Yikes. Reform-minded groups want something like the Church of England !!!!???!!!

From the new website Crux, this report from Inés San Martín on a coalition of reformers calling for change at the upcoming extraordinary synod.

An except:

According to her, the vast majority of the people disagree with the Church’s teaching on contraception, homosexuality, divorce, withholding Eucharist from the divorced, but none of those have been invited.

“There’s not a single reform mind that’s been invited to the Synod,” she said.

-snip-

Reed said that ideally, the Church should have diocesan Synods, parish councils and finance committees. These would give the laity a deliberative voice in running local churches, which would run up through the system.

She also suggested that the Roman Catholic Church have synods like the ones held by the Church of England, which have a House of Bishops, one for the Clergy and one of the laity.

“We want what the Church of England has, but remaining Catholic,” she said.

 

Again, I say, “Yikes” and thank God we do not have diocesan synods etc.

 

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

15 Responses to Yikes. Reform-minded groups want something like the Church of England !!!!???!!!

    • Foolishness says:

      We seemed to be on a trajectory toward Rome at that Synod. While there were some dissenters present, the vote was, as I recall, for the ACCC to proceed with Anglicanorum coetius. I also look back and think many of the things Archbishop Hepworth speculated about at that Synod about how everything would unfold have come true. No, we did not get the corporate reunion he had hoped for, but those of us who survived the process now have most of what else he spoke of. For example, our liturgy is wonderful; our former priests have been ordained Catholic priests even if some did not have a standard seminary formation; and we have been so welcomed within the Ottawa archdiocese.

      • EPMS says:

        Of course there were many blessings as a result of the synod, but I meant that you also expressed good feelings about the process, the fellowship, etc.

      • Rev22:17 says:

        Deborah,

        You wrote: No, we did not get the corporate reunion he had hoped for, but those of us who survived the process now have most of what else he spoke of. For example, our liturgy is wonderful; our former priests have been ordained Catholic priests even if some did not have a standard seminary formation; and we have been so welcomed within the Ottawa archdiocese.

        Yes, those who came from the Anglican Catholic Church of Canada (ACCC) have found a wonderful reception! And although the reconciliation might not have been “corporate” in the strict sense, each congregation came through the entire process of preparation and reception together and thus remained intact.

        Unfortunately, things have not gone as smoothly for those who were coming from the Anglican Church in America (ACA) on this side of the border. As far as I can tell, none of the former ACA bishops have been ordained or even admitted to the track for ordination, and several former ACA presbyters also seem not to be on an ordination track.

        Norm.

  1. Tim S. says:

    There were also a group of people who didn’t respond and live the doctrine of the Eucharist when Jesus taught it Himself: We call them Jews.

    These people should leave the Catholic Church if they don’t like what it teaches. The problem lies in the “inculturation” of the faith to the effect that these people want to call themselves Catholics by virtue of their ethnic and cultural affiliation, but are utterly ignorant in their faith due to lack of teaching from parents or neighbors, or even priests.

    • Rev22:17 says:

      Tim,

      You wrote: These people should leave the Catholic Church if they don’t like what it teaches.

      This is true on both sides of the spectrum. Many Traditionalists are just as guilty of rejecting authentic Catholic doctrine as these progressives. The only difference is the specific points of doctrine that they happen to reject. Many Traditionalists reject (1) the validity of the ordinary form of the mass and (2) the ecclesiology of the dogmatic constitution Lumen gentium.

      You wrote: The problem lies in the “inculturation” of the faith to the effect that these people want to call themselves Catholics by virtue of their ethnic and cultural affiliation, but are utterly ignorant in their faith due to lack of teaching from parents or neighbors, or even priests.

      First, this statement reflects a gross misunderstanding of the term “inculturation” — which means that one may use elements of one’s own culture to express the true faith. It does NOT mean that one can maintain cultural practices or beliefs that are contrary to true Christian faith.

