7 March 2023

"I baptise you ... in whose name?"

ARCIC. What is ARCIC doing?

For decades now, I have been arguing that ARCIC (if not closed down) should be discussing new or imminent matters of controversy and dissent. It should move out of the sixteenth century.

The C of E has embarked upon a discussion about non-gendered language in Liturgy. We all know what this means ... that in the foreseeable future, it will be licit to baptise in the name of Creator, Redeemer, Sanctifier. OK ... this will only be an optional alternative. So what?

Such a formula has been ruled by the organs of the Catholic Church, not to be valid.  

Acceptance of a Common Baptism lies at the heart of the Ecumenism of the last century. ARCIC should discuss, and provide documents on, this matter, soon.

Leaving the question kicked into the long grass and keeping our fingers crossed that Time will be the Great Healer ... however tempting to the minds of Anglicans and Ecumenists ... simply will not do.

The Crunch is coming. It has already bought its ticket and caught the train.

They know how to manage things. There will be all sorts of hysterically emotional appeals ... all sorts of angry protestations against Rigid People.

What on earth is supposed to be the point of ARCIC??


Albertus said...

Very sad indeed, should the Anglican Church ever allow baptism in the name of the Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier. For not only is this formula invalid, it is a break with 2000 years dogmatic and sacramental theology and liturgical practice, and implicitly denies the dogma of the Holy Trinity, that is, God as He is within Himself: Three coequal coaeternal consubstantial Persons. For "Creator, Redeemer, Sanctifier" referd to God's activity ad extra, towards His creatures, and could equally, as a formula, mean "three modes wherein God shows Himself and relates to mankind". This is modalist heresy, NOT the Most Holy Trinity. Not for nothing did Our Blessed Lord order His Apostles to baptise "in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost".

John Patrick said...

I wonder, will they also have to change Matthew 28:19 to match?

Updating the Scriptures to make them "gender neutral" would really open the proverbial can of worms.

Mick Jagger Gathers No Mosque said...

Dear Fathers. Ecumenism is the point of ARCIC in which each, un, ecclesial entry jolntly searches for the truth because Mortalium Animos was divisive owing to the unacknowledged truth that truth is divisive.


LED ( Liturgy, Ecumenism, Dialogue) are all novelties introduced at VaticanTwo that were supposed to light our way to the future but have short-circuited and caused fires in the Kingdom of God and not succeeded in calling forth members of the Kingdom of Man to enter the One, True, Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church Jesus established for the purposes of Salavtion and Sanctification.

LED has burned the brains and signed the souls and chased out of the Catholic Church uncountable numbers of men and women.

Modern Popes, such as JP II ,not only deny that the end point of ecumenism ought to be conversion to the one true Faith, they deny they even know what Ecumenism means :" Ecumenism is a journey which is made together but we are not able to chart is course or its duration before hand."

The Catholic Church took the decision to involve every last man Jack of us in a journey to an unknown destination that will take a unknown amount of time.

Is this what Pope John 23rd meant when in his Opening Speech t Vatican when he averred that,

"To Be With Christ Of Against Him

" Certain it is that the critical issues, the thorny problems that wait upon men's solution, have remained the same for almost twenty centuries. And why? Because the whole of history and of life hinges on the person of Jesus Christ. Either men anchor themselves on Him and His Church, and thus enjoy the blessings of light and joy, right order and peace; or they live their lives apart from Him; many positively oppose Him, and deliberately exclude themselves from the Church. The result can only be confusion in their lives, bitterness in their relations with one another, and the savage threat of war...."

The Council’s Principal Duty:

"The Defense And Advancement Of Truth

The major interest of the Ecumenical Council is this: that the sacred heritage of Christian truth be safeguarded and expounded with greater efficacy.

That doctrine embraces the whole man, body and soul. It bids us live as pilgrims here on earth, as we journey onwards towards our heavenly homeland..."

The Right Way To Suppress Error

In these days, which mark the beginning of this Second Vatican Council, it is more obvious than ever before that the Lord's truth is indeed eternal. Human ideologies change. Successive generations give rise to varying errors, and these often vanish as quickly as they came, like mist before the sun.

The Church has always opposed these errors, and often condemned them with the utmost severity. Today, however, Christ's Bride prefers the balm of mercy to the arm of severity. She believes that, present needs are best served by explaining more fully the purport of her doctrines, rather than by publishing condemnations..."


OK, the Catholic Church failed to follow the program laid out by the Pope who kick started Vatican Two and we know that Pope Francis loves Vatican Two so much that he is trying to kill the Holy Holocaust/Holy Sacrifice of the Mass to preserve the putative integrity of Vatican Two.

If y'all can figure out any logic or continuity involved in this novel process that clearly is a rupture with all that came before , please send me whatever it is y'll are injesting, snorting or smoking because, after more than sixty years, it is worse than an unfathomable mystery, it is all Diabolical denial, delusion and destruction.

Arthur Gallagher said...

I wonder what the whole point of VII was, after Paul VI agreed with the Kremlin that he would not condemn Atheistic Communism, in exchange for prelates from the Eastern Bloc being allowed to attend?

Much the same as when the U.S. recently refused to notice the huge Communist balloon hovering over American nuclear sites, so as not to spoil Secretary Blinkin's planned visit to China, Paul VI agreed to ignore the greatest issue facing the church, so as not to spoil his big Roman extravaganza. Look at all those prelates! In COLOR on the pages of LIFE Magazine! What could be better?

