|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Jan 3, 2018 9:41:16 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by anglocat on Jan 3, 2018 15:45:15 GMT -5
Thanks for welcoming me to converse, thanks also for your helpful thoughts and questions, and thanks Voxx for your very kind words.
The Ordinariate crosses every Anglo-Catholic's mind, sure. Some finally go that route. IF I were persuaded of papal claims and Roman infallibility, then, yes, for reasons of heritage I'd be most drawn to the Ordinariate.
Yes, the Ordinariate (as I understand it) is parallel to Eastern Catholicism - an "English Uniate."
Of course, I'd need to discern whether the Ordinariate were consistent with the Roman Church as I then understood her to be. V2 is inconsistent with previous Roman teaching (partly in ways I like, such as regarding me as a separated brother, and partly in ways I don't like, such as heretical views of Jews and Muslims, "religious freedom," etc.). I'm not sure yet where I'd find the Ordinariate to be in relation to those things.
I think that the Ordinariate mass is very similar to that of the Anglican Missal (not to be confused with the Book of Common Prayer). Our mass is celebrated ad orientum, and otherwise also is very pre-novus ordo.
But, again, I see the Church as larger than the RCC.
I think of all branches which retain both conservative faith, and apostolic succession, as the "City Proper." This includes the RCC, Eastern Orthodoxy, faithful Anglicanism (emphasis on faithful - much isn't), the Polish National Catholic Church, some Lutheran groups who may retain both of those factors (?), etc.
I think of other expressions of Christianity which retain conservative faith, but not apostolic succession, as the "Suburbs" of the city. Not the City Proper, but adopting its name in common usage, and sharing many benefits of the city. Of course, some suburbs are closer to the city than others, and some share more with the city than others, so the "Burbs" are on a sliding scale.
Then there are so-called expressions of "Christianity" which do not retain conservative faith (whether or not they have apostolic succession). I do not recognize them as Christian whatsoever. Period.
All of that is just to say that I do not feel obligated to enter the Roman church. (And in fact if the Petrine donation is misunderstood by RCs then papal claims are actually wrong to make.)
I recognize that you probably view my ecclesiology in the same way I'd view the wishy-washy broad-tenting of pluralists.
But, you and I both believe that there are bounds inside of which life is available. So, we are rightly outraged by those who are more concerned to be liked than to be truthful, who lead others to believe that they are safe where they are actually damned.
The question is where those bounds are.
I don't hold what I hold because I want to be popular. I sincerely believe that the Church of Jesus Christ is larger than the RCC.
There is a cost for either of us, if we are wrong.
If I am wrong about the papacy, then I am in schism from the Church.
If you are wrong about the papacy, then your view is causing schism within the Church.
May God have mercy on us both!
Voxx, you asked,
//If you dont hold the Primacy of the Pope...on what do you base your faith in the inerrancy of The New Testament?//
I have a special interest in epistemology, and have often wondered why I believe this or that thing. It seems to me that two Christian assumptions are most foundational: the God of the Bible, and the Bible of God. I cannot discern which is more epistemically foundational, so I'll treat them as a pair. And, best as I can tell, I simply hold these as first principles. Foundational presuppositions. Sure, there are lots of arguments for God, whether classical, transcendental, etc., and lots of arguments for Scripture, evidential and otherwise, but I would be lying if I said that I believed *because* of these arguments. They are reassuring, but I had faith before I knew these arguments.
Some people hear the truth, and find that they believe.
Some people hear the truth, and find that they don't.
I find that I believe the NT. I have never yet believed in the Primacy of the bishop of Rome.
But I'm not here to cause trouble. I'm curious about some things, I suppose mainly because I'm a curious guy, but I don't mean to come into your forum and fire shots.
