'My brother Archbishop? To Archbishop Rowan.'

Archbishop of Westminster Vincent Nichols yesterday gave me this video interview about the new Apostolic Constitution setting out the norms for the Anglican Ordinariate which I blogged on yesterday.

Read the report also in today's Times and while I'm at it, you might enjoy an amusingly provocative post by my colleague Bess Twiston-Davies on, Is blogging a sin?

Comments

[Geoffrey Smith]

"Things have reached a pretty pass when Catholicism denies law-abiding individuals the basic human right to bury loved ones."

- John, 13 Nov 2009, 08:06

No such denial, Mr Oldsmith. The deceased can be buried, or cremated, by his relatives or friends, just like any other citizen. Since the concept of a "homosexual marriage" is a no-no, at least in Rhode Island, it follows that there is no such person as a "gay spouse", but a homosexual companion will still be allowed by state law, as I understand it, to join with the deceased's relatives in arranging his funeral.
It may well be that, if such a gay is a 'Catholic', he will be denied a full Catholic requiem, as a public expression of the Church's disapproval of his sinful life-style, but the idea that the local Catholic Church forbids the burial or cremation of a deceased homosexual is totally absurd.

[PererB]

Yesterday was the feast of St Josaphat of Polotsk.

Look him up.

Very topical.

[John]

I see, Geoffrey.

So you DO agree with your fellow Roman Catholic that bereaved gay people must be denied by Catholic power-brokers the basic human right to deal with the funeral arrangements of their dead partners. Thanks for confirming that.

Your post is a fine example of the very worst form of religious intolerance and extremism. Things have reached a pretty pass when Catholicism denies law-abiding individuals the basic human right to bury loved ones.

And you wonder why I and others are motivated to campaign against its inhumanity.

And apparently I am the psychotic one, a rich accusation indeed coming from any Christian, never mind one steeped in raving Roman Catholic dogma!

[Richard Aluise]

Andrew

How true. In time, I'm afraid those who abandon what they perceive to be a leaking row boat for the ship they think is rescuing them might find they have boarded the Titanic, which already might have hit the iceberg!

Richard

[Geoffrey Smith]

"So, what say you Geoffrey? Do you agree with your fellow Roman Catholic that bereaved gay people must be denied by Catholic power-brokers the basic human right to deal with the funeral arrangements of their dead partners?"

- John, 12 Nov 2009, 19:44

Such a funeral would be exploited by the gay-rights brigade to demand legal recognition for their gay "marriages". Rhode Island is the only New England state to refuse such recognition, since the people have never voted in its favour. Gov. Carcieri is therefore quite correct in his procedure,and the issue must be decided by the people of RI (who just happen to be mostly Catholics).
The rest of your post is just bigoted drivel, and makes me wonder what traumatic injury you suffered at the hands of a Catholic at some time in the past. Your attitude is psychotic, to say the least, clearly shown by the reply to Chris Gillibrand.

[Richard Aluise]

Daniel

Thank you for your pleasant posts. I appreciate them greatly.

In response to your questions about Orthodoxy, I'm not sure to which era you refer in discussing mutual Patriarchal excommuications. While there have been instances throughout history where different churches hurled one form of anathema or another at each other, most of those occurred during the early centuries, and were not of such a huge nature as to cause complete separations, as occurred later between Rome and Constantinople. Even this excommunication was lifted in the latter 1960s by Pope Paul VI.

Nationalism has been a problem for both the east and west in one form or another over many centuries. In the East, while it has been forbidden for priests and bishops to hold office in the government (although it has happened in rare instances in an effort to bring feuding political parties together, or some other serious reason), the government has in many cases very closely aligned itself with the church, as happened in Russia and Greece.

In the East, there were four major Patriarchates. In the West, however, the one and only Patriarchate was Rome. It appears that this contributed to why and how it developed a power in the West that even permeated all governments. It grew to such a point, that through the middle ages, the RCC ulitimately developed a teaching that the Pope was both spiritual and temporal ruler of the world. The temporal power was taken away during the pontificate of Pius IX. It seems as no accident that papal infallibility, an idea that had been brewing for only about 400 to 500 years, was finally proclaimed as a dogma precisely at the moment that all temporal power was stolen from the pope.

