|
Published: May 4, 2009
“Almost half of Catholics agree”
Poll shows division among Catholics over Notre Dame’s Obama invitation based on how regularly they attend Mass
Washington, D.C., May 1, 2009 / (CNA) -- While Catholics have mixed reviews regarding President Obama’s invite to speak at Notre Dame, research released by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life on April 28 found that those who attend Mass regularly are more likely to oppose the president’s appearance. Less frequent Mass goers are more apt to support Notre Dame’s decision.
 The Pew survey, which was conducted as part of Pew’s April News Interest Index, which examines the public reaction to current events, asked: “How much, if anything, have you heard about each of the following? Have you heard a lot, a little or nothing at all?”
The Notre Dame portion of the question was worded: “Criticism of Notre Dame by abortion opponents for inviting Barack Obama to speak at its graduation and receive an honorary degree.”
Similar to views of the general public, only 48% of Catholics are familiar with the Notre Dame controversy, and only 19% know a great deal about it. However, looking at non-Hispanic Catholics who attend Mass weekly, 35% have heard a lot about the invite, while out of those who attend Mass less, only 10% know a large amount about the controversy.
The follow-up question asked: “Do you think it was right or wrong for Notre Dame to invite Obama to give their graduation speech and receive an honorary degree?”
Also in line with the public, almost half of Catholics agree that inviting Obama was the right choice, 28% say that it was the wrong decision, and 22% had no opinion. However, of those who attend Mass at least weekly, 45% say it is wrong for ND to invite Obama, while 37% believe it is the correct choice. Of those who do not attend Mass weekly, only 23% say it is wrong, and 56% agree with Notre Dame president Father John Jenkins.
Pew reports that the numbers are not surprising because 54% of all Catholics voted for President Obama in the November election.
The survey was based on the polling of 2,003 adults over the age of 18. Pew notes that for results based on the total sample, one can say with 95% confidence that the error attributable to sampling is plus or minus 2.5 percentage points.
For more information about the survey, Click Here.
Posted Monday, May 04, 2009 4:26 AM By RayC55
IT'S TIME TO STOP USING POLLS WHERE PEOPLE REFER TO THEMSELVES AS, "NON-PRACTICING CATHOLICS". IF YOU ARE NON-PRACTICING YOU ARE NOT A CATHOLIC. YOUR OPINION SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED BY THE CHURCH WHEN IT COMES TO SETTING OR FOLLOWING CHURCH DOGMA.
|
Posted Monday, May 04, 2009 5:04 AM By St. Christopher
This is not surprising, as most Catholics have now been raised in the post-Vatican II Church, where all morality is relative, even abortion. If you would ask the same Catholics about homosexual marriage, married clergy, women clergy, divorced and remarried Catholics receiving communion, the Latin Mass and all "tradition," you will essentially find Methodists. Curiously, it is clear that the Vatican knows this yet continues entrusting the Deposit of Faith to bishops that continue the retreat from orthodoxy. In this respect, Dean Kimeic was probably more correct than not in his sense that the abortion (and other) battles were already over. Benedict is aging and unlikely to do more than he has already done to reassert tradition; the next Pope is the key to any true Catholic restoration.
|
Posted Monday, May 04, 2009 5:57 AM By Jo Ann
The first Precept of the Church is: to miss Mass on Sundays and Holy days of obligation is a Mortal Sin. If those polled do not "know" this, no wonder they don't see anything wrong with the most Pro-Death President we have ever had, giving a talk and receiving an Award at a Catholic University. They are just plain ignorant of their Faith. I wonder if they know the Ten Commandments or even care what they are?.
|
Posted Monday, May 04, 2009 7:22 AM By Nick
Maybe the question should have included: "Criticism of Notre Dame by pro-life Americans standing up to protect the innocent babies being slaughtered every day by those who share the president's view of liberalism for inviting Barack Obama to speak at its graduation and receive an honorary degree..." Bias at Pew?? They could have phrased it differently.
|
Posted Monday, May 04, 2009 8:03 AM By Paul P.
