Monday, November 08, 2010

On the conversion of Anglican bishops to Rome


The event is interesting, even extraordinary, but nowhere near as newsworthy as the mainstream media are making out.

And it is certainly no surprise.

It is noteworthy than whenever prominent Roman Catholics convert to the Church of England (or to any other denomination, for that matter), the media are either silent or they present it as an irrelevant and outdated bigotry; something quite unnecessary – if not offensive – in today’s enlightened era of ecumenicity. There is no triumphalism, principally because blowing one’s own trumpet is a very un-Anglican thing to do.

Yes, five Church of England bishops – either retiring or ‘flying’ – have announced their decision to cross the Tiber and convert to Roman Catholicism.

And this, according to the BBC and The Telegraph in particular, constitutes the ‘flood’, the 'earthquake', the ‘deluge’, the ‘tidal wave’ or whatever other apocalyptic migratory metaphor we were prophesied when Pope Benedict announced the the Apostolic Constitution Anglicanorum cœtibus in Rome on 4th November 2009.

Historian David Starkey is of the opinion that the move was calculated by the Vatican to coincide with the 500th anniversary of Henry VIII's accession: “The Catholic Church has a profound historic awareness," he said. "What better moment to indicate that it believes the English Reformation, which was irrevocably set in motion during Henry's reign, can - and should - be reversed?"

His Grace took a similar view in the timing of the political decision to beatify Cardinal Newman.

Whatever the truth about this, the departure of these faithful and longsuffering bishops from the Church of England will be greeted with ecstasy by liberal Anglicans, while their reception into the Church of Rome will be viewed with dismay by liberal Catholics: the last thing Catholic modernisers want is an influx of Anglican traditionalists.

You can’t win.

And neither will these five men of God, whom His Grace wishes every sincere blessing as they continue their spiritual journey through life.

Their departure will undoubtedly impoverish the Established Church.

But the grass is always greener on the other side.

Yet it has ever been His Grace’s theological praxis that whenever this is found to be so, he should try watering his own.

It is true that there are some within the Church of England who take an orthodox or ‘biblical’ view on issues like homosexuality, abortion and women priests and bishops.

And there are others who take an alternative ‘biblical’ view on such matters, which is not quite so orthodox.

And the Word of God is stretched this way and that, such that it becomes a broadsheet of mutually-exclusive propositions and diametrically-opposing contentions.

But these bishops will soon find that things are no different in the Church of Rome: it is simply that they have a system of ecclesiastical authority which keeps the lid on dissent and is absolute in the resolution of disagreement; indeed, infallible, in its pronouncements.

The Anglican tradition is consensual and synodical: it is one of living in perpetual tension between conservative and liberal, between Catholic and Reformed, and between the here and the not yet. This provisionality negates absolute theocracy and notions of papal infallibility: it is why, in some senses, the proposed Anglican Covenant is distinctly un-Anglican.

But as His Grace is himself dismayed and distressed by certain recent events and occurrences within the Church he loves, he has a few questions to ask of the Bishop of Ebbsfleet, the Rt Rev Andrew Burnham; the Bishop of Fulham, the Rt Rev John Broadhurst; the Bishop of Richborough, the Rt Rev Keith Newton; and the two retired bishops, the Rt Rev Edwin Barnes and the Rt Rev David Silk:

You were all ordained priests and have ministered as bishops in the Catholic and Reformed tradition of the Church of England. Time and again you have given absolute assurance to the people of God about the validity and efficacy of the sacramental ministrations you have offered which were guaranteed by your historic succession from the Apostles, and the unbroken laying on of hands sustained through the Reformation period and continuing in the traditions of the Anglican episcopate to the present time.

You all are now required to be ‘re-ordained’ as Roman Catholic priests. Although you may exercise a degree of ecclesial authority as granted by the Pope, no man who is married may be a bishop on the Roman Catholic Church.

Were the many sacramental ministrations over which you presided – eucharistic celebration; the ordination of deacons and priests – nothing but theatre?

Do you now take the view that Anglican orders are ‘utterly null and absolutely void’?

Are those men whom you have ordained (one very recently) truly and assuredly ordained?

Has your ministry within the Church of England been based upon fictitious claims?

Are your oaths of allegiance as ephemeral as modern-day wedding vows?

