It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Anglicans And Catholics to Unite Under Papacy

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 19 2007 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Anglicans And Catholics to Unite Under Papacy


Source Link: www.timesonline.co.uk

Radical proposals to reunite Anglicans with the Roman Catholic Church under the leadership of the Pope are to be published this year, The Times has learnt.

The proposals have been agreed by senior bishops of both churches.

In a 42-page statement prepared by an international commission of both churches, Anglicans and Roman Catholics are urged to explore how they might reunite under the Pope.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Feb, 19 2007 @ 02:05 PM
link   
A few lines of your own thoughts on this story would have been a good starting point for a discussion, but that aside, it sounds like Christianity is trying to circle the wagons.

Both the Catholics and Anglicans have lost numbers over the years and probably feel threatened. Now they want to put forward a united front against a world that offers so many other choices.

I get the impression that the article was written by a Catholic, and the author thinks it would be in the best interest of the Anglicans to submit to the will of the Pope.

It just won't happen while Ratzinger wears the ring, I think he's a bit too traditional to allow a Priest to marry a woman, or have a woman on the pulpit.
And it's all fine and dandy for the Priest to diddle a boy or have sex with other men at the seminary, but God forbid he admit his homosexuality and want it to be recognized by the Church.

I see too many divisions between the two for them to unite at this time.



posted on Feb, 19 2007 @ 03:02 PM
link   
AD, they aren't allowed to put their own opinion under it anymore. New format for ATSNN...well breaking news as its not ATSNN anymore, thats gone.


Anyway I dont think this is going to happen. There are reasons as to why they split, and what has changed now? Nothing that I can see.



posted on Feb, 19 2007 @ 03:13 PM
link   
The only differences wer that the priests of the Anglican Church could marry, no pope, and the issue of transubstantiation. Other minor differences seperated them but over all I feel this is the true meaning of a protestant reformation. Post-Vatican II Catholicism solves the problems pointed out by Luther and the other early reformers.



posted on Feb, 19 2007 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by CAConrad0825
The only differences wer that the priests of the Anglican Church could marry, no pope, and the issue of transubstantiation. Other minor differences seperated them but over all I feel this is the true meaning of a protestant reformation. Post-Vatican II Catholicism solves the problems pointed out by Luther and the other early reformers.


Exactly, I never thought I would see the day when the chruch began to re-unify. I have heard about the possibility of reunification with eastern orthodox and the roman catholic church, but I didnt think the Anglican church would reunify with the RCC. Wow... that pust my church one step away from becoming catholic. I am a Methodist, and Methodism came out of the Anglican church, whcih in turn came out of the RCC.

just....wow.... after so many centuries.



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 01:01 AM
link   
Numerous drafts have been drawn up over the years, including one from 1925, during the pre-Vatican II church.

www.worldspirituality.org...

I have long debated with others over whether protestants would exist if the Vatican II reforms had been adopted by the Papacy during the time of the reformation. Perhaps that question is being answered.



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 01:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by CAConrad0825
Post-Vatican II Catholicism solves the problems pointed out by Luther and the other early reformers.


Whoa there…
So you’re telling that after Vatican II that the Roman Catholic Church no longer:

1) Prays to, through, or in the name of saints?
2) Prays for the dead?
3) Believes in Papal Infallibility?
4) Believes in Purgatory?
5) Prays in anyway to Mary?
6) Attributes deity like powers to Mary, including calling here the Co-Redemtix?
7) Uses Crucifixes as opposed to Crosses?
8) Believes that the bread and wine turn into actual body and blood?
9) Does not allow clergy to marry, as required in the Bible?
10) Uses the Stations of the Cross?
11) Requires private confession before a priest?
12) And the biggest of all believes in salvation through both works and grace, not grace alone?

That is the short list, believe me.
If Vatican 2 did not change some of those things they are a LONG LONG way from having solved any of Luther’s original issues with the Catholic Church and thus the Reformation.

Being a Protestant myself I can receive open communion from most of the other Protestant Churches with no problem, however; I cannot receive Catholic mass. This is itself should be very telling as to how little has changed in the actual Catholic Dogma that started the Reformation to begin with.



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 07:48 AM
link   
The issue of transubstantiation was not the issue that Luther had with the Church, nor was it what Calvin had with it as well. The issues he had were with Church lands, the sale of indulgences, the flashy style of worship, Latin mass and a non-Vulgate translation. In fact I've seen the protestants, non-orthodox mainly, go towards what the founding fathers of protestantism were harping against. Rather than have a council of Bishops who actually try to reform their churches, Preachers act as miniature Popes leading their followers to either blind following or splintering off again.

Also, the New American Translation, the official translation of the American Council of Bishops, is the most accurate translation when compared to many protestant translations (i.e. KJV, NIV, NLT).

Also, numerous protestants do not pray to through or in the name of saints, or Mary the Virgin Mother of Christ, but they are quite demanding with their prayers to the Lord and give Papal Infallibility to their preachers, spiritual leaders, and even certain biblical scholars. Same horse different colour.



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by CAConrad0825
The issue of transubstantiation was not the issue that Luther had with the Church, nor was it what Calvin had with it as well.



Differences with Catholics
Lutherans believe that Christ's body and blood are truly present in the Lord's Supper, but they do not believe, with Catholics, that the bread and wine, are permanently "changed into" Christ's body and blood [transubstantiation].


This fact can be shown to be written by Martin Luther himself in his large Catechism:


Luther’s Large Catechism PDF
8] Now, what is the Sacrament of the Altar?
Answer: It is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, in and under the bread and wine which we Christians are commanded by the Word of Christ to eat and to drink.