Thanks for your interaction, so far!
|
|
|
Post by Jayne on Jan 3, 2018 17:27:24 GMT -5
I recently came across some teaching about papal primacy that really resonated with me. It is a passage from Mystici Corporis link : While I found the words rang true, they also brought home to me how the current situation in the Church makes this truth difficult to see.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Jan 3, 2018 17:55:12 GMT -5
A-Cat....you cannot deny the primacy of Peter and in the same mind hold the NT to be authentic. It was The Roman Pontif and the Roman Catholic Bishops who BY the Petrine authority declared the books of the NT. That is why there are four gospels not 6...or 2. Im sorry friend...appealing to fuzzy feelings on the matter do not suffice in the face of solid Church History.
|
|
|
Post by Jayne on Jan 3, 2018 17:55:21 GMT -5
Of course, I'd need to discern whether the Ordinariate were consistent with the Roman Church as I then understood her to be. V2 is inconsistent with previous Roman teaching (partly in ways I like, such as regarding me as a separated brother, and partly in ways I don't like, such as heretical views of Jews and Muslims, "religious freedom," etc.). I'm not sure yet where I'd find the Ordinariate to be in relation to those things. The Ordinariate, from what I have seen of it, fits in with what I would call "Ecclesia Dei" trad. Is that a meaningful term for you?
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Jan 3, 2018 17:57:06 GMT -5
As far as causing trouble A-Cat...you are here at my personal invitation...you will have no trouble...you are no trouble.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Jan 3, 2018 17:59:21 GMT -5
Jayne we will not be promoting the ecumanist liberal ordinate here. It is a whole cloth sop to false ecumanism. A Cat should be Catholic...not Catholic lite.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Jan 3, 2018 18:05:12 GMT -5
And as a uniate I take umbrage when compared to the ordinate. The 2 are lightyears apart at least presently.
|
|
|
Post by carloscamejo on Jan 3, 2018 22:21:12 GMT -5
And as a uniate I take umbrage when compared to the ordinate. The 2 are lightyears apart at least presently. It's the layover in Honolulu on the longer flight elsewhere, if that makes any sense. Maybe it's a stepping stone to something, especially for the English, but not a permanent solution.
|
|
|
Post by RitaMarita on Jan 4, 2018 8:58:47 GMT -5
Hello, TradCats, My name is Scott . I'm Anglican, on the Catholic end of the spectrum, and on the extreme Right. I'm part of the "Continuum" - a set of very conservative, very Catholic-oriented dioceses which left The Episcopal Church years ago over its liberalism. I visited a Ukrainian Catholic parish this past Sunday, and met Joe VoxxKowalski (who invited me to engage, here). Joe mistook me for a TradCat (in the sense ya'll mean), probably both because I have six kids, aged nine and under, and also because my wife and daughters wear mantillas. Hi Scott, Welcome to the forum! One of the ladies who works on my parent's horse farm in is Traditional High Anglican. So, I am definitely familiar with where you are coming from. She visited my chapel, wears a chapel veil, and most people would probably mistake her for a traditional Catholic also. I am not great with debating. So, I will primarily leave that to the others. But, I will definitely keep you and my family in my prayers! Please do the same for all of us here! Keep fighting the good fight and may God bless you! Rita P.S. One problem that the RCC has with the Anglican Rite more than the Orthodox is that the Episcopal Lineage and form of the Sacrament was temporarily broken. Here is a document on that if you are interested: www.papalencyclicals.net/leo13/l13curae.htm
|
|
|
Post by anglocat on Jan 4, 2018 12:26:59 GMT -5
I appreciate the continued interaction and hospitality, here, friends.
I resonate in some sense with article 41 of "Mystici Corporis" - "...so obscured and so maimed, that those who are seeking the haven of eternal salvation can neither see it nor find it."
One thing I often say to my Roman and Orthodox friends, when they try to persuade me of their respective claims, is that none of this seems obvious to me.
Now, we could question whether the truth needs to be obvious. I suppose that it doesn't. Some truths are not. But, if the papacy is the difference between life and death, heaven and hell, then I'd expect God to make it a little clearer for the rest of us.
