OrthodoxChristianity.net
December 17, 2014, 07:13:18 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: A priest’s guide: How to Swim the Tiber Safely  (Read 1041 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Science to the Fourth Power
Jurisdiction: Ohayo Gozaimasu
Posts: 6,580


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« on: November 29, 2010, 06:39:30 PM »

About 50 Church of England priests opposed to the consecration of women as bishops are expected to be in the first wave of Anglicans to take up an offer by Pope Benedict and convert to Rome. The traditionalist priests will be joined by five bishops and 30 groups of parishioners, in a structure called an ordinariate, or a Church subdivision, in the new year.

About 300 priests switched in the early 1900s when women were ordained as priests. Then they did not have the comfort of moving over in groups, and nearly 70 returned to the Anglican fold.

Here, one priest explains why he stayed, while another describes why he returned.

Peter Bolton...was a priest in the Church of England for 10 years before becoming a Roman Catholic. Just one year later he returned to the C of E.
....
"Why did I come back? Because I had not counted the cost. I knew I would lose house and income – I was a Vicar – but I had not reckoned on the utter loneliness of the experience, the personal cost.
....
But I will never forget how I felt when I realised how much my own mother was hurting because I had gone to Rome, or how my best friend could hardly bring himself to speak to me for days after my Reception and Confirmation. There were others too.

So I came back. I could not bear hurting people."
....
Father Jeremy Davies was brought up in the Church of England in Suffolk. His grandfather had been an Anglican vicar. Father Jeremy has been an administrator of Barnet parish, in London, for six years.
....
"I have no regrets in becoming a Catholic, not withstanding a few setbacks along the way.
....
To those who are coming into the Ordinariate I wish them every blessing. It will not be easy to adjust to the new life. Spiritually, it is a coming home, culturally it is a foreign land. It is not until you come into the Catholic Church that you realise the impact of the hierarchy. Parishioners will have to get used to first referring to their bishop and to teachings of the Church before looking to each other for guidance."
Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #1 on: November 30, 2010, 01:03:58 AM »

This is a very exciting time. I have nothing but respect for those Anglican bishops and priests who are giving up a lot to come home to full communion with Peter.
Logged
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #2 on: November 30, 2010, 01:12:11 AM »

The English Ordinariate is going to be established in January, and it will be  up and running by the spring.

http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2010/11/19/ordinariate-to-be-established-in-january-bishops-confirm/
Logged
Alveus Lacuna
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Posts: 6,964



« Reply #3 on: November 30, 2010, 03:03:35 AM »

I have nothing but respect for those Anglican bishops and priests who are giving up a lot to come home to full communion with Peter.

Not to be a nitpicker, but I'm going to nitpick!  Cheesy

I think that you would have to admit that this is worded pretty strangely. Perhaps "Supreme Holy See of Peter" (in your understanding of course), or "with the Pope of Rome" or something like that. It's just that we consider ourselves to be in communion with St. Peter, as he is part of the Church Triumphant and venerated in our calendar of saints and all. Then again, perhaps the Anglicans don't feel this way at all, as they might not believe in communion with the faithful departed. Anyway, whatever.

It's one step in the right direction at the least.
« Last Edit: November 30, 2010, 03:04:52 AM by Alveus Lacuna » Logged
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,944


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #4 on: November 30, 2010, 09:28:12 AM »

About 50 Church of England priests opposed to the consecration of women as bishops are expected to be in the first wave of Anglicans to take up an offer by Pope Benedict and convert to Rome. The traditionalist priests will be joined by five bishops and 30 groups of parishioners, in a structure called an ordinariate, or a Church subdivision, in the new year.

About 300 priests switched in the early 1900s when women were ordained as priests. Then they did not have the comfort of moving over in groups, and nearly 70 returned to the Anglican fold.

Here, one priest explains why he stayed, while another describes why he returned.

Peter Bolton...was a priest in the Church of England for 10 years before becoming a Roman Catholic. Just one year later he returned to the C of E.
....
"Why did I come back? Because I had not counted the cost. I knew I would lose house and income – I was a Vicar – but I had not reckoned on the utter loneliness of the experience, the personal cost.
....
But I will never forget how I felt when I realised how much my own mother was hurting because I had gone to Rome, or how my best friend could hardly bring himself to speak to me for days after my Reception and Confirmation. There were others too.