It appears to me that many who post here perceive the Orthodox Churches as a confused, incohesive group of loosely aligned nationalists that have no guidance. Nothing could be further from the truth. For the Orthodox, the "magisterium" (to use a Roman term) or guiding teachings of the Church are Scripture, Tradition and the Seven Ecumenical Councils of the Undivided Church, with Christ as its head, as the Scriptures clearly state. We adhere to the same sacraments and beliefs. Only Ecumenical Councils can establish guidelines for the entire church, and certainly not one Patriarch. This is how it was in the early church, and this is what we continue today.

I do thank you for your posts, and I look forward to them in the future!

Richard

[John]

There is no need for Ruth to be censorius on my behalf. No, Geoffrey I am not gay, but I do take an occasional fancy for chintz scatter cushions - does that count?

My dislike of the Catholic Church is because of the simple matter of its history - an evil institution that has caused misery to billions with its crass superstitions, and which has servely hindered and curtailed human development and happiness, and which still does.

I have answered your question, so now, Geoffrey, a question for you. Do you agree with the action taken by the Governor of Rhode Island this week? He is a Catholic, like you, and he hates gays so much that he is refusing to let gay people organise the funeral arrangements for their deceased partners.

Governor Carcieri in RI has this month vetoed a proposed new law which, if enacted, would allow domestic partners to oversee and care for a same-sex partner's funeral arrangements. The bill's impetus was motivated by an event when the State refused to release the body of a man to his 17 year same-sex partner.

In his veto message, Carcieri made the following statement: "This bill represents a disturbing trend over the past few years of the incremental erosion of the principles surrounding traditional marriage, which is not the preferred way to approach this issue."

Read it here Geoff: http://www.wpri.com/dpp/news/local_wpri_providence_carcieri_vetoes_same_sex_funeral_bill_20091111_nek

So, what say you Geoffrey? Do you agree with your fellow Roman Catholic that bereaved gay people must be denied by Catholic power-brokers the basic human right to deal with the funeral arrangements of their dead partners?

[Geoffrey Smith]

"Too busy it seems to answer the question I asked you a few posts ago."

Which was, Geoffrey?

- John, 12 Nov 2009, 15:09

Ruth seemed to think that there was something offensive about my question, which must be why she snipped it out of my last post.
I'll try again: Are you a gay, or do you read the Pinkpaper to try and find some more stuff to smear the Catholic Church with?
There, nothing wrong with that, is there? A straight question to try and discover the real reason why you hate the Church so much. If you are in fact a gay, that will explain it, but I don't expect you to admit it.

[Geoffrey Smith]

"When the S.S. Anglicana finally sinks beneath the waves, Messrs Cranmer & Co will be desperately trying to get on board St Peter's barque"

Wanna bet?

- Archbishop Cranmer, 11 Nov 2009, 22:36

Don't put your shirt on it, Your Grace. You will need it to fly a flag of distress.

[john]

"Too busy it seems to answer the question I asked you a few posts ago."

Which was, Geoffrey?

[Daniel]

Dear Richard,

Thanks for your courteous response. As regards the definitions of the Assumption and of papal infallibility, I don't think that these are oxymoronic, any more than the need to define the creeds in the early centuries. I am persuaded by Newman when he writes that no essential doctrine is defined unless it is threatened. At the points mentioned the faithful need such a defined line (as in the 1920s in a noninfallible way, the proclamation of the feast of Christ the King by Pius XI wisely challenged the prevailing stateworship of communist and fascist dictatorships).

As regards orthodoxy, I can see its aesthetic appeal (as I do with the Uniates, and I am glad that they have avoided silly folksy liturgy), but don't you find these churches somewhat nationalistic, often excommunicating each other's patriarchs etc? I know that Catholics have not been immune from nationalism, but the universality of the church has operated as a counterweight to such tendencies.

Best wishes,
Daniel

[Andrew, Venezuela]

Richard (11/11/09 - 18:28:56). My most sincere compliments to you for having so briefly summarised many of the important points over which differences of criteria and opinions not only have existed, but also exist today. You have done us all a great service in your succinct comment.