The papacy seems like a whole lot of mileage to get out of Matthew 16. Now, unlike many other non-RCs, I actually do agree with the RCC that Jesus, in this passage, gives Peter a foundational role in the Church. In light of how the history played out (Pentecost, in Acts 2), I don't think that Jesus is just playing on words, here, referring to Himself (if you weren't aware, that's a common non-RC interpretation). No, Peter at Pentecost played a unique role in the founding of the Catholic Church, and it's simplest to interpret Matthew 16 in light of that. And of course I believe in apostolic succession. But, to tie Petrine succession only to a particular See (ignoring Avignon for the moment) so that the succession in only linear, and so that the consecration is at the hands of others not in Petrine succession, seems odd. But far more odd is the notion that Peter's foundational role is part of what his successors inherit. The Church is built upon a rock--the image is of a building's foundation. That the Church was built (in this sense) upon Peter is a historical reality. It happened in the past. The foundation was already laid. If God wants us to know that this gives the bishop of Rome primacy over all other Catholic bishops, He must have communicated that elsewhere, because it's not in this text.
If nobody had questioned the papacy prior to the Reformation, then perhaps I'd be forced to look at this differently -- I'd at least ask what I'm missing. But the fact that the whole Eastern Church says that the Catholic Church was historically conciliar, and that the Primacy of Rome developed over time until the East had to say that enough was enough, gives me great pause.
The papcy doesn't pass the Vincentian Canon: All times, all places, all people. I don't mean to be unnecessarily offensive, but it just doesn't seem sufficiently Catholic. The East claims to have never recognized it.
If I get to the gates of heaven, and St. Peter asks me why I, in Pennsylvania, did not place myself under the pastoral authority of his successor (even granting that the pope is his successor, despite not having pope-to-pope consecrations), in Rome, I'll have to say that I submitted to the pastoral authority of the bishops of the globe in council together, but had no clear way of knowing that I was directly under the personal authority of one bishop of a different region of the world.
I don't know if ya'll are cradle RCs or converts, so perhaps this just seems obvious to you, but it does not seem at all obvious to me. I was born into a faithful Baptist home, and inherited at my place in history a fractured Church. As I looked over the ecclesial landscape, trying to figure out how all this mess came about, and where I was supposed to be, the evidence eventually seemed to indicate that the historic episcopate was intended by the apostles (although this itself is not obvious to many whom I take to be good, conservative brothers). But even trusting that the Church is my Mother, and the pillar and ground of the truth, and that the Vincentian Canon is therefore a helpful principle, the papacy is just not so clear, historically.
There are Sees in Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, Georgia, Cyprus, Bulgaria, Serbia, Russia, Greece, Poland, Romania, Albania, Czech Republic and Slovakia, and Rome.
ONE of those says that the papacy is true. FOURTEEN of those say they have never recognized such a thing.
Along comes I, an outsider to the whole shebang... how is it obvious to me that the Papacy is truly Catholic when 14 of 15 Sees says that it never has been?
Again, I'm not here to cause trouble. I do hope that this helps you see where I'm coming from, though.
Peace to you all!
ACat
|
|
|
Post by anglocat on Jan 4, 2018 12:39:16 GMT -5
Rita,
Thanks for your kind introduction! Nice to meet you (virtually), too!
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Jan 4, 2018 12:51:08 GMT -5
ACat...all of that is well and good...except you seem to be avoiding a very difficult logical inconsistentancy on your Part. Firstly in your early post you reject Sola Scriptura. But you assert Bible passages meanings as being conflated by Catholics to support the Roman Papal primacy. Maybe they are...maybe they arent...who cares? You see without Papal primacy the Bible could be simply another book of legends. You and all protestant sects continually beg the question. Using the Bible as proof AGAINST Holy Mother Church when the Bible...specifically the New Testement(is it a Bible w/o the NT?)gained and holds its very authority and credibility from the Roman Catholic Church of the third and fourth Century. And further...your assertion that the EAST...of whom I am... was "councillar" is simply false. But that is a different debate. I would ask my good friend...that to keep things clear we stick for the time being to the authority of Scripture and from where it derives. For on this point ALL hinges. Final comment about "causing trouble" I am the admin here...there is NO ONE else who decides what trouble is...and I find you zero trouble at all. In Christ, Voxx
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Jan 4, 2018 12:55:32 GMT -5
To me this is like a discussion between CSLewis and Hilliar Belloc...so I am thoroughly happy to be here. (Not to equate myself intellectually with Belloc...God Forbid!)
|
|
|
Post by jen51 on Jan 4, 2018 20:02:33 GMT -5
Welcome to the forum!
|
|