So I came back. I could not bear hurting people."
....
Father Jeremy Davies was brought up in the Church of England in Suffolk. His grandfather had been an Anglican vicar. Father Jeremy has been an administrator of Barnet parish, in London, for six years.
....
"I have no regrets in becoming a Catholic, not withstanding a few setbacks along the way.
....
To those who are coming into the Ordinariate I wish them every blessing. It will not be easy to adjust to the new life. Spiritually, it is a coming home, culturally it is a foreign land. It is not until you come into the Catholic Church that you realise the impact of the hierarchy. Parishioners will have to get used to first referring to their bishop and to teachings of the Church before looking to each other for guidance."

These comments brought to mind many personal experiences I knew of or learned about of Eastern Catholic clergymen and their families (and even a Bishop or two) who went from Eastern Catholicism to Orthodoxy (and back again in numerous cases to Catholicism) during the turbulent early years of the Greek Catholic Church and Orthodox Church in America from 1895 or so through the early 1960's. Often it was the culture shock in either direction that caused the problems.

Making such a change is indeed a life-altering decision and we should indeed wish all who are contemplating such a change every blessing.
Logged
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #5 on: November 30, 2010, 03:57:33 PM »

I have nothing but respect for those Anglican bishops and priests who are giving up a lot to come home to full communion with Peter.

Not to be a nitpicker, but I'm going to nitpick!  Cheesy

I think that you would have to admit that this is worded pretty strangely. Perhaps "Supreme Holy See of Peter" (in your understanding of course), or "with the Pope of Rome" or something like that. It's just that we consider ourselves to be in communion with St. Peter, as he is part of the Church Triumphant and venerated in our calendar of saints and all. Then again, perhaps the Anglicans don't feel this way at all, as they might not believe in communion with the faithful departed. Anyway, whatever.

It's one step in the right direction at the least.

Well, obviously we believe Peter speaks through the Bishop of Rome. I am reminded of the response of the bishops to Pope St. Leo the Great's Tome at Chalcedon: "Peter has spoken." When solemnly acting in his capacity of "confirming the brethren" on faith and morals, we do consider that Peter is speaking through the Pope.

Of course, I could use other names in this context. Of course the Bishop of Rome was England's ancient primate. In fact, England was evangelized by a direct papal mission. So it is entirely appropriate and joyous to see these Anglicans going back into full communion with their Patriarch, so to speak.

It is ultimately what the Anglo-Catholic movement was all about.

I like these Anglican converts because they generally are not ultramontanists. We don't need more of those.
« Last Edit: November 30, 2010, 04:23:17 PM by lubeltri » Logged
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate (ACROD)
Posts: 7,132


"My god is greater."


« Reply #6 on: November 30, 2010, 04:07:08 PM »

Well, obviously we believe Peter speaks through the Bishop of Rome. I am reminded of the response of the bishops to Pope St. Leo the Great at the Second Council of Ephesus: "Peter has spoken."

Hm, I doubt that.
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #7 on: November 30, 2010, 04:22:18 PM »

Well, obviously we believe Peter speaks through the Bishop of Rome. I am reminded of the response of the bishops to Pope St. Leo the Great at the Second Council of Ephesus: "Peter has spoken."

Hm, I doubt that.

I meant Chalcedon. Should take advantage of the Preview function more often, perhaps Wink
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,135



« Reply #8 on: November 30, 2010, 05:04:58 PM »

I have nothing but respect for those Anglican bishops and priests who are giving up a lot to come home to full communion with Peter.

Not to be a nitpicker, but I'm going to nitpick!  Cheesy

I think that you would have to admit that this is worded pretty strangely. Perhaps "Supreme Holy See of Peter" (in your understanding of course), or "with the Pope of Rome" or something like that. It's just that we consider ourselves to be in communion with St. Peter, as he is part of the Church Triumphant and venerated in our calendar of saints and all. Then again, perhaps the Anglicans don't feel this way at all, as they might not believe in communion with the faithful departed. Anyway, whatever.

It's one step in the right direction at the least.

Well, obviously we believe Peter speaks through the Bishop of Rome. I am reminded of the response of the bishops to Pope St. Leo the Great's Tome at Chalcedon: "Peter has spoken." When solemnly acting in his capacity of "confirming the brethren" on faith and morals, we do consider that Peter is speaking through the Pope.