Is such reasoning of such inconvenience that you will simply ignore these questions and now assert that the Church of Rome is the One True Church and the Church of England is not a church ‘in the proper sense’?

Just wondering.

But as you depart, could His Grace ask that you please desist from such histrionics as referring to the Church of England as ‘fascist’ or engage in any other ludicrous hyperbole - and that includes demeaning comments like comparing the Church to ‘a coffee chain going out of business’.

Some of us remain, and coffee has a sound and secure future.

Bless you.

44 Comments:

Anonymous Oswin said...

We stand, we fight our corner, we do not 'throw in the towel' ... we fight on, and hope to win through. We do not abandon those who support us.

Five 'crises of conscience' ???

Traitors, cowards, turn-coats and Quislings more like!

8 November 2010 at 18:19  
Blogger OldSouth said...

Bye-bye, ya'll. Don't let the door hit you on the backside on the way out.

Betcha', in about a year or so, it will dawn on you why England walked away from Rome all those years ago.

Jest sayin'...

8 November 2010 at 18:21  
Anonymous Voyager said...

How did this England end up with 144 bishops ? Are there no telephones, cars, computers, faxes, webcams in the Church of England ?

Why do we have merged parishes, shared priests, and constant demands for diocesan levies....but no merged bishoprics, no redundant Suffragans, no redundant Deans or Canons ?

8 November 2010 at 18:24  
Blogger Anabaptist said...

Cranny, you ask the departing bishops:
'Do you now take the view that Anglican orders are ‘utterly null and absolutely void’?'

For what it is worth, I take that view. I also take the view that RC orders are null and void. And Orthodox orders; and Methodist orders, etc, etc. In fact all orders. You know the rest.

There are no such things as 'orders' in the New Testament. Somehow those poor deprived original Christians had to stagger along without their Popes, Cardinals, Archbishops, Archdeacons, Prebendaries, and so on. All they had was a bunch of apostles. And yet they coped.

My goodness, they even expanded and throve.

They even managed to do so in the midst of vicious persecution.

Perhaps we might learn from their example.

As far as I am concerned, the migration of some Anglican clergy to Roman Catholicism is simply the transfer of players from the English Premier League to the Italian Serie A. They are going from one unbiblical hierarchical denominational organisation to another, each making unsubstantiated claims to be God's church.

It is a very small matter. I just wish the whole lot of them -- the whole lot of you -- would quit the entire rotten system.

8 November 2010 at 18:26  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"It is axiomatic that the grass is always greener on the other side, and it has ever been His Grace’s theological praxis that whenever this is found to be so, he should try watering his own."

Ah, Your Grace. Welcome back. Your words are as nectar in contrast with miasma from the midden!

8 November 2010 at 18:27  
Anonymous not a machine said...

Interesting as this news is and I still maintain my position that defections cause as much trouble for the church of Rome as they seem to do for the Anglican communion , I just hope a working relationship finds its feet with godly inspiration .

However his Holiness has been busy in Spain and has called for cardinals to attend Rome re child abuse. We should not undervalue His holiness contribution to fighting evil , whilst we fall apart on the acceptable quality of bishops. I note Gene Robinson is to retire early .

8 November 2010 at 18:29  
Anonymous Petronius said...

I knew YG would have some interesting thoughts on this matter.

One thing strikes me: the differences between the RC and Reformed churches are far deeper, more fundamental and theological than merely the issue of the ordination of women. One would hope that any CoE minister would need to spend many months, perhaps even years, praying and contemplating, before considering such a huge, life-changing upheaval as this. Such a minister stands to immediately lose both his income and his house, and there is no automatic right to be ordained as a RC priest, just because one was previously a CoE minister. "Church minister" doesn't look great on your CV in the secular world while you're trying to find work, never mind having to explain why you left your last job to the benefits office! "In my spiritual journey, I reached a crossroads of conscience" doesn't quite put you at the top of the queue! In other words, "crossing the Tiber" is not an easy thing to do at all, it's a difficult, stressful thing in both practical and spiritual terms. Not something many ministers would willingly choose to do simply because they objected to one particular church issue.

My point being, perhaps the main media is being too lazy, in saying that it's all because of the "women priests" issue: There must be far more to it than that.

8 November 2010 at 18:48  
OpenID willcookson said...

Excellent article your grace. I also thought the coffee headline beneath them (especially as we have just started a new cafe church - and the coffee is very good!).