      And second, ignorance also occurs on both sides. Among Traditionalists, it tends to take the form of blindly following the rules, going through the motions, without truly surrendering one’s heart and one’s life to the lordship of Jesus.

      A few days ago, I attended a meeting an alumni-faculty advisory board for the Catholic campus ministry at my alma mater. I don’t recall the context, but the subject of theological orthodoxy came up somehow, whereupon another member of the board attributed a comment to the late U. S. President Lyndon Johnson: “It is better to have the people on the fringes inside the tent p***ing out that outside the tent p***ing in.” This generally seems to be the policy of the magisterium: they seem not declare those in serious error to be in schism unless they actually do something that creates a canonical schism, like the episcopal ordinations by Archbishop Marcel Levebvre and Bishop Antônio de Castro Mayer at Ecône in 1988.

      Norm.

      • EPMS says:

        Norm, your perception of the ACCC process is unduly rosy: in fact no congregation entered in its entirety. In some cases congregations, or substantial portions of them, left for another jurisdiction, in some cases the congregation remained in the ACCC while a small number left for the Ordinariate. The cathedral in Victoria experienced both situations.

      • Rev22:17 says:

        EPMS,

        You wrote: In some cases congregations, or substantial portions of them, left for another jurisdiction, in some cases the congregation remained in the ACCC while a small number left for the Ordinariate. The cathedral in Victoria experienced both situations.

        Yes, I’m aware that there are those who, for various reasons, chose not to enter the ordinariate. I clearly was speaking of those who chose to proceed.

        Norm.

      • Foolishness says:

        I think there is far more danger in the misinterpretation of a summary or paraphrase than there is from an original presentation.

      • Tim S. says:

        Rev,
        What doctrines do Traditionalists reject? Do you accuse them of something? Please speak plainly and carefully, because you do not seem to think before you type.

        Traditionalists do not reject Transubstantiation- why do you accuse them of this? They do not believe that consecration is valid without the words of institution, or if a priest inserts his own personal prayer instead.

        Why do you misrepresent Traditionalists, are you such a hateful person that you would accuse people who want a respectful form of worship, of being heretics? Why do you call these people who merely worshiped the way their forefathers worshiped if not by your own prejudice and ignorance. If you want to worship in the new style, Traditionalists aren’t shutting down your parishes, but why do you insist on forcing Traditionalists to worship the way you want to worship and calling them heretics, YOU are a heretic, and you are the most judgmental blowhard I have ever seen in this blog.

        You’re one of the reasons why I want to leave the Church. You are as bad as Michael Voris.

      • Rev22:17 says:

        Tim,

        You wrote: What doctrines do Traditionalists reject?

        Did you read what I actually wrote, or did you fly off the handle based on what you assumed that I was saying after half-reading the first sentence?

        The following paragraph (boldface added) in the post to which you replied answered this question quite clearly.

        This is true on both sides of the spectrum. Many Traditionalists are just as guilty of rejecting authentic Catholic doctrine as these progressives. The only difference is the specific points of doctrine that they happen to reject. Many Traditionalists reject (1) the validity of the ordinary form of the mass and (2) the ecclesiology of the dogmatic constitution Lumen gentium.

        Also, you will note that I spoke of many Traditionalists rather than all Traditionalists, allowing the possibility that some Traditionalists — and perhaps even a majority — might not fall into this category.

        You wrote: Traditionalists do not reject Transubstantiation- why do you accuse them of this?

        Here, you are plainly wrong. I never made such an accusation.

        You continued: They do not believe that consecration is valid without the words of institution, or if a priest inserts his own personal prayer instead.

        I really do wish that life were that simple. What was sacramentally valid in apostolic and post-apostolic times, when there were no liturgical books and the principal celebrant composed and prayed the anaphora spontaneously, is still sacramentally valid today. And to be completely honest, I yearn for a day when all of are clergy are so spirit-filled that we will be able to return to the earlier practice.