I don't want to "stir things" any more than absolutely necessary, but there are a couple of light-hearted comments which come to mind re those who may be considering "embarkation": (a) if the barque itself continues to rock and roll as much as in the past, those susceptible to motion sickness should take suitable medication to prevent their becoming wholly See-sick during their voyage; and (b) take such measures as to not confuse the traditional English home-made "steak and kidney pie" with the "stake and kid-ye" substitute which they might receive from ultramontane sources.

My kindest regards to you and others.

Andrew, Venezuela

[David]

As a committed Anglican with Catholic sympathies, I find the emphasis on Newman unhelpful. He was a great and holy man, and quite possibly a saint, but he was flawed and compromised, and a problematic, if glamorous, example to follow. Leaving the stage is not usually the best way to engage with those still on it, or indeed with those already on the new one.

The fact that I understand the Personal Ordinariate (why I am I not surprised the Word dictionary doesn’t recognize this word?) may be dedicated to Newman adds an intriguing gloss on Rome’s offer; Newman certainly wasn’t allowed to bring any Anglicanism along with him and got slapped down by Manning when he stepped out of line. Not encouraging for those who think they can become Roman Catholics but also remain Anglicans. It may be my genetic mistrust of Rome but, if I was considering this offer, I would be counting all my spoons!

Interesting times – but actually rather positive. As I implied, I have great trust in you.

[David]

Geoffrey Smith "When the S.S. Anglicana finally sinks beneath the waves, Messrs Cranmer & Co will be desperately trying to get on board St Peter's barque. It will be the only seaworthy vessel afloat."

As always, predictions of the demise of Anglicanism are a tad premature and symptomatic of the ruthlessly top-down view of things in Rome. At local level, the C of E is in very good heart. So, all I can say to Geoffrey is "In your dreams".

[Archbishop Cranmer]

"When the S.S. Anglicana finally sinks beneath the waves, Messrs Cranmer & Co will be desperately trying to get on board St Peter's barque"

Wanna bet?

[Geoffrey Smith]

I see you've been quite busy lately on this blog, Mr Oldsmith.
Too busy it seems to answer the question I asked you a few posts ago.

[Robert Ian Williams]

And remeber despite all the gloss about accepting the Anglican patrimony... it is completely de-protestanised by the CDF.. so in fact it is not authentic Anglicanism.

[Richard Aluise]

Thanks to all of you for your responses concerning my inquiry. I didn't realize I would get so many!

In hopes of addressing each without purposely ignoring any, the following will be my attempt to provide my own particular view as a former Roman Catholic, now Orthodox.

I understand all of the arguments from both sides with regard to papal infallibility. As Daniel stated, and as we studied in depth at the seminary, papal infallibility is built on the premises that a) the pope is infallible when speaking "ex cathedra" on matters of faith and morals, and b) that his infallibility only is in declaring and defining once and for all what the church has always believed and handed on via Tradition.

One example cited is the Assumption. The Assumption has always been a part of the Tradition of the Church. There was no reason for making it a "de fide" requirement.

The Immaculate Conception, another "infallible" declaration, was never part of Tradition. It developed much later. As late as the 13th and 14th centuries, such noted Roman Catholics as Aquinas and Catherine of Sienna did not accept it. So much for it being completely accepted by the ancient tradition of the Church.

Many of the early fathers debated the notion of whether or not guilt was even transmitted by the sin of Adam or only the consequences of the sin. Augustine came down on the side of the guilt transmission, and such fathers as St. Cyril of Alexadria said that the "diseased state" was passed on, not the guilt. Hence, there was no clear concensus of the Fathers, and no Ecumenical Council of the Undivided Church ever addressed it. It was addressed only later by purely Roman councils, which were not Ecumenical and therefore not binding on the Church at large. The entire "Immaculate Conception" dogma would be entirely unnecessary if an Ecumenicl Council of a unified church ever decided in favor of the beliefs of the St. Cyril school of thought.

As for papal infallibility as a belief being held by the early church, please read the following from Vatican I (rather oxy-moronic that the pope felt he needed a council to provide the definition of infallibilty, isn't it?):

"We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves and not from the consent of the Church irreformable.
So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema." I respectfully ask anyone to provide me with a quote from any Ecumenical Council of the Undivided Church or Father of Church that states this belief as above.