Called "The" Council- as if there had never been any other- it was all smoke and mirrors. All form, no substance. First, a massive Roman-o-Rama of Triumphalism, and style! Princes everywhere! And knights, counts, functionaries of every kind! All followed by the imposition of a stark minimalism, and the destruction of all our traditions. Not just the Triregnum, the Guarda Nobile, and princely pomp, but the liturgy, the devotions, the Raccolta, with all its indulgences, surviving here and there, but never promoted.

Since the council was a studied exercise in ambiguity, the change in form led predictably and unavoidably to confusion, doubt, and apostacy on a grand scale. If Catholicism had been like a feast for the senses, and a delight for the intellect, it became a dog's dinner of iconoclasm, bad apologetics, and poor taste.

In the late 1970s, I read in my prayer-book "how I would lead the rejoicing crowd into the house of God" None of my friends still even had prayer books. How things had changed since the VII Bomb had landed on the Church. Twenty-two masses in my parish every Sunday, now only four. Two nearby parishes merged, and now only two each week, but only one church for both parishes.

This is what happens as a result of ambiguity, manipulation, hidden agendas, and a hostility toward tradition. In that respect, Francis is the child of Vatican II par excellence.

Francis continues the authoritarian impulses of Paul VI, with a brutalism quite foreign to that courtly gentleman, and rules through ambiguity and caprice. As Abp. Chaput observed of PFs modus operandi, it is an inversion, and it comes from Satan.

All the fruits of a pointless council, that refused to address real issues, and ended up as a foil for perfidious change agents.

Bill Murphy said...

ARCIC was doomed and pointless from Day 1 because of the utter doctrinal chaos within the Anglican communion. Remember Honest to God in 1963? Any "reunion" could only have been with that fragment of Anglicans who happened to accept the Catholic doctrines. Now any reunion discussions with anyone could only be a laughable fraud because of the chaos within the Catholic camp. The first priority has to be getting workable internal agreement - most Catholics accepting the Real Presence would be one small step....

PM said...

Exactly, Albertus: the trendy Creator, Redeemer, Sanctifier formula is rank modalism. All the Persons are present in the works and their identity cannot be reduced to mere 'jobs'.

That fine theologian and former Anglican Tracey Rowland made a telling point about ecumenism a few years ago. Its future lies not in official bureaucracies but in cross-cutting alliances between those who believe the apostolic faith (however imperfectly) and those who do not. I am no fan of the style of worship at Holy Trinity Brompton, but an orthodox Catholic has much more in common with Nicki Gumbel than with the 'Catholic' proponents of the German Synodal Way - or with Gollerich and McElroy. Whatever the shortcomings at HTB, at least they believe that the New Testament is true!

Howard said...

@John Patrick Don't you remember some years ago, when the Archbishop fo Canterbury endorsed the "Good as New" Bible?

Bill Murphy said...

Was it Louis XVI who said of the successful candidate for Archbishop of Paris that at least he believed in God? We have to take our allies where we find them.

Mick Jagger Gathers No Mosque said...

Ecumenism 101 for those who do not “get it.”

Bishop Robert is interviewed by the Jew, Ben Shapiro, who asks;

What’s the Catholic view on who gets into Heaven and who doesn’t? I feel like I lead a pretty good life—a very religiously based life—in which I try to keep, not just the Ten Commandments, but a solid 603 other commandments, as well. And I spend an awful lot of my time promulgating what I would consider to be Judeo-Christian virtues, particularly in Western societies. So, what’s the Catholic view of me? Am I basically screwed here?

Bishop Barron

No. The Catholic view—go back to the Second Vatican Council [which] says it very clearly.

Christ is the privileged route to salvation. God so loved the world He gave His only Son that we might find eternal life, so that’s the privileged route. However, Vatican II clearly teaches that someone outside the explicit Christian faith can be saved. Now, they’re saved through the grace of Christ indirectly received, so the grace is coming from Christ. But it might be received according to your conscience.

So if you’re following your conscience sincerely—or, in your case, you’re following the commandments of the Law sincerely—yeah, you can be saved.

Now, that doesn’t conduce to a complete relativism. We still would say the privileged route—the route that God has offered to humanity—is the route of His Son. But, no, you can be saved. Even, Vatican II says, an atheist of good will can be saved.

coradcorloquitur said...

Very telling that this pseudo-"orthodox" bishop counsels Mr. Shapiro to "back to the Second Vatican Council." For that is precisely when the new religion of today's Modernists begins, with VCII. Seemingly, to them the words of the Savior that "no one comes to the Father except through Me" and the innumerable magisterial pronouncements by popes and councils over 20 centuries, by saints and holy scholars, mean nothing: all begins for them with the Super Council of the early 1960s. And there are still those who get offended and accuse of "schism" the orthodox Catholics who hold to the bi-millenial teaching that both Christ and the one Church He founded on Peter are necessary for salvation---the irenic pronouncements of Vatican II notwithstanding! We know very well who the real schismatics are.

JOSEPH said...

I go to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass to worship God, Not the Vatican 11.
I think that is a good summation of what mick jagger is saying.

Albertus said...

Precisely so!

From Fr. Khouri said...

Great, now we've got to investigate if each individual Anglican is baptized validly. We need more confusion when folks want to enter the Church.