Seriously though it is sad to see these men of God acting in a way that is beneath them.

8 November 2010 at 18:52  
OpenID nickbaines said...

Your Grace, I hope your questions get a response. I have been asking them directly since 2008 and still have received no answer. I am happy to learn...

8 November 2010 at 18:58  
Anonymous Alastair Cutting said...

Your Grace, thank you.
It is the questions left hanging towards the end of your post, about these bishops' C of E ministries, that have been troubling me most.
Some of these, and some others rumoured to be following their lead, I have known personally. What of all those oaths of allegiance these bishops have taken over the years too. These are important issues.

8 November 2010 at 19:06  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr Cutting,

His Grace is appreciative of the reminder, and has amended to include the oath of allegiance.

Bishop Nick,

If you have been asking these crucial questions directly for two years and received no response, His Grace has absolutely no expectation at all of succeeding where you have failed. They will simply be swept under the carpet.

8 November 2010 at 19:13  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Sorry, Mr Cutting: His Grace has just seen from your tweet that he should have addressed you as Rev'd Alastair.

8 November 2010 at 19:17  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Certainly it is a dramatic move, and it may or may not turn out to be correct for them in the end. But these men are acting out of conscience, and I suspect they gave it a great deal of thought. According to their personal temperaments, they have had enough. Perhaps one day you, too, will decide you have had enough. I understand your choosing to stay and hold down the fort, but to berate them is un-Christian.

8 November 2010 at 19:18  
Anonymous Paul, Bedfordshire said...

The orders thing is a bit of a nightmare these days owing to Old Catholics whos orders are recognised by Rome being part of the ordination chain of not a few Anglican Clergy, which is presumably why some ex-Anglican clergy have been given a -conditional- ordination.

I thought his grace would be rather pleased to find his BCP (albeit only in part) becoming part of Catholic worship in England, as it already is in some ex-Anglican Catholic churches in the USA. After all your 1549 version wasn't, in word if not intention, particularly unorthodox, even by Catholic standards and in my opinion was better translatlated than ICELs 1973 effort.

And O that his graces 1549 admonition against an unworthy communion or indeed similar words would be read aloud in any church before the offertory.

Todays events will have a far greater effect on the Catholic Church in England, much to liberal dismay, as it will give a dignified alternative to the Guitar and Tambourine brigade.

I wonder if we might just see a revival of the Sarum rite in time?

I would also hope to see in both Catholic and Anglican churches a more determined effort to reinstate the regular practice of morning and evening prayer (Matins/Lauds and Vespers/Evensong) by the laity, which was championed by his grace and also many years later by the documents (as opposed to the mysterious spirit) of Vatican 2.

8 November 2010 at 19:21  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

The Anon comment @19.18 is the sort of facile remark which inclines His Grace to ban anons from his blog altogether.

His Grace clearly referred to '...these five men of God, whom His Grace wishes every sincere blessing as they continue their spiritual journey through life.'

And yet he is accused of berating them.

It is some of their number who refer to the CofE as 'vicious' and 'fascist', or compare the Established Church to Starbucks in administration.

There is no berating by His Grace; just expressions of sorrow at brothers departing.

8 November 2010 at 19:30  
Anonymous len said...

Mr Anabaptist,
I agree with you.
What was started with the disciples was lost when 'Religion' moved in and men took over what only God could accomplish through the power of the Holy Spirit.
To try and please God by living by a set of rules or rituals is a fruitless task.

8 November 2010 at 19:43  
Blogger Jared Gaites said...

Go figure...

Anyways, The Bishop of Fulham who has just left the Anglican Church to become a Catholic joins Jeremy Paxman on Newsnight at 10.30pm on BBC Two.

An interesting post on The Hermeneutic of Continuity

You have my sympathies in these difficult times, Both NB and YG. My own opinion is that a lot of things need redefining.

8 November 2010 at 19:59  
Anonymous not a machine said...

Len I am hoping to find somthing similar by my belief that christ is not divided , however I dont think we can undervalue the role of the church since its foundations in teaching and discerning. Where would be without the scholarly advances ?? and yet I also can see how churches just becomes assembleges of stones or for that matter modern charismatic congregarations of empty chants .