My point here is that papal infallibility was not a part of the early belief, and it has not been used only to define matters held in the Tradition of the Church. Further, as previously noted, which Successor of St. Peter should be the infallible one, the one in Syria, who's see was established by St. Peter well before Rome, or Rome? The entire concept is full of more holes than Swiss cheese.

The doctrine of merits has no bearing on the writing of St. James that "faith without works is dead." That statement in no way expounds a doctrine of merits as espoused in the latter middle ages by the Roman Church. That quotation simply states that one with faith will also act in accordance with that belief - nothing more, nothing less. Reading what the scripture says is one thing, but extrapolating it to mean what one would like it to mean is something entirely different. The same applies to the teaching on Purgatory.

On another note, am I wrong in thinking that not many will avail themselves of this provision, since those who were of a RC bent have already gone or were close to going anyway?

Thanks again to all who responded!

Richard

[Geoffrey Smith]

"A brilliant thread on the Archbishop Cranmer blog today, inviting Roman Catholics who are "distressed by misogynistic ministers, Latin liturgies, paedophile priests and condomaphobic clerics” to join the Church of England."

- John, 11 Nov 2009, 16:10

But he doesn't want the distressed Mr and Mrs Blair to get aboard his sinking ship. Maybe Tony's defection holed it below the water-line.
Perhaps we ought to throw the old geezer a life-belt and give him an ordinariate all to himself. A one-man uniate Church, so to speak.
When the S.S. Anglicana finally sinks beneath the waves, Messrs Cranmer & Co will be desperately trying to get on board St Peter's barque. It will be the only seaworthy vessel afloat.

[John]

A brilliant thread on the Archbishop Cranmer blog today, inviting Roman Catholics who are "distressed by misogynistic ministers, Latin liturgies, paedophile priests and condomaphobic clerics” to join the Church of England.

http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.com/2009/11/archbishop-of-canterbury-invites.html

[Bonaventure]

To Richard Aluise: the fact is that many, perhaps most, Anglo-Catholics have never had any serious problem with the matters you mention, at least as explained in modern RC theology, such as the Catechism of the Catholic Church. The key point is, did Jesus Christ give a special ministry to Peter, which has been passed on to his successors? Anglo-Catholics tend to say, Yes.

[Alan Marsh]

Richard

You provide your own answer: complete capitulation is required of those who wish to "convert".

[Joyful Papist]

Richard, the Archbishop towards the end of the interview answered that question. He said something to the effect that this is for those Anglicans who have already made the decision that the See of Peter, as represented by the Bishop of Rome, has the authority to lead the church. If you believe this, then you'll accept the explanation the Catechism gives for the Catholic view on the issues you raise.

It was reaching this fundamental decision: that the Bishop of Rome inherited the authority of Peter as leader of the apostles, that underpinned my own conversion from Anglicanism to Catholicism more than 30 years ago.

Those who disagree with the teachings in the Catechism - that is, those that disagree with church teaching - are not being invited to take up this offer.

By the way, the Lutheran and Catholic churches have signed an agreement on the doctrine of merits; turns out it was all a miscommunication based on different use of language to express the same idea.

This didn't surprise me; when I studied the doctrines prior to becoming a Catholic, I found that I didn't disagree with what the church taught; I only disagreed with what I'd been told it taught.

[Daniel]

Dear Ruth,

I've just posted a couple of comments on here but they have disappeared. Have I missed out on some process of registration?

Daniel

(no, there are unfathomable mysteries of how typepad works sometimes, i've not seen the comments to authorise them so please try reposting.)

[Daniel]

PS - one further point (apart from noticing that I mistyped infallibility (with one L first time around), regarding Richard's difficulties with Purgatory and Merits, it would be best to consult the Catechism for correct descriptions and scriptural justifications for these doctrines (even if these are rejected). As regards merit/good works this is explicit in St James - faith without works is dead, as well as (notwithstanding alternative Reformed interpretions) in St Paul as well. Luther even considered "dropping" St James from the reformed bible because of this. On a lighter note, it might be worth recalling what G. K. Chesterton had to say on this a century ago. He found it ironic that for all the Reformation arguments on this issue, by then liberal Protestantism appeared to be justifying itself on the grounds of social utility, while Catholicism was criticised for ministering to the prisoner on Death Row, who had no opportunity or time to do any works and who was accepted, therefore, by faith alone!