These stats do not suprise me. People who attend mass more often are typically more in tune with the true teachings of the Church. it is a shame that more Cathilics do not see the hypocrisy at N.D. Of the 54% it is a disheartening that this many Cathoics can not see the anti-life campain that pres. Obama is waging. I pray for the continuing converstion of these members of our Church.
|
Posted Monday, May 04, 2009 8:12 AM By Fr. M.P.
Clear evidence of how sin blinds people.
|
Posted Monday, May 04, 2009 8:19 AM By Dan
You can be sure Obama knows these figures well and knows how to maipulate them to his advantge. When this thing is over, Obama will make sure he is smelling like a rose, while at the same time scoring points against the pro-life witness for their "narrowness" and lack of"inclusivity."
|
Posted Monday, May 04, 2009 10:24 AM By Bud
When the Church allowed the Catholic Universities autonomy while permitting them to identify themselves as Catholic, authority was lost!
|
Posted Monday, May 04, 2009 10:43 AM By M. F. X. Hurley
In reply to RayC55. Your all-caps shouting-post is ill-considered. Pollsters lack the comptence to determine whether a claimant to the title Catholic has no claim to that title. Nor does "non-practice" (in all its equivocation) necessarily forfeit a baptized person the right to the title Catholic.
|
Posted Monday, May 04, 2009 11:12 AM By tom
The real test will be when N.D. adds up contributions from alumni and firends after this is all over. It is possible that the only green left will be in their athletic uniforms
|
Posted Monday, May 04, 2009 12:27 PM By Life Lady
If I practice my faith, I can call myself a faithful Catholic. If I do not practice it, I am not a practicing, faithful Catholic, and ought to drop that title for myself. If there are fewer of us actually practicing Catholics, who are faithful to the church, those who are not practicing, and are not faithful, should be dropped from the rosters of the members of the Church, and stop calling themselves Catholic. Obama knows that the Church is in disarray from the mistakes made in labeling themselves as Catholics. He has several of those people in his cabinet. Let him have them, but do not include them in your rosters of Faithful Catholics. It is misleading, and causes confusion. Pray for them, by all means, that they would gain their equilibrium and return to faithful membership, but do not allow yourselves to be led astray by those labels, and keep the Faith. We will all need it in the days ahead.
|
Posted Monday, May 04, 2009 12:45 PM By Dave N.
Even more telling, in my opinion, is the percentage of current Notre Dame students who support Obama's speaking at commencement, which by some accounts runs as high as 74% (difficult to say for sure; this is from the student paper, The Observer). If this is what the future of the Church looks like, I'd venture to say the University administration is banking on current trends over against the feelings of alumni.
|
Posted Monday, May 04, 2009 3:36 PM By Michael II
This should be no surprise, since "most Catholics" voted for the guy in the president's office, Obama. Maybe we should reclaim the word "Catholic" as one who tries to live in the state of grace according to the life in Christ through his Church. And if he is out of it, do what is right and repent as soon as possible to get himself with God's holy will again. I know this is a simplistic definition but we've got to recapture what it means to be Catholic, this word has been high jacked by the amoral media. Even if polls show this to be true, I think monetarily ND will be hit in the pocket book by the loss of contributions from faithful Catholics.
|
Posted Monday, May 04, 2009 3:43 PM By Kenneth M. Fisher
Father MP,
You are right on. Whenever I am asked by persons how we got so far down the path to oblivion, I tell them it can be answered with a Three letter word: SIN!, and the sin of Sacrilege is the worse.
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher, Founder & Chairman
Concerned Roman Catholics of America, Inc.
|
Posted Monday, May 04, 2009 3:46 PM By Kenneth M. Fisher
Fathe M.P.
I should ad that this sin has far worse eternal consequences when it is permitted or even committed by consecrated souls!