        However, if the principal celebrant of a mass celebrated under normal circumstances of the present day were to compose his own anaphora, I would regard it as disobedient at best and likely not in communion with the magisterium. Thus, I would not assist in or otherwise support the masses of any parish or seek the pastoral services of any presbyter or bishop that were to follow such a practice.

        Having said that, I’m willing to admit the possibility that exceptional circumstances of an extreme nature might require a deviation from the normal practice. By way of example, consider a military chaplain who has been taken Prisoner of War (POW), whose captors have taken his liturgical books from him, wanting to provide sacramental ministry to the other captives in his POW camp who otherwise would not have any access to the sacraments. Or consider a presbyter providing clandestine sacramental ministry in a place where the church faces official suppression, such that possession of liturgical books is too dangerous. In such situations, there must be an accommodation.

        As to the presence of an institution narrative, perhaps you are not familiar with the determination by the magisterium of the Catholic Church, acting through the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, that the Anaphora of Addai and Mari of the Chaldean/Assyrian Rite is in fact valid as a prayer of consecration of the eucharistic elements even though it does not contain text that you probably would recognize as an institution narrative. This is the most ancient recorded anaphora in Christendom. According to Assyrian/Chaldean tradition, Addai and Mari were two of the seventy-two called and sent by Jesus (see Luke 10:1-74) who subsequently accompanied the apostle Thomas to the East and evangelized much of the Asian continent, and the anaphora unchanged dates to apostolic times.

        You wrote: Why do you misrepresent Traditionalists, are you such a hateful person that you would accuse people who want a respectful form of worship, of being heretics? Why do you call these people who merely worshiped the way their forefathers worshiped if not by your own prejudice and ignorance. If you want to worship in the new style, Traditionalists aren’t shutting down your parishes, but why do you insist on forcing Traditionalists to worship the way you want to worship and calling them heretics, YOU are a heretic, and you are the most judgmental blowhard I have ever seen in this blog.

        I rather think that you have crossed the line way too far here, and that an apology is in order.

        In fact, I have long supported, and even advocated, the establishment of personal parishes for those who wish to worship according to the Tridentine form of the liturgy where numbers are sufficient to sustain them, and chaplaincies for such individuals where there are smaller groups. I fully supported the founding of the Fraternal Society of St. Peter (FSSP) by former members of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) who wanted to remain in full communion of the Catholic Church in the wake of the schism triggered by the illicit episcopal consecrations at Econe in 1988. I also fully supported the reconciliation of the former Sacerdotal Society of St. John Mary Vianney and its reconstitution as the present Personal Apostolic Administration of St. John Mary Vianney. And I yearn for the reconciliation of the SSPX — but this will require the SSPX to recant on the present doctrinal errors to which it adheres, including (1) its claims that the present ordinary form of the Roman Rite is somehow defective and therefore invalid and (2) that salvific elements do not exist in Christian bodies that are not in full communion with the Catholic Church (which, if true, paradoxically means that salvific elements do not exist within the SSPX and thus that those who adhere to the SSPX have no hope of salvation). These heresies are a tragic obstacle to reconciliation, so long as the SSPX continues to adhere to them.

        Incidentally, I’m encouraged that the SSPX has publicly indicated satisfaction with the ecclesial structure that the Vatican has proffered to its leaders upon its reconciliation. At least the question of how the SSPX would fit into the Roman Catholic Church is settled — and I do not regard that question as insignificant!

        Norm.

  2. Richard Grand says:

    It is a bit strange to say that you want no Synods. How do lay people participate in decision making, or are you just supposed to “pay, pray, and obey”. Even more strange, lay involvement and participation is an aspect of the much discussed “Anglican ethos” that supposedly is what the Ordinariate is all about.

    • Foolishness says:

      I do not want synods of lay people who do not know the faith to think they can decide by democracy what faith and morals the Church should hold. In the TAC, as far as I can recall, while there was a synod, lay people did not have the authority to vote on matters of faith and morals. This was the purview of the bishops. Lay people had a say in some governance aspects and I can support that—i.e. how money is spent, that kind of thing.