We canot detach ourselves from the meanings and studies of the bible , however the living holy spirits role is so different to just knowledge , I wish that I was better able to tie the two togther both churches are godly , and long worked at faith .

8 November 2010 at 20:16  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Actually, YG, you are the one person to whm I was not addressing my remarks.

8 November 2010 at 20:26  
Blogger Jared Gaites said...

Len

I can't see eye to eye with your views about religion. You sound hollow and devoid of spirit even though you bang on about the Holy Spirit. You pasted a link not so long ago that took me to a web page for a Bible church somewhere, I could go back and seek out the post, maybe I will, but if this church is the one you attend, then does it not have some form of religion? And where do they get there religious views from?

Most of the time I have no idea what you are trying to say. You always answer in the most vague and unspecific manor.

As Christians, what exactly are we supposed to be doing in your opinion?

Anyways, another interesting link:

Vatican confirms request of five Anglican bishops to join church.

8 November 2010 at 20:32  
Blogger Lakester91 said...

Am I wrong in saying that Anglican orders contain a clause which denounces the office of the Bishop of Rome? If so then I can hardly see any complaint about the notion of the invalidity of these orders in Catholic eyes. I would like to hear the stories of the Catholic bishops who've joined with the Anglicans YG, perhaps referencing these with links might help? It would certainly help your point better than simply saying that it has happened.

Silly, silly sectarianism; that is all. Childish squabbles about the size of God's nose. The religious nihilists are just as depressingly negative. Some people need to be aided in interpretation of scripture. God doesn't magically imbue all of us with interpretive wisdom, it's far simpler to give such a gift to a few, and let them spread the word. If any of the anti-religious go to a ministered service then you are hypocrites. Whilst you are passing judgement, the rest of us are trying to live our lives in God's light.

8 November 2010 at 21:12  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I would think that the bishops would feel that their orders were genuine at the time and while practicing while under the true teachings of the church they were legit. Since our church has changed its very teachings and is no longer true to their faith they would now think that they are not living their vows. It is not the Bishops or the people who have left the CoE or the Episcopal church but the church that has left them.

8 November 2010 at 21:15  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Some of us remain, and coffee has a sound and secure future"

I honestly do not think that it does have a sound future. I think the church will go bankrupt and churches will continue to close up and people will continue to leave. The congregations are old. My 90 year old grandmother remains because as she said she is too old to change and just hopes the church is there to bury her at the end as she gave many hours of sevice and many dollars of donations over the decades. My parents hope it will last for them too. I do not see a future for me or my children. The church has abandoned formation and teachings and the young people are not there.

Unfortunately the last generation was asleep at the wheel and our church was hijacked by new age thinking, progressivism etc. Many of the priests and bishops are not even religious, they are political activists using our church as a platform, using our money and endowments for their purposes and causes and deliberatley trying to destroy the church. Unfortunately there is no leadership at this time.

8 November 2010 at 21:33  
Anonymous John Knox said...

Signs of the times.

Both the King's Church and the King's English are going to the dogs, with Fowler turning in his grave.

Of course one never uses Rev as form of address, but of reference only, always including "the" and the first initial or name. The form of address is either Mr of Dr (if applicable overrules Mr).

The mistaken view that Mrs, Miss or Ms are also allowed is part of the current crisis.

Otherwise your questions are timely, Your Grace. You omitted to specifically include the 39 articles. The public embracement of these doctrinal views as bishops and priests, shows either that these men have been, les use the word: dishonest, during their CofE years (just like most liberals); or that, under recent pressures, they have lost the plot altogether.

The Roman clause does not provide a safehaven for, reaching out to distressed orthodoxy from the CofE. It merely gives clergy a chance, in exchange for freedom from persecution, to deny their ordination and specifically anglican doctrines. In other words, everything these men were supposed to have stood for.

In exchange Rome allows them to keep a few typically English rituals that amount to not much more than thirty pieces of silver.

On the other hand, if life is made impossible for you by ruthless feminists and liberals, one might be pressured to settle for a quiet life and a company of people who at least believe some core doctrines of Christianity.

That Rome is willing to use the present despair as means of coersion and receive psychologically pressured men on this basis, is more reminiscent of the practices of some sectarian cults than worthy of the holy Catholic Church.

It is cruel and ruthless, lacking any genuine respect for orthodox clergy in the Church of England.