9] And as we have said of Baptism that it is not simple water, so here also we say the Sacrament is bread and wine, but not mere bread and wine, such as are ordinarily served at the table, but bread and wine comprehended in, and connected with, the Word of God.

10] It is the Word (I say) which makes and distinguishes this Sacrament, so that it is not mere bread and wine, but is, and is called, the body and blood of Christ. For it is said: Accedat verbum ad elementum, et fit
sacramentum. If the Word be joined to the element, it becomes a Sacrament. This saying of St. Augustine is so properly and so well put that he has scarcely said anything better. The Word must make a Sacrament of the element, else it remains a mere element.

11] Now, it is not the word or ordinance of a prince or emperor, but of
the sublime Majesty, at whose feet all creatures should fall, and affirm it is as He says, and accept it with all reverence, fear, and humility.

Dr. Martin Luther


So while Catholics believe in transubstantiation, or the actual changing of the bread and wine to physical body and blood, Lutherans believe in that the Body and Blood are in and under the physical bread and wine. This is a very big difference, as its not transubstantiation



Originally posted by CAConrad0825
Also, the New American Translation, the official translation of the American Council of Bishops, is the most accurate translation when compared to many protestant translations (i.e. KJV, NIV, NLT).


Of course to a Catholic the mainline Catholic version is going to be the best style. Personally I have one of these from when I went to Catholic school and I find the writing to be too modern for my taste. I also own many other translations of the bible, and have all of them also on E-Sword in which I can compare them. The whole issue of which translation is the best is a silly one to begin with as most translations (there are a few that are "way out there" and too liberal, but I mean the main accepted versions) don’t very that greatly unless your using them to do very high level academic work, which would require you to be using a Strong’s concordance anyway.

It’s silly dispute, so I’ll go no further on this point.



Originally posted by CAConrad0825
Rather than have a council of Bishops who actually try to reform their churches, Preachers act as miniature Popes leading their followers to either blind following or splintering off again.

give Papal Infallibility to their preachers, spiritual leaders, and even certain biblical scholars. Same horse different colour.


While this may be an issue in independent churches such as many Baptist or fundamentalist churches, it certainly is not one in the mainline protestant churches such as the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod or Wisconsin Synod. In these institutions matters of faith and doctrine are taken from the Bible and the writings of Martin Luther, if there is a question of interpretation that goes before a committee of church elders to be dealt with. Individual churches or pastors are not free to teach outside this doctrine and can be removed from office for doing so. This has happened once before in the Lutheran Church and that group of excommunicated people went off to form the Evangelical Lutheran Church.

Now would you care to continue explaining incorrect teachings about Luther and the Lutheran Church to a Lutheran?

[edit on 2/20/2007 by defcon5]



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 11:28 AM
link   
I will not refute those claims of yours, and I applaud you for your research, support and general level-headed nature. I disagree with your beliefs but I will defend to the death your right to believe them.

Continue to deny ignorance and debate in the manner ATS was meant to.



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 12:55 PM
link   
Considering that the American Anglican Church is in a battle with teh worldwide anglican church over the issue of gays, perhaps IF the churches reunite, we might have a situation where the only Anglican Church left is in America, which would be pretty damned ironic.



Originally posted by grimreaper797
are reasons as to why they split, and what has changed now?

Yes but will it really be critical in the future for the english soverign to get a church approved divorce?


defcon
Now would you care to continue explaining incorrect teachings about Luther and the Lutheran Church to a Lutheran?

Why?
This is about the RCC and the Anglican Church. Not Luther's reformation.

If anything, we should be looking at what blocks there are to the Anglican Church fusing back with the RCC. Since the Anglican Church woudl clearly be the junior partner in such an affair, anything that conflicts with the RCC, would have to go from the Anglican Church.

Also, lets recall that the RCC isn't as monolithic as sometimes represented. I suppose if they do come back together, we'd have an Anglican Rite or Anglican Liturgy, within the Catholic Church, just as there is a Roman liturgy, Eastern Rite, Syrian Rite, or even the Byzantine Catholics.

Conversely there are so-called "Catholic" churches out there that are NOT in communion with Rome. So the 'catholic' issue isn't really as much of an issue as it might seem at first.


I'd think that the biggest issues would be having women and married priests, but as the article notes:


Were thiwww.timesonline.co.uk... week’s discussions to lead to a split between liberals and conservatives, many of the former objections in Rome to a reunion with Anglican conservatives would disappear. Many of those Anglicans who object most strongly to gay ordination also oppose the ordination of women priests.


Its doubtful, either way, that every anglican in the world would agree to reunion with the papacy.

Also note that there is wiggle room on celibacy:


Rome has already shown itself willing to be flexible on the subject of celibacywhen it received dozens of married priests from the Church of England into the Catholic priesthood after they left over the issue of women’s ordination.


And as far as Pope Benedict being too 'traditional', while he was still a cardinal, the article notes, he reached out to anglicans.

[edit on 20-2-2007 by Nygdan]

[edit on 20-2-2007 by Nygdan]



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
Why?
This is about the RCC and the Anglican Church. Not Luther's reformation.


Why? Because I was being told here that Vatican 2 supposedly had fixed all the issues of Luther’s Protestant Reformation…
Nothing could be further from the truth.


Originally posted by CAConrad0825
I will not refute those claims of yours, and I applaud you for your research, support and general level-headed nature. I disagree with your beliefs but I will defend to the death your right to believe them.

Continue to deny ignorance and debate in the manner ATS was meant to.


Thank you, and the same to you…



new topics

top topics



 
4

log in

join