Here's what the liberals have to say about the anglican return (NCR)
#21
(10-24-2009, 11:46 PM)neanderthal catholic Wrote: Will these converts be considered still "Anglo-Catholics" or Roman Catholics?

It seems to me that if one is to convert from Anglicanism to Roman Catholicism, he should loose all his bonds to his former religion (no matter how "close" it might have been to Catholicism).

Here is a quote from anglocatholic.org  "The POs [personal ordinariates] will respect the spiritual life and liturgy of Anglicanism"

If you're Catholic, you're Catholic. That's it. Right?  Is it really a full conversion if you do not adopt the spiritual life and liturgy of the Catholic Church and hold on to the same from Anglicanism?

From a religion that was established under revolt of Papal authority? 

Am I paranoid or mis-understanding the situation?

Perhaps this would be true to Evangelicals and Fundamentalists who convert and never really shed their protestantism; they have their own brand of Catholicism: -- they don't seem to complely adopt to the Catholic ethos and still protest some Catholic doctrines and practices (e.g., Mark Shea's apoplectic criticism of the TLM, and dislike for traditional Catholics. Shea has gone even to the point of alluding to a fixation one may have for shoes (!) that a Catholic looks to the liturgy of the Mass).

Anglicans converting to Catholicism will be Catholics, but not "Roman" and will retain their own tradition, etc., already referred to as "Anglo-Catholics."  

Conversely, Protestants converting to Catholicism shouldn't be incorporated into the Roman Church and can be known as "Protestant-Catholics" if they insist in digging into the excess baggage of protestantism they drag along into the Church, and until they fully adopt to Tradition.   Most ave taken over the role of "apologists" with their own interpretation of doctrine, practices, etc., much to our chagrin and are making a living out of them

ADDED:   Explain this: 

Quote:In one of the most significant developments since the Reformation, the Pope last week announced that a new structure would be set up to allow disaffected Anglicans to enter full communion with Rome, while maintaining parts of their Protestant heritage.

So Protestant converts can retain their heretical beliefs (since all about protestantism is totally adverse to Catholic belief)?  Shea, Hahn, et al., have a legitimate reason to impose their thoughts on us Catholics?

u.i.o.g.d.
Vince





Reply
#22
I would offer you a word of caution about taking the media too literally.  They are fond of sensationalism on the whole.  We do not know that any part of their Protestant heritage is going to be allowed to come over with them.  In fact, I greatly doubt it.  That part of their pre-Reformation English Catholic heritage that has been largely preserved by Anglicanism but lost to the rest of the church may come over is another matter.  Such a sentiment, however, is unlikely to find its way into the newspapers though.  It's just too complex and not controversial enough.
Reply
#23
(10-25-2009, 11:53 PM)Vincentius Wrote:
Quote:In one of the most significant developments since the Reformation, the Pope last week announced that a new structure would be set up to allow disaffected Anglicans to enter full communion with Rome, while maintaining parts of their Protestant heritage.

So Protestant converts can retain their heretical beliefs (since nothing about protestantism is totally adverse to Catholic belief)?  Shea, Hahn, et al., have a legitimate reason to impose their thoughts on us Catholics?

u.i.o.g.d.
Vince

{ have seldom read such bullshit! These Anglicans have been totally Catholic, except for the Petrine doctrine, for 140+ years. They are not bringing prot heresies into the Church. They are brining solid Traditionalism.





[/quote]
Reply
#24
(10-26-2009, 04:13 AM)jovan66102 Wrote:
(10-25-2009, 11:53 PM)Vincentius Wrote:
Quote:In one of the most significant developments since the Reformation, the Pope last week announced that a new structure would be set up to allow disaffected Anglicans to enter full communion with Rome, while maintaining parts of their Protestant heritage.

So Protestant converts can retain their heretical beliefs (since all about protestantism is totally adverse to Catholic belief)?  Shea, Hahn, et al., have a legitimate reason to impose their thoughts on us Catholics?

u.i.o.g.d.
Vince

{ have seldom read such bullshit! These Anglicans have been totally Catholic, except for the Petrine doctrine, for 140+ years. They are not bringing prot heresies into the Church. They are brining solid Traditionalism.
[/quote]

The defense of this statement -- " enter full communion with Rome, while maintaining parts of their Protestant heritage" -- carries a tinge and mentality of the modernist heresy,.  How can "Protestant heritage" be carried over?  Regardless of what the report says this cannot be taken lightly or with a "bullshit" scoff and retort.  "To be deep in history is to ceased being a Protestant." 