And the Catholic Church, like the Fathers of Constantiniople III, are sure when the Vatican's supreme pontiff solemnly acts in his capacity and misleads the brethren on faith and morals, like he did in Pastor Aeternus, that St. Peter is not speaking through him. Unless you want to base St. Peters speech on Mat. 16:22, 26:70, 72, 74. But in that case, "Satan (Mat. 16:23) speaks through the Pope" would be more appropriate.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #9 on: November 30, 2010, 05:47:19 PM »

Did you see me ask your ever-predictable opinion? Nope, I didn't Smiley
Logged
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #10 on: November 30, 2010, 07:24:03 PM »

I hope this isn't an oil fire, all I have is water!

Quote
Letter XCVIII.

From the Synod of Chalcedon to Leo.

The great and holy and universal Synod, which by the grace of GOD and the sanction of our most pious and Christ-loving Emperors has been gathered together in the metropolis of Chalcedon in the province of Bithynia, to the most holy and blessed archbishop of Rome, Leo. I. They congratulate Leo on taking the foremost part in maintaining the Faith. “Our mouth was filled with joy and our tongue with exultation.” This prophecy grace has fitly appropriated to us for whom the security of religion is ensured. For what is a greater incentive to cheerfulness than the Faith? what better inducement to exultation than the Divine knowledge which the Saviour Himself gave us from above for salvation, saying, “go ye and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all things that I have enjoined you.” And this golden chain leading down from the Author of the command to us, you yourself have stedfastly preserved, being set as the mouthpiece unto all of the blessed Peter, and imparting the blessedness of his Faith unto all. Whence we too, wisely taking you as our guide in all that is good, have shown to the sons of the Church their inheritance of Truth, not giving our instruction each singly and in secret, but making known our confession of the Faith in conceit, with one consent and agreement. And we were all delighted, revelling, as at an imperial banquet, in the spiritual food, which Christ supplied to us through your letter: and we seemed to see the Heavenly Bridegroom actually present with us. For if “where two or three are gathered together in His name,” He has said that “there He is in the midst of them,” must He not have been much more particularly present with 520 priests, who preferred the spread of knowledge concerning Him to their country and their ease? Of whom you were chief, as the head to the members, showing your goodwill in the person of those who represented you (MY EDIT: Pope Leo was absent from Chalcedon. He send two bishops and two priests as legates); whilst our religious Emperors presided to the furtherance of due order, inviting us to restore the doctrinal fabric of the Church, even as Zerubbabel invited Joshua to rebuild Jerusalem.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf212.pdf
p. 148
Logged


I'm going to need this.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,135



« Reply #11 on: November 30, 2010, 10:17:02 PM »

Did you see me ask your ever-predictable opinion? Nope, I didn't Smiley
When you played the ever-predictable "Peter spoke through Leo," you did.  On that

When he was Orthodox. We still would "follow" him, if he followed the Fathers. Let him confess the Orthodox Faith, and he shall be first.

St. Symeon of Thessalonica (15th cent., after the sack of Constantinople) writes:

One should not contradict the Latins when they say that the Bishop of Rome is the first. This primacy is not harmful to the Church. Let them only prove his faithfulness to the faith of Peter and to that of the successors of Peter. If it is so, let him enjoy all the privileges of pontiff ... Let the Bishop of Rome be succesor of the orthodoxy of Sylvester and Agatho, of Leo, Liberius, Martin and Gregory, then we also will call him Apostolic and first among other bishops; then we also will obey him, not only as Peter, but as the Savior Himself
.....
Usurping as his own possession the Catholic Church of Christ, by occupancy, as he boasts, of the Episcopal Throne of St. Peter, he desires to deceive the more simple into apostasy from Orthodoxy, choosing for the basis of all theological instruction these paradoxical words (p. 10, 1.29): "nor is there any reason why ye refuse a return to the true Church and Communion with this my holy Throne"...As to the supremacy, since we are not setting forth a treatise, let the same great Basil present the matter in a f'ew words, "I preferred to address myself to Him who is Head over them."..For all this we have esteemed it our paternal and brotherly need, and a sacred duty, by our present admonition to confirm you in the Orthodoxy you hold from your forefathers, and at the same time point out the emptiness of the syllogisms of the Bishop of Rome, of which he is manifestly himself aware. For not from his Apostolic Confession does he glorify his Throne, but from his Apostolic Throne seeks to establish his dignity, and from his dignity, his Confession. The truth is the other way... But if his Holiness had sent us statements concordant and in unison with the seven holy Ecumenical Councils, instead of boasting of the piety of his predecessors lauded by our predecessors and fathers in an Ecumenical Council, he might justly have gloried in his own orthodoxy, declaring his own goodness instead of that of his fathers. Therefore let his Holiness be assured, that if, even now, he will write us such things as two hundred fathers on investigation and inquiry shall find consonant and agreeing with the said former Councils, then, we say, he shall hear from us sinners today, not only, "Peter has so spoken," or anything of like honor, but this also, "Let the holy hand be kissed which has wiped away the tears of the Catholic Church."
http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/encyc_1848.aspx
Quote
15. But, finally, his Holiness says (p. ix. l.12) that the fourth Ecumenical Council (which by mistake he quite transfers from Chalcedon to Carthage), when it read the epistle of Pope Leo I, cried out, "Peter has thus spoken by Leo." It was so indeed. But his Holiness ought not to overlook how, and after what examination, our fathers cried out, as they did, in praise of Leo. Since however his Holiness, consulting brevity, appears to have omitted this most necessary point, and the manifest proof that an Ecumenical Council is not only above the Pope but above any Council of his, we will explain to the public the matter as it really happened. Of more than six hundred fathers assembled in the Counci1 of Chalcedon, about two hundred of the wisest were appointed by the Council to examine both as to language and sense the said epistle of Leo; nor only so, but to give in writing and with their signatures their own judgment upon it, whether it were orthodox or not. These, about two hundred judgments and resolution on the epistle, as chiefly found in the Fourth Session of the said holy Council in such terms as the following:—"Maximus of Antioch in Syria said: 'The epistle of the holy Leo, Archbishop of Imperial Rome, agrees with the decisions of the three hundred and eighteen holy fathers at Nice, and the hundred and fifty at Constantinople, which is new Rome, and with the faith expounded at Ephesus by the most holy Bishop Cyril: and I have subscribed it."

And again:

"Theodoret,the most religious Bishop of Cyrus: 'The epistle of the most holy Archbishop, the lord Leo, agrees with the faith established at Nice by the holy and blessed fathers, and with the symbol of faith expounded at Constantinople by the hundred and fifty, and with the epistles of the blessed Cyril. And accepting it, I have subscribed the said epistle."'

And thus all in succession: "The epistle corresponds," "the epistle is consonant,"the epistle agrees in sense," and the like. After such great and very severe scrutiny in comparing it with former holy Councils, and a full conviction of the correctness of the meaning, and not merely because it was the epistle of the Pope, they cried aloud, ungrudgingly, the exclamation on which his Holiness now vaunts himself:
Note: they examined the Tome of Pope St. Leo to see if it conformed to the epistles of Pope St. Cyril of Alexandria.  So Peter thus spoke though Leo becasue he agreed with Cyril, according to the examination of Rome's Tome and the assuances the Papal legates gave as to Pope St. Leo's meaning.  That is far from Vatican I.

I hope this isn't an oil fire, all I have is water!

Quote
Letter XCVIII.

From the Synod of Chalcedon to Leo.

The great and holy and universal Synod, which by the grace of GOD and the sanction of our most pious and Christ-loving Emperors has been gathered together in the metropolis of Chalcedon in the province of Bithynia, to the most holy and blessed archbishop of Rome, Leo. I. They congratulate Leo on taking the foremost part in maintaining the Faith. “Our mouth was filled with joy and our tongue with exultation.” This prophecy grace has fitly appropriated to us for whom the security of religion is ensured. For what is a greater incentive to cheerfulness than the Faith? what better inducement to exultation than the Divine knowledge which the Saviour Himself gave us from above for salvation, saying, “go ye and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all things that I have enjoined you.” And this golden chain leading down from the Author of the command to us, you yourself have stedfastly preserved, being set as the mouthpiece unto all of the blessed Peter, and imparting the blessedness of his Faith unto all. Whence we too, wisely taking you as our guide in all that is good, have shown to the sons of the Church their inheritance of Truth, not giving our instruction each singly and in secret, but making known our confession of the Faith in conceit, with one consent and agreement. And we were all delighted, revelling, as at an imperial banquet, in the spiritual food, which Christ supplied to us through your letter: and we seemed to see the Heavenly Bridegroom actually present with us. For if “where two or three are gathered together in His name,” He has said that “there He is in the midst of them,” must He not have been much more particularly present with 520 priests, who preferred the spread of knowledge concerning Him to their country and their ease? Of whom you were chief, as the head to the members, showing your goodwill in the person of those who represented you (MY EDIT: Pope Leo was absent from Chalcedon. He send two bishops and two priests as legates); whilst our religious Emperors presided to the furtherance of due order, inviting us to restore the doctrinal fabric of the Church, even as Zerubbabel invited Joshua to rebuild Jerusalem.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf212.pdf
p. 148
Notice that the Fathers did NOT accept Pope St. Leo's Tome as the definition, as he wanted, but wrote their own.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #12 on: November 30, 2010, 10:21:42 PM »

I hope this isn't an oil fire, all I have is water!