[Daniel]

Further to the previous contributor, I think the key is to check what exactly Catholics are required to believe about these issues rather than base objections on a caricature of them. For example, on papal infalibility - this has been believed my many (rightly or wrongly from particular points of view) for centuries, even if it was only defined in 1870. Similarly, another objection is the Assumption of the Virgin Mary. Although this was only defined in 1950, it has been believed since time immemorial, which is why, for example, there is a medieval Russian Orthodox Cathedral of the Assumption in Moscow, centuries older than the doctrinal definition. In any case, the CofE claims to accept the early councils of the Church. In 431, the Council of Ephesus declared Mary to be Theotokos - the God-bearer or Mother of God. To return, however, to papal infallibility, about which even some Catholics are confused. It is rarely exercised and does not apply to ordinary papal teaching. Not only must it be proclaimed ex cathedra, from the chair, and to the whole church on a matter of grave doctrinal import, but it can only be exercised in defining or clarifying what has been believed by the faithful from earliest times - the Marian doctrines above being examples. The point is that a Pope can never exercise infallibility outside of Tradition. If, for the sake of argument, he were to say that Christ was not divine, or Mary was a member of the Godhead, such a proclamation would not be accepted by the faithful because it had never been believed. There is another more immediate implication of a proper understanding of authority: this is not the place to get involved in a discussion of women priests, but when the previous pope said that the Church could not ordain women to the priesthood it meant exactly that: it is not a matter of the pope not being willing so to do but that even the pope - any pope - would not possess the authority to do so; he would be exceeding the authority of his office, because (notwithstanding attempts to exaggerate the early role of deaconesses in order to produce such a precedent) it is impossible. Schism not the issue is, of course, always possible, but, while organic development is possible, it is impossible for the church fundamentally to eliminate what it has taught constantly. The changing attitude of the church to slavery is of a wholly different order and it would be a serious category error to elide the two.
I don't expect the previous contributor to accept any of these doctrines and respect but do not share the alternative reformed interpretation. The contributor might even believe, with Diramid McCulloch, that the evolution of the papacy is purely incidental and has been wrongly promoted by a bogus interpetation of petrine passages in the Bible. However, I think true ecumenism is best served on both sides by an accurate, as opposed to a caricatured, understanding of the doctrinal positions of each. As regards Sola Scriptura, Catholics have a very different view, based on a very basic question: which came first, the Bible (New Testament) or the Church? Of course the New Testament grew out of, was formed and defined by the Church, as a body of believers and already governed by authoritative councils from earliest times (not private judgement). Indeed, it was the Church which not only formed the NT, defined and authenticated it, but passed it on to future centuries, including the Reformed churches, which (notwithstanding romanticised notions of a quasi-autonomous Celtic church) didn't exist until the sixteenth centuries and could not therefore have fulfilled such a crucial authoritative and preservational role.

[Geoffrey Smith]

"How are those who avail themselves of this offer from the pope going to overcome such basic differences as papal infallibility, sola scriptura, indulgences, the doctrine of merits, purgatory and other very basic beliefs that have been cornerstones of Anglican belief? I'm struggling to get my mind to see how that works, at least without complete capitulation on very basic and serious beliefs by Anglicans."

- Richard Aluise, 10 Nov 2009, 17:17

No need to struggle, Mr Aluise.
Any Anglican converts to the Catholic Church will have long since abandoned those "very basic and serious beliefs" of Anglicans.
They will have studied the Cathecism to which Ruth refers and acknowledged their acceptance of and belief in the teaching it contains.

[Benjamin]

@Richard

Do just like what John Henry Newman did. These differences will be resolved by prayer, study of Catholic doctrine and reflection.

[Richard Aluise]

I have a question for you Ruth, or anyone else who might shed light on this for me. How are those who avail themselves of this offer from the pope going to overcome such basic differences as papal infallibility, sola scriptura, indulgences, the doctrine of merits, purgatory and other very basic beliefs that have been cornerstones of Anglican belief? I'm struggling to get my mind to see how that works, at least without complete capitulation on very basic and serious beliefs by Anglicans.

Hope you can help me!

(rg writes: i think it is all in the Catechism, that is the statement of belief that is required.)