Christianity news

[kisekileia]

A very, very interesting decision by the Catholic Church.

I think this is a good thing. It'll allow conservative Anglicans to become part of a church that fits with their beliefs, and therefore free up the Anglican communion to be progressive.

Comments

[bruorton]

Yeah, my first reaction is that this is a pretty short-sighted effort on the part of the Pope to grow the Catholic Church -- but maybe that's too cynical. (Still, I can't see this move bringing Catholics forward, and as kaph said on FB, I feel bad for all the progressive Catholics out there facing the prospect of an influx of social conservatives.)

But if it prevents a schism among Anglicans, that is certainly a good thing. I'm just feeling troubled in a way I can't express well with our society's tendency to group in cultural silos, so to speak, rather than to coexist with those who have different views. It makes me sad, and a little worried about the future.

[kisekileia]

Well...I'm not sure what I think about progressive Catholics, to be honest. I mean, I can sympathize with their having an emotional attachment to their church and wanting to reform it. But they're in a situation where the church leadership's beliefs, along with its seemingly unchangeable doctrine, and their convictions don't match up, so I think ultimately it might be better if most of them went over to the Anglicans. It's possible that there is a good theological rationale for being a progressive and staying within the Catholic church, but I'm not familiar with one; my understanding is that most progressive Catholics stay Catholic because of emotional attachment. Maybe what's needed is for the Anglican church to do the reverse of what the Catholic Church is doing--allow progressive Catholics to use Catholic liturgy within the Anglican church.

[dustthouart]

If you actually believe that Peter is the rock upon whom Jesus founded his Church, you can't just pack up and leave.

If you actually believe that the Eucharist is the literal Body and Blood of the Savior, you can't just head on down to the local UCC when the priest makes a political statement you don't like.

It's a fundamentally different way of looking at the world.

[bruorton]

Uh... I'll concede that point. Was this a response to anything I wrote in specific?

[dustthouart]

No, it wasn't. I responded to the wrong comment. ^_^;;; It was supposed to be a response to kisekileia's response to you; I just clicked the wrong reply button. Whoops. My bad.

[kisekileia]

Oh, I know. I had thought, though, that progressive Catholics (by which I mean those who would like to bring in women priests, support birth control, etc.) tended to have a lower view of the authority of the Vatican and the Catholic Church in general than you do.

[gordoom]

The thing is, the Church in the Western world has been a pretty comfortable place for "progressive Catholics" for the last forty or fifty years - outside of some of the statements coming from the Vatican itself, they haven't been challenged much in their beliefs or in their desire for "Church reform". Fifty years from now, the climate in the pews isn't going to be nearly so comfortable for them.

You see, the priestly vocations that are coming into the Church now are not (in general) from the "progressive Catholic" wing, but rather from people who are firmly committed to the Faith and to Catholic tradition (both big- and small-T) and to the authority of the Magisterium. These are the people who are going to be the deacons and priests and bishops of the next fifty years - which means that these are the people who are going to be shaping the Catholic climate in such areas as liturgy and formation

[dustthouart]

I know a number of what you would consider progressive Catholics (ie women priests and birth control, although why that's the sole criterion for progressiveness nowadays escapes me--I'm a lot more progressive about helping the poor than most of them are, and that seems more important to me at least, making sure that people have a place to live and food to eat, but whatever, for some reason our modern society has decided opinions on fucking are the be-all and end-all) have said to me that it's the Eucharist, period. Like my brother's godmother. They won't go anywhere else because they believe in the Real Presence. No matter what. I think many non-Catholics underestimate that.

FYI

[kaph]

Um, Anglicans believe in the Real Presence.

Re: FYI

[kisekileia]

Isn't the Anglican belief in consubstantiation rather than transsubstantiation?

Re: FYI

[kaph]

Well, there's a diversity of belief on the kind of Presence. I was taught transubstantiation by my (female) Anglo-Catholic priest as she was teaching me before my confirmation. Consubstantiation is more common, but both represent a belief in the Real Presence of Christ in th elements of the Eucharist.
In a way, consubstantiation includes transubstantiation; the Anglican emphasis is on the Presence, and on the mystery surrounding the Presence, rather than trying to explicate what God is doing in the mass.

Re: FYI

[dustthouart]

You're thinking of the Lutherans, although it wouldn't surprise me if there were some Anglicans who adhere to that. There are quite a few improperly catechized Catholics who deeply respect the presence of Christ in the Eucharist but think that it is at the same time also bread or wine. I don't think God holds it against them, lol, but in my experience I have never met someone who believed this who did not, when the orthodox position was explained, change to the orthodox position

Re: FYI

[kaph]

Checking Wikipedia, I see that Lutherans believe in something called "the sacramental union," which is NOT consubstantiation.

Re: FYI

[dustthouart]

This seems to be term quibbling. My AP history textbook used "consubstantiation" as exactly the term for what the Lutherans believed; the article on "sacramental union" says that it's a distinguishing not of fact but of doctrine versus metaphysics. Apparently Luther was against delving into the metaphysical end of things, and for that reason they don't like the term, apparently. (Since "consubstantiation" was originally a term hammering out exactly how this would occur a la Aquinas.)

"The analogy of the iron put into the fire whereby both fire and iron are united in the red-hot iron and yet each continues unchanged" is Luther's own words. I am perfectly willing to use "sacramental union" if that is what Lutherans prefer, but I can see why "consubstantiation" became the term used in history textbooks and so on--it is so much more specific a term. Out of context, sacramental union could refer to so many things.

Re: FYI

[dustthouart]

Well, not all Anglicans do believe that. I've read the Thirty-nine Articles and transubstantiation is point-blank called repugnant and leading to superstitions.

It ultimately doesn't matter because Catholics believe that one needs valid orders (succession and right form and intent in ordaining) to confect the Eucharist. Some Anglicans might have valid orders in our view but there's never any way to be sure, unless one could dig up the corpses of those in the given priest's line of succession and say "Look, what form did you use, and did you intend a sacerdotal priesthood to be conferred?".

Re: FYI

[kaph]

I think you've got a misunderstanding that Real Presence=Transubstantiation. It does not. Also, the 39 articles' representation of the Eucharist is ironically more in line with Thomistic theology than is the doctrine of transubstantiation.

Finally, the 39 articles are an outline, and are a few centuries old. Many Anglicans DO believe in transubstantiation; I was taught that transub. is theologically true, though I now prfer to leave the mysterious workings of the mass up to God, and trust in the Real Presence.