      • Stephen K says:

        I do not want synods of lay people who do not know the faith to think they can decide by democracy what faith and morals the Church should hold.

        Fair enough. You are making at least three points here, Deborah. One, that you don’t agree that faith and morals can be decided by democracy; two, that you don’t want to run the risk that a democratic process would result in decisions you would disagree with; and three, that people who be likely to make decisions you’d disagree with “don’t know the faith”.

        As to the first, it does at first glance seem strange to imagine – the way you’ve put it – that faith and morals could be decided by democracy – although even if the process is confined to bishops, say, at a Council, in effect, this is what happens. The Councils of the Church certainly decide matters of faith and morals by a majority vote, a collegiate democracy, however confined. So, democracy is not so intrinsically opposed to theology and religious jurisprudence after all.

        As to the second, well, that is the fear even all democrats have: that the other party will be more persuasive. Hence we have campaigns, lobbying, networking, all designed to out-persuade the rivals for the favour of the undecided. Even Popes do this, and it has ever been thus. If one is not a democrat, and believes only in autocracy or similar alternatives, then the fear is still there but the strategy is different – instead of arguing a counter-case in the attempt to out-persuade, one simply prevents discussion and appeals to – or simply executes – some remote or over-arching authority, or more specifically, coercive power. Much theological and religious discourse is uninspired or sterile or incestuous to the extent it relies on the appeals to ancient opinions or rulings.

        Finally, as to the third, it is probably not universally true that the people you would disagree with don’t know the faith as such, but almost certainly true that they do not hold the faith you have and that you believe they should have. It does not logically follow that because someone does not – or cannot – articulate the arguments for a particular official doctrine with complete textbook accuracy, they would agree with those arguments if they knew them and could do so. The most you can say, I believe, is that to the extent that your opponents’ do not have an accurate understanding of the official – or more relevantly perhaps, traditional – doctrines or positions, their arguments correspondingly do not cover the field and cannot be said to exhaust the matter(s).

        Only a complete naïf would fail to recognise that (a) church leaders of many stripes over centuries have resorted to autocracy when a favourable democracy was not considered likely; or that (b) all kinds of religious matters and points of doctrine or morals have been decided by some level of democracy and political/ecclesiastical expediency.

        Of course, whether the Catholic Church should have Synods open to a larger, less controllable, franchise will likely only happen if the limited democracy of the current officials deems it a good thing to do. And, of course, it is open to – and the full entitlement of – every Catholic to hold the same opinions and sentiments you do.

      • Rev22:17 says:

        Steven,

        You wrote: The Councils of the Church certainly decide matters of faith and morals by a majority vote, a collegiate democracy, however confined.

        That’s not really accurate. Rather, councils strive for a much broader consensus, and rarely issue statements to which a significant minority of bishops voice serious objection. Even the regional and national episcopal conferences require concurrence of two thirds of their members to submit legislation to the Vatican for ratification — an excellent safeguard against bad legislation implementing major changes in policy, with attendant disruption to society, that most political parties rush to implement when they come into power. This requirement, rather, generally forces those who propose something to address rational objections in order to garner a sufficient majority to enact it, and it also ensures that replacement of a few members of one viewpoint with members of another viewpoint won’t be sufficient, by itself, to cause radical shifts.

        That said, there is a reality that Catholic bishops are very highly educated, especially in theological and pastoral disciplines, and very capable of rational thought (obviously excepting, at any given time, a few who are suffering from senility or dementia in their later years — which is why Pope Paul VI instituted mandatory retirement for bishops). When they vote on proposals, they are voting based on their own rational analysis and considered input from their colleagues and equally well educated advisors rather than based on a whim or what “feels right” on any given day — which is precisely what many of “the masses” do on election day. This also contributes to the considered and deliberated character of their decisions.

        That said, there is a clear need to communicate their decisions in a way that makes sense to the average lay person in the pews. I think that some of the participants in the synod are correct in pointing to deficiencies or the recent past in this regard.

        Norm.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s