8 November 2010 at 22:11  
Anonymous len said...

Jared Gates,
I don`t attend a church, used to but gave it up as it seemed so empty and pointless.
Real'religion' is supernatural,it is not of this World it is entirely of another World.

"The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit." (John 3;8)

8 November 2010 at 23:12  
Anonymous ukFred said...

Your Grace, I had always been taught that the grass is always greener directly over the septic tank.

8 November 2010 at 23:23  
Anonymous PJ said...

Len at 23.12, what about "For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them." and also where does one seek his spiritual guidance and support if he does not attend a church?

9 November 2010 at 00:25  
Anonymous not a machine said...

Newsnight managed not to decend into farce although I was dismayed at "ovaries" remark despite it pinning one aspect very politically.
Where I do agree with the bishop is what for those who value the traditions ?? There is somthing very deep and sincere in the anglican faith in its service and that includes a sometimes male aspect. Apostollic seems to me to mean "fishers of men" , not at the expense of minority female role , but it may well be that men not having ovaries are better occupied in the role and its need for authority rather than concensus .
The bishop was quite concerned with the politics trends and I can see the difficulty of putting up barriers to those who think it is better not to have them .
If it turns out that Tradition does impart somthing more than poltical correctness , then our church will be weakend , again the church has to uphold the faith and not just appease political questions .
I will not see our traditions dismantled into equality , when there is nothing equal about evil .Abilty is more important than ovaries or testes and we sorely need the church to begin to combat the reletivism that has left it so moribund and its flock insecure .

9 November 2010 at 01:18  
Anonymous not a machine said...

Newsnight managed not to decend into farce although I was dismayed at "ovaries" remark despite it pinning one aspect very politically.
Where I do agree with the bishop is what for those who value the traditions ?? There is somthing very deep and sincere in the anglican faith in its service and that includes a sometimes male aspect. Apostollic seems to me to mean "fishers of men" , not at the expense of minority female role , but it may well be that men not having ovaries are better occupied in the role and its need for authority rather than concensus .
The bishop was quite concerned with the politics trends and I can see the difficulty of putting up barriers to those who think it is better not to have them .
If it turns out that Tradition does impart somthing more than poltical correctness , then our church will be weakend , again the church has to uphold the faith and not just appease political questions .
I will not see our traditions dismantled into equality , when there is nothing equal about evil .Abilty is more important than ovaries or testes and we sorely need the church to begin to combat the reletivism that has left it so moribund and its flock insecure .

9 November 2010 at 01:19  
Anonymous IanCad said...

Talk about gagging at a gnat and swallowing a camel! These five unworthys are now uniting with an outfit whose doctrines are a web of errors. Women's Ordination is an issue not clearly articulated in the Scriptures. As a conservative I tend to reject it. However, having a niece who has recently become a vicar, I have to say that I see no compelling argument against it.

9 November 2010 at 04:24  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I give these five worthies roughly six months, twelve at the most, as Roman Catholics. After that they'll rush back to the cuddly embrace of the good old, inclusive CofE. Where they'll enjoy once again the freedom to dress up as RC bishops (without being such) and to play at being more Catholic than the Pope.

9 November 2010 at 10:01  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I left Anglicanism for Rome once and did my best to be a good RC. After a year or so it all fell away like the scales from the eyes of Saul of Tarsus. I hungered for the 'verbal incense' of the Prayer Book and the reverence and dignity of Anglican worship at its best.

I think these clerics will find Roman Catholicism does not give them the haven from post-modernity that they seek but will find it to be an autocratic and morally bankrupt system that specialises in hypocrisy and spiritual arrogance.

The 18th and 19th Articles of Religion appended to the Book of Common Prayer are as pertinent now as they were in 1562!

9 November 2010 at 11:51  
Anonymous laudatus said...

When Cranmer refers to Catholics who've converted to Anglicanism, who does he have in mind? Apart from the Canadian girl who abandoned the Faith in order to ensure that Phillips kept his place in line to the throne - which received media coverage - I can't think of anyone.

I suspect Cranmer will struggle to name any RC bishops who've embraced Anglicanism since the 16th century, let alone recently.

9 November 2010 at 11:54  
Blogger Little Black Sambo said...

Do you now take the view that Anglican orders are ‘utterly null and absolutely void’? .... [etc, etc]
Just wondering.