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher, Founder & Chairman
Concerned Roman Catholics of America, Inc.
|
Posted Monday, May 04, 2009 3:51 PM By JLS
RayC55, opinion does not determine doctrine.
|
Posted Monday, May 04, 2009 7:47 PM By Rick Flores
What this really says is that only half of the Catholics are Catholic! (Either due to ignorance or intent!) It is really pathetic. It is time to have another counsel to define the beliefs of a true Catholic as our faith is being attacked from within. It is time to draw the line in the sand and declare...This defines a Catholic... If a person disagrees, they are not allowed to claim to be "Catholic" without the threat of excommunication! And actually DO IT if they fail to comply!
We appear to be hypocrites because heretic Catholics behave so badly and associate their sins with God's sacred Church! They use our credibility to spread sin!
We are experiencing the same crisis that caused the REAL inquisition! (The truth about the inquisition and the false version of the media concerning it are not at all congruent!) The crisis that forced the inquisition was fraud committed by frauds who used the credibility of membership in the church for financial, social, and/or political gain! That is the truth!
We MUST stop the blasphemy and insults to our Lord and ONLY allow TRUE Catholics to publicly proclaim any association with the church! We just need some leadership with guts to honor our credibility!
|
Posted Monday, May 04, 2009 8:14 PM By Rick Flores
We need to remember that the PEW research institute is NOT unbiased. They are anti-Catholic and ultra-liberal! In fact, they actually changed their name because of their association (Ownership is Time-Mirror.) with TIME and their ultra-liberal slant! So, I would NOT give ANY credibility to this survey! We ALL know that the results can be easily manipulated! I'd like to see one done by a Catholic organization and focused ONLY on "devout" Catholics that understand the scandal!
|
Posted Monday, May 04, 2009 8:27 PM By JLS
Dave N, how much is the real estate of ND worth? There are actual faithful Catholic colleges sprouting up. The question is this, what does the student want, what do the parents want? One cannot love both money and God; money always comes with a price tag, which is often hidden under disguise. Oh yes, and how much can the ND reputation as a Catholic university be sold for?
|
Posted Monday, May 04, 2009 9:28 PM By garvan
I suspect Professor Kmiec would approve of ND president Jenkins' defiance of his own bishop. This is the same Fr. Jenkins who approved of the obscene "Vagina Monologues" being presented on campus, and who gives an ear to the gay& lesbian organizers, but who has recently refused to meet with the campus prolife club officers. I say to Jenkins and Kmiec: choosing Mammon over God is a soul killer.
|
Posted Tuesday, May 05, 2009 11:53 AM By John F. Maguire
In reply to Rick Flores: Baptized Catholics do not lose their Catholic title because they are wrongheaded on certain points, even points of high importance. I oppose Fr. Jenkins contradictory decision to grant an honorary degree of doctor of laws on an abortocrat, but that does not mean that I believe that Fr. Jenkins has lost his baptismal right to call himself a Catholic. Nor does it mean that I am willing to take the results of a clumsy opinion poll to declare, as you do, that "What this really says is that only half the Catholics are Catholic." Again, Mr. Flores, the term Catholic is a title. One way to relinquish this title is to renounce the Faith (formally) in the presence of one's bishop (God forbid that that be done). There are, to be sure, other (apostatic) ways of relinquishing one's Catholic title. But no, flunking, say, a catechism test, or proffering muddled answers to muddled pollsters, is NOT a way to lost one's baptismal title Catholic.
|
Posted Tuesday, May 05, 2009 12:57 PM By Ernesto
John Maquire, the post by Rick Flores appeared to be about people who don't share his beliefs, so perhaps he was using the word "Catholic" differently than you use it. Perhaps you believe his use of the word "Catholic" was not correct. For example, Rick Flores spoke of "true Catholics". Is there no such thing as a "false" Catholic? Or are all Catholics true Catholics simply because of a baptismal title? And if there is such a thing as a false Catholic, is it wrong to say such a person is not Catholic?