Quit your attacks on me, Jovan. 
Reply
#25
Please let me explain that quote again.  It came from the secular media.  It's not verbatim what the church actually said.  There is no reason to believe that they will be allowed to retain the Protestant parts of their heritage, at least until the constitution is released and we get to see exactly what the details are.  I am quite sure in such a forum as this that I am not the only one leery of taking the media too literally.  Between the fact that half of them are looking to make their stories as exciting as possible, without regard for the facts, and the fact that the other half is also too stupid to understand the complexities of most situations, there is no reason to read too far into this quote.  When a senior church official says something of retaining the Protestant parts of their heritage, I will worry.  So long as it's the media, I'll reserve my judgement and trust the Holy Father over some reporter.
Reply
#26
(10-26-2009, 07:09 PM)FrancisB Wrote: Please let me explain that quote again.  It came from the secular media.  It's not verbatim what the church actually said.  There is no reason to believe that they will be allowed to retain the Protestant parts of their heritage, at least until the constitution is released and we get to see exactly what the details are.  I am quite sure in such a forum as this that I am not the only one leery of taking the media too literally.  Between the fact that half of them are looking to make their stories as exciting as possible, without regard for the facts, and the fact that the other half is also too stupid to understand the complexities of most situations, there is no reason to read too far into this quote.  When a senior church official says something of retaining the Protestant parts of their heritage, I will worry.  So long as it's the media, I'll reserve my judgement and trust the Holy Father over some reporter.

We can wait what the Apostolic Constitution (which should fall under the extraordinary infalliblity of the Pope) actually says.

Meantime, in the impasse, can we say that L'Osservatore Romano can be considerd secular media since much of what is printed there says something different what the Church would officially state?  Take it with a grain of salt?

Can Zenith, another Catholic reporter, be trusted?  This is what is said about the Pope and the Jews -- and God performing miracles for the Jews:

"Benedict XVI will visit the synagogue of Rome on Sunday, January 17, 2010, a day set aside for dialogue between Catholics and Jews. He will be present to commemorate the Jewish feast of “Mo’ed di Piombo”, which coincides with that date.

"A Vatican release explained that “Mo’ed di Piombo” commemorates a “miraculous event” of 1793 when the Jews of Rome supposedly escaped an attack by the populace of the city, thanks to a sudden storm that doused the fire set at the gates of the Jewish quarters (Zenit, October 14, 2009)."

(Comment by one whom traditionalists love to hate:  Marian Horvat)  "Calling the storm 'a miracle' to save the Jews is something shocking to Catholic ears. It implies that God, Who worked miracles for the Jewish People in the Old Testament, continues to do so. The inference is unmistakable for progressivist and conservative Catholics: God continues to work miracles for the Jewish people, even though they have rejected the Messiah and manifest hatred for the Catholic Faith, the one true Religion."

There is more:

Quote:The dates of Benedict’s visit to the Rome Synagogue almost coincides with the commemoration of a truly great Catholic miracle that shook all Europe in the 19th century, the vision and conversion of a Jew, Alphonse Ratisbonne. The Blessed Virgin Mary appeared to the 28-year-old French Jew on January 20, 1842 while he was waiting for a friend in Sant’Andrea delle Fratte Church in Rome. Moved by grace, he converted to Catholicism, became a priest, and started an order with his brother Theodore Ratisbonne that was dedicated to the conversion of Jews. But the Vatican made no mention of this great Catholic miracle.

The commemoration of Ratisbonne’s conversion used to be a very popular Catholic feast in Rome preceded by a week of prayers, until John Paul II turned that authentic jubilance into a “week for Catholic-Jewish unity.”

Now, to please the Jews, Benedict has chosen to go to the synagogue in Rome during that very week - thus contradicting that centenary pious tradition. He goes to commemorate a “miracle” that would show that God is with the Jews. What is the message he is sending? I believe it is that the conversion of Ratisbonne was meaningless. Indeed, what sense does the conversion of a Jew to the Catholic Faith have, if the Jewish religion is as good as the Catholic one?

Is this all? Unfortunately not. We have a Pope, the Vicar of Christ, telling us that Judaism continues to be the same predilect religion before God that it was before the Crucifixion of Jesus Christ. So, at depth, the message is that the great mistake was made by Our Lord Himself and His Apostles who founded and spread a new religion, when it was not necessary…


It seems that we in this last age are still "for fear of the Jews..." (John 7:13; John 17:38)
Reply
#27
(10-27-2009, 01:07 AM)Vincentius Wrote: . We have a Pope, the Vicar of Christ, telling us that Judaism continues to be the same predilect religion before God that it was before the Crucifixion of Jesus Christ. So, at depth, the message is that the great mistake was made by Our Lord Himself and His Apostles who founded and spread a new religion, when it was not necessary…


It seems that we in this last age are still "for fear of the Jews..." (John 7:13; John 17:38)

[/quote]

Benedict can not be trusted at all when it comes to the haters of Christ. He should just be ignored whenever he opens up his mouth to say something about Jews. The Jews have no religion and no covenant anymore all they can do is wander around until they except the faith. Pray for them.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)