AmericanPapist Comments
Oh, COOL!
Interesting - I wonder what Mar Bawai's position will be vis-a-vis the Eparchy of St. Peter in San Diego. Is he now considered an auxiliary bishop of the Eparchy?
These Iraqis are not becoming Roman (sui iurisLatin Rite) Catholics. They are becoming Catholics in the Chaldean Rite, who have their own distinct liturgy and law (the CCEO), while enjoying a relationship with the Bishop of Rome.
For Thompson to say they are becoming Roman Catholic is to play unwittingly into those among the Orthodox and others who fear wholesale "latinization," which has been a monkey wrench in the works of ecumenism for decades. A comment following Thompson's article mentions this as well.
Yes, these folks - if they are becoming Chaldean rite Catholics - are not becoming Roman Catholics. In addition to what Paul wrote, I would add that it may well simply be a matter of the wildly religiously uneducated media having no idea what it is talking about, which will only serve to perpetuate the wildly uneducated Protestants wild uneducation.
Thompson addresses that in the comments on his site. He utilizes the term "Roman Catholic" in the sense common in many circles to denote a person in communion with the Bishop of Rome. Some Eastern Catholics use this term to describe themselves.
(cf. http://www.ourstoryof.com/chalde.../overview.html)
Since the canonically appropriate canonical terminology (Roman or Latin Church sui iuris, Chaldean Church sui iuris....) is seldom utilized in the Catholic press, let alone the secular press, one can hardly fault Thompson for using the term.
"(O)ne can hardly fault Thompson for using the term."
I think we can.
Paul's comment explains it.
Another example of the media not getting its story straight on religion. Can we get either religious writers to replace these journalists, or send the secular journalists to school to learn what they cover?
The interest of traditionalist Anglicans has already been sparked, in the group of at least 40 diocese of the Traditional Anglican Communion, whose bishops asked last fall to become Catholic, and are still cooling their heels....
Fair enough to say "they became Catholics" or better still "entered into full communion with the Catholic Church."
The Anglican laity need to simply convert in the usual way. The Anglican clergy can each have their individual situations examined. Their continued hesitation strikes me as pridefulness--they don't REALLY want to be Catholic is they can't have their pretty liturgy every Sunday too!
"they don't REALLY want to be Catholic is they can't have their pretty liturgy every Sunday too!"
BINGO!
The converts who say "I would but..." are essentially saying "I am hesitant as I choose my personal tastes over truth." Which leads me to believe that most of the folks who say they would are taking advantage of cheap talk and hot air.
I would totally go climb Mount Everest next week, but my dog-sitter is unavailable...
Sure.
I suppose having pretty liturgies is *not* Catholic? While I'm not saying there may be impediments that are psychological rather than theological, let us not forget liturgical beauty is not just a matter of aesthetics--or, for that matter, aesthetics itself is hardly just a matter of aesthetics: Lex orandi, lex credendi.
Rome has a 2,000 year old liturgical tradition and we've done an abominable job of preserving it in the last 30 or so years. While I'm not saying some Anglican demands could be unreasonable, certainly doing nearly everything we can to ease the process of conversion is hardly a bad thing.
And, let's face it: an influx of Anglican good taste wouldn't exactly hurt the Church that fostered Michelangelo. God and the Catholic Church deserve better than felt banners and the bare minimum to make for a valid mass.
Wait, that should read "while I am not saying that some Anglican demands might not be unreasonable," ie, sometimes they are unreasonable. But sometimes they are simply asking the Church to pay attention to her own liturgical patrimony which some Anglicans, whatever the state of their sacraments or orders, have revived or preserved far better than we have ourselves on this bank of the Tiber.
We should pray for the conversion of all men to the Faith. But let's not assume that we can see into their minds and hearts; or that conversion is not often a psychologically very messy process at times.
Ahem!
I am a traditional Anglo-Catholic. I could write a novel length post on the reasons why I have several times in my life deliberated joining the Roman communion and subsequently rejected the idea. But I won't. What I can say is this. None of those reasons have anything to do with personal preference, undue attachment to aesthetics, simple stubborness or any other similarly silly and shallow reason.
However, a perennial reason is the predominance in among Roman Catholics at all levels of the hierarchy, from lay up to the top clerics, of the kind of attitude which reduces our substantive issues with the RCC to nothing more than individual psychological defects.
Once again I am confirmed in this impression. How disheartening!
I will tell you truly. The divide between Anglicans and Romans will never be closed so long as this issue continues to predominate in all its forms whether subtle or overt. Our differences are, emphatically, not negligible and the divide is perpetuated by both sides not just by the "stubborness" of one side.
You make a really good point, Anglican Peggy. Please excuse us; a lot of us conservative Catholics, for obvious reasons, have liturgy on the brain right now, so we make the mistake of thinking that's foremost in everyone else's thoughts, too. You're quite right that the substantial differences between Catholicism and Anglicanism have to be addressed if Anglicans are to become Catholic or, for that matter, vice versa.
"Anglo-Catholic" -- whazzat?
By the way, do Anglicans and Episcopalians in the USA acknowledge the American head of state -- President George W. Bush -- as the head of their denomination?
10 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
