and all the clergy are in Apostolic Succession.

I'm confused. First you talk about the Anglican Communion. Now you want to bring up Rome...

YOU brought up Rome. I've done little other than answer your questions as you phrased them.

What is wrong with Rome?

The Roman Catholic Church teaches many unscriptural, erroneous doctrines. They are often debated on these forums.

Nonsense. All oecumenical talks center around, really, where one gets his authority from, and what shape that authority takes.

The honorary titles was what I was speaking of. You mentioned "primacy" and that's what caused me to refer to this.

That's the real reason Protestants fear the saints, and Mary.

Now I'm the one who gets to say "nonsense." I'm sure you think your
comment is clever, but we don't "fear" the saints.

Authority is the only real question that divides our communities,

I don't think so.

 

[Basil the Great]

The second coming

That might be the best answer that I have seen in Christian Forums for a very long time. You could well be right.

 

[Basil the Great]

My own view is that unity will probably not occur until Christianity comes under assault to such an extent that the numbers of believers shrink and shrink and shrink and the two sides are basically forced to unite in order to survive. This could happen within a few generations, especially if Atheism and Modernism continue to grow.