Quote
Letter XCVIII.

From the Synod of Chalcedon to Leo.

The great and holy and universal Synod, which by the grace of GOD and the sanction of our most pious and Christ-loving Emperors has been gathered together in the metropolis of Chalcedon in the province of Bithynia, to the most holy and blessed archbishop of Rome, Leo. I. They congratulate Leo on taking the foremost part in maintaining the Faith. “Our mouth was filled with joy and our tongue with exultation.” This prophecy grace has fitly appropriated to us for whom the security of religion is ensured. For what is a greater incentive to cheerfulness than the Faith? what better inducement to exultation than the Divine knowledge which the Saviour Himself gave us from above for salvation, saying, “go ye and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all things that I have enjoined you.” And this golden chain leading down from the Author of the command to us, you yourself have stedfastly preserved, being set as the mouthpiece unto all of the blessed Peter, and imparting the blessedness of his Faith unto all. Whence we too, wisely taking you as our guide in all that is good, have shown to the sons of the Church their inheritance of Truth, not giving our instruction each singly and in secret, but making known our confession of the Faith in conceit, with one consent and agreement. And we were all delighted, revelling, as at an imperial banquet, in the spiritual food, which Christ supplied to us through your letter: and we seemed to see the Heavenly Bridegroom actually present with us. For if “where two or three are gathered together in His name,” He has said that “there He is in the midst of them,” must He not have been much more particularly present with 520 priests, who preferred the spread of knowledge concerning Him to their country and their ease? Of whom you were chief, as the head to the members, showing your goodwill in the person of those who represented you (MY EDIT: Pope Leo was absent from Chalcedon. He send two bishops and two priests as legates); whilst our religious Emperors presided to the furtherance of due order, inviting us to restore the doctrinal fabric of the Church, even as Zerubbabel invited Joshua to rebuild Jerusalem.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf212.pdf
p. 148
Notice that the Fathers did NOT accept Pope St. Leo's Tome as the definition, as he wanted, but wrote their own.

Of all the criticisms in favor of Orthodoxy in that paragraph, that's the one you went for?

Actually, I saw two others, and not that...  Grin
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #13 on: November 30, 2010, 10:27:41 PM »

BTW, Orthodoxinfo can say some informing things, but man do they hate Non-Chacedonians and New Calenderists.
« Last Edit: November 30, 2010, 10:27:47 PM by Azurestone » Logged


I'm going to need this.
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #14 on: December 01, 2010, 02:34:23 AM »

I have nothing but respect for those Anglican bishops and priests who are giving up a lot to come home to full communion with Peter.

Not to be a nitpicker, but I'm going to nitpick!  Cheesy

I think that you would have to admit that this is worded pretty strangely. Perhaps "Supreme Holy See of Peter" (in your understanding of course), or "with the Pope of Rome" or something like that. It's just that we consider ourselves to be in communion with St. Peter, as he is part of the Church Triumphant and venerated in our calendar of saints and all. Then again, perhaps the Anglicans don't feel this way at all, as they might not believe in communion with the faithful departed. Anyway, whatever.

It's one step in the right direction at the least.

Well, obviously we believe Peter speaks through the Bishop of Rome. I am reminded of the response of the bishops to Pope St. Leo the Great's Tome at Chalcedon: "Peter has spoken." When solemnly acting in his capacity of "confirming the brethren" on faith and morals, we do consider that Peter is speaking through the Pope.

And the Catholic Church, like the Fathers of Constantiniople III, are sure when the Vatican's supreme pontiff solemnly acts in his capacity and misleads the brethren on faith and morals, like he did in Pastor Aeternus, that St. Peter is not speaking through him. Unless you want to base St. Peters speech on Mat. 16:22, 26:70, 72, 74. But in that case, "Satan (Mat. 16:23) speaks through the Pope" would be more appropriate.

I find that Satan speaks to me through this kind of commentary.

Mary
Logged

Tags:
Pages: 1   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.091 seconds with 42 queries.