|
Posted Tuesday, May 05, 2009 1:00 PM By JonJ
St. Christopher, somehow your nexis between "wrongheadedness" and issues such as married priests, latin mass, and post vatican II seems incongruous at best. First of all, there is nothing theologically wrong with having married priests. Celibate priests are simply diciplline in catholic theology, not dogma. Consequently, a catholic who believes priest should be allowed to marry is not in doctrinal error. I also fail to see how whether one hears the mass in latin or english has any spiritual consequence. In fact, the Church used latin during roman days b/c latin was widely spoken throughout the mediterranean rather than in the original Hebrew. The Church used latin to communicate with its public. How can saying the mass in local language be inconsistent with "tradition"? I believe many Catholics demonize Vatican II for causing many of the changed behaviors of Catholics since the 60's. I believe that blame is misplaced. I think the true cause for these changes are larger social forces which affected western society in general, not the theological policy decisions of Vatican II. Vatican II might be the "landmark", but I doubt its the moving force behind those changes you so despise.
|
Posted Tuesday, May 05, 2009 1:49 PM By Thomas
Apparently 54% of those whom claim to be catholic and voted for Obama, the "one" without essential catholic or christian morals and values, were obviously mistaken. Except for the naive, by the very fact that those voters aware of his anti-catholic positions on abortion, stem cell research, and euthanasia that they voted for the "one" only serves to indicate those voters aren't really catholic at all! They are simply hypocrits!
|
Posted Tuesday, May 05, 2009 1:58 PM By James of ND
It goes to show, too many once catholics have lost their faith. Not only in the news report above but also in the comments of the liberal bloggers whom obviously haven't been taught the true faith and don't know ancient and true Roman Catholic history. My suggestion to them is to pray and learn about the ancient history of the Roman Catholic Church, that is if you dare to take the time and do so. It might take months for you to awaken and see the Jesus the Light of the World. You will find, your prayers for grace and insight, research and contemplative learning experience will change you to become either a more fervent catholic or a self-acknowledged protestant.
|
Posted Tuesday, May 05, 2009 2:11 PM By John F. Maguire
In reply to Ernesto: Quite right. I am using the word *Catholic* in its juridical sense as a baptismal title, whereas Mr. Flores restricts the sense of the word *Catholic* to (perceivedly) "'devout' Catholics" (he dreams of a poll that "focuses ONLY on 'devout' Catholics that understand the scandal"--the Notre Dame scandal--at issue here). The Catholic Church, for her part, has never indulged such dreams of a Church consisting in a camp of the Pure -- let alone a camp of the Pure on Mr. Flores' terms. Still, there are indeed, on the downside, severely undercatechized Catholics, muddled Catholics, habitually insensate Catholics, semi-Protestantized Catholics, and scandalously self-contradictory Catholics -- and Holy Church, in her wisdom and patience, works with them (us) all. At the same time, Ernesto, you are right to pose the question, "Is there no such thing as a 'false' Catholic? Or are all Catholics true Catholics simply because of a baptismal title?" By way of an answer, I can only quote from memory St. Augustine's negative answer: No, apropos of those who have reached the age of reason, one is not a true Catholic simply because of baptismal incorporation into Christ's Church, since the sin of secret heresy is something that effects a minor apostasy from the Church and since the sin of major apostasy remains a possibility as well (God forbid both). Augustine adds: Just as the visible Church will always have secret opponents-from-within, she will always also have souls invisibly attached to her from without.
|
Posted Tuesday, May 05, 2009 3:08 PM By Jason
Catholic leaders' objections to the Obama situation could themselves be at least partly a reflection of the leaders' awareness of and concern over the fact that in today's contemporary American culture, there is little differentiation between Catholics and non-Catholics in terms of adherence to conservative Catholic church positions on moral issues.
|
Posted Tuesday, May 05, 2009 4:20 PM By St. Christopher
To "JonJ," your views of Vatican II are typical of those within the Novus Ordo tradition and who are self-defining Catholics. You may certainly believe that the "60s" caused many in the Church to lose their faith identity and vitality, but much of the current literature on the loss of faith, on the widespread collapse of religious orders, on the ill-education of Catholics in general, documents a far different causation. As to who may be a priest, there is really no argument with those who believe, as you apparently do, that "it is not in the bible" so it can be changed. Protestant theology rejects Catholic tradition as a parallel and equivalent basis for religious truth. The Papacy has been essentially clear and consistent on the issues of celibacy and