You are being disingenuous.
They never took that view, and will not be required to take it now.
Anon at 21.15 has got it right.

9 November 2010 at 13:12  
Blogger Phil Taylor said...

Check out http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00vy654/Newsnight_08_11_2010/ between 16:30 to 24:00.
Bishop Broadhurst seems to have trouble looking at the woman vicar whenever he speaks. His style or a way of expressing his feelings towards her holding the office of vicar?

9 November 2010 at 13:15  
Anonymous Bede said...

These 5 bishops (some of whom I have met) are leaving the C of E after reluctantly concluding that it is inexorably following the path of the American Episcopal Church. They will be very happy in the Roman Church (others who follow them may not be).

Traditional evangelicals will sooner or later also have to decide whether to go it alone, or try to remain as an independent group largely separate from the main body of the Church. They too have no long term place in an increasingly liberal and unorthodox Church.

9 November 2010 at 16:44  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

An analogy to consider:

A man falls in love with a woman and they decide to get married. They say their marriage vows, all that stuff about love, honor, cherish, obey and remaining faithful. They are happy in love.

After a few years the woman says she has rethought the vows and would like to change something. She wants to have an open marriage. Afterall it is the 21st century, get with the times! Why can't they be married and enjoy their life and kids etc and still have an open marriage? Why does he have to be difficult and ruin everything over a simple matter, she wonders. The man doesn't like it but tries to go along with it. It doesn't feel right. After time he begins to complain. They fight. She doesn't understand why he can't open his heart and love everyone. She tells him to stop being a hater and a judgemental prig. Finally she says if you don't like it leave. After much grief, deliberation and sadness as he really did love his wife he finally files for divorce.

Now YG Cranmer I ask:

Did his marriage vows mean nothing to him at the time?

Were they genuine at the time?

Did he do his best to live up to them?

Who changed the vows?

Who left who? Did the wife leave the man or did the man leave the wife? He was the petitioner but it seems to me that she left the marriage first. She changed the vows and the rules of the game. He didn't sign up for an open marriage but was being forced to live up to his vows even though they had changed.

9 November 2010 at 16:58  
Anonymous Oswin said...

Bede @ 1644 .... so you, they, them - stay and fight your corner. It is not a difficult concept; and hey, no one said it would be easy ...

9 November 2010 at 23:08  
Blogger naturgesetz said...

"Do you now take the view that Anglican orders are ‘utterly null and absolutely void’?"

Perhaps they concluded that an episcopacy which can allow homosexuality among their ranks and the ordination of women to their ranks thereby proves itself to be no true episcopacy.

If so, although Leo XIII failed to persuade them with his reasons, the Anglican Communion did with its actions.

10 November 2010 at 06:58  
Blogger Steve said...

It seems to me that these guys have always believed in the authority of the Pope over the C of E. (Don't ask me how they did it in the past - ask them.) For this reason I think the pertinent question is not, Why are you going now, but, Why didn't you go before!

11 November 2010 at 12:51  
Anonymous len said...

I guess the answer to that one steve is to be found amongst the scriptures.


<< 1 John 2:19 >>

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us.

14 November 2010 at 09:33  
Blogger WITTY WALKERS said...

Just a thought more...what will these dear Bishops and their flocks do when the light dawns on the Vatican, that God does not exclude women in his calling to the priesthood. What difference can a Bishop, Cardinal, Pope truthfully find between a young man and a young woman seeking advice both believing that God has call them to the priesthood.How can a Bishop possibly decide that God has not called the young woman but has called the young man?

19 November 2010 at 16:29  
Blogger naturgesetz said...

@ WITTY WALKERS — The Catholic Church will never ordain women to the priesthood. It would be contrary to scripture (1 Tim 2:12), contrary to the example of Jesus, and contrary to the priests' representing Jesus as bridegroom of the Church in the Eucharist.

19 November 2010 at 18:50  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To leave the whole system is to believe that Jesus would not be with us until the end of the world. Anabaptist you are true to your colors, and your defective world view. The acorn grew into a tree and you somehow believe your acorn is the original??? Nevertheless, we still pray that you make the leap and find yourself in the Church that Jesus Christ governs, though through men and systems that are the results of two thousand years.

31 March 2011 at 02:50  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older