I think the Vatican has put ABC on notice, “We can not and will not enter into communion with you unless and until you A. discipline the errant provinces and straighten them out, B. Straighten out you own country and it’s unbelievable desire to consecrate women as Bishops.” C. Return to the Bible as your authority instead of worshipping the almight $$$.”  Yes, I know the Vatican is very rich, but they do maintain their doctrine.  Having a woman bishop will effectively invalidate anyones orders that came after the consecration of the woman as bishop as far as the Holy Father is concerned, and I agree on that point.  Every priest in TEC that was ordained by a woman bishop is invalidly ordained and the sacrements he purports to administer are null and void.  That is how serious this playing fast and loose with God’s rules are.  People are following a make believe Presiding Bishop that has no validity.  Schori and VGR are both invalid as bishops or priest or deacons.  Remember the qualifications for a deacon say to “Let HIM be the HUSBAND of one WIFE. I think that disqualifies them both.

Won’t be heard at all.  The ABC has his personal opinion which has has allowed him to undermine Lambeth 1998, the Primates, and the ACC votes by consistent inaction.  Why, his Learnedness has elevated the “not so traditional” to equality with all of the above on his own lack of recognizance.  He would do otherwise now?

No.

Drummie, actually the Vatican is not very rich.  As I understand it, one of TEC’s churches (Trinity Church near Wall Street) is far richer than the Vatican. 

Usually, when people refer to “riches” of the Vatican, they mean the worth of the buildings and the works of art should they be sold.  In point of fact, even should these works be sold, the Vatican would not receive anything close to the “dollar value” that many experts have assigned.  Many objects would never be sold because they are used in sacred liturgy. 

These works of art are considered an obligation to conserve to reflect the historical church, the “inspired” work of artists, and the Christian culture.  The goal is to see and understand God in these works. 

There is a good deal of evidence to show that the RCC remains one of the top providers of social and educational services in the world, but most of the money does not come from the Vatican.  The Vatican’s budget is surprisingly small.

How would anyone propose to take delivery of the ceiling of the Sistine, anyway?

I think I have been misunderstood.  I am not trying to insult the Vatican.  I realize as a single Church Trinity Wall Street is mega rich.  The Vatican is not on the brink of bankruptcy however.  The main thing I was trying to get across is that the Roman/Latin Church has remaind true to itself and its teaching.  It has shaped society and not let society shape it.  You know where the Roman Church stands on the issues.  I just wish ABC would be as strong and definite.

drummie -

I, for one, didn’t take your comment as an insult, but as inaccurate.
Of course, some Catholic parishes and dioceses are quite wealthy, as are some monasteries and religious orders. Dioceses are wealthy when they are in wealthy areas, and do a good job of nurturing the faithful, who respond with generous giving. Parishes are more or less in a similar situation. Monastic and other religious communities become wealthy through hard work, frugal living and smart investments. It’s not true to speak as though the Catholic Church had one bank account that had some fabulous balance. 

But, similar to Ed, I have to ask: how much would St. Peter’s Basicilica fetch on the open market?

“is nothing other than our faithfulness to Christ himself.”

Does this mean Mary is no longer co redemptrix in the RCCs books?

although a Catholic reading of scripture should be quite frustrating for Evangelicals.

Further - given the homosexual -I mean monosexual culture of the Roman priesthood, this raises more questions than it solves.

John W

given the homosexual -I mean monosexual culture of the Roman priesthood, this raises more questions than it solves.

Good point! Reminds me of the blind men feeling the elephant!

jckliew, Mary is not “co-redemptrix” in Vatican teaching today.  Get a copy of their Catechism, or find it online.  It’s one thing to be unable to accept Roman teaching on some subjects, but one should at least know what those teachings are, and what they are not.

Katherine is right.  There was an American-led movement (mostly from Mother Angelica’s EWTN) to have Mary declared “Co-Redemptrix”, but it was denied by the Pope (John Paul II at the time, which they found surprising due to his strong devotion to the BVM, especially Our Lady of Fatima).

As far as I know, the movement has not been revived after this setback, nor has Pope Benedict been approached with it.

Peace
Jim Elliott <><

As far as I know, the movement has not been revived after this setback, nor has Pope Benedict been approached with it.

The movement is ongoing, moreso amongst traditionalists and the SSPX (who, IIRC, have at least one parish named for the co-redemptrix).  I don’t think it’ll get much grassroots support from most Catholics worldwide, though.  (and I certainly don’t see Pope Benedict giving much attention to it)

Drummie,

I did not take your comment as an insult either.  It is just that there is so much misinformation about the RCC that I try to add some information where I think there are people who are genuinely interested in seeing another side of an issue or are willing to have assumptions questioned.  I think that this website is one of those places.

As to the comment from John Wilkens about gay priests ... gayness is not the issue.  Celibacy outside of marriage is the issue whether one is attracted to the opposite sex or to the same sex or whether one is a priest or a lay person.  It is how we live, not what our inclinations are. 

As far as the really, really bad behavior (and in parts of the priesthood even criminal behavior) with both the active and passive support of some of the bishops, the RCC has put into place one of the most rigorous systems to detect and to stop abuse and unethical behavior.  Just as important, the underlying causes (especially in the American RCC) have been closely studied and are being addressed, especially through the initial acceptance of the candidates for priesthood and the entire seminary system.  There is a lot of understanding of what went wrong, but it will take time to make all the necessary changes.  The biggest change is that the new priests in at least the last decade are very, very orthodox and very committed (primarily because who else would want to be come a priest in the U.S. these days?). 

To be an American RCC priest these days is to be assumed that one is a terrible person ... a criminal.  It does not matter that the vast majority of these men are faithful and self-sacrificing and are outstanding examples of Christian living.

Transubstantiation, Purgatory anyone?
i recall that some of these cathecisms makes me an anathema cos i dont accept them….

Some RCC anathemas: are these still valid?

Canon 9: If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone, meaning thatnothing else is required to cooperate in order to obtain the grace of justification… lethim be anathema.

Canon 11: If anyone says that men are justified either by the sole imputation of thejustice of Christ or by the sole remission of sins, to the exclusion of the grace and thecharity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost and remains in them, or also that the grace by which we arejustified is only the good will of God, let him be anathema.

Canon 12: If anyone says that justifying faith is nothing more than confidence indivine mercy, which remits sins for Christ’s sake, or that it is this confidence alonethat justifies us, let him be anathema.

Canon 24: If anyone says that the justice received [i.e., justification] is notpreserved and also not increased before God through good works, but that thoseworks are merely the fruits and signs of justification obtained, but not the cause of itsincrease, let him be anathema.

#15, yes.  All are still valid.  Catholics don’t believe the truth changes from one day to the next.    All apply specifically to Catholics who deny the enumerated articles of faith.  Canons don’t apply to Protestants who were never in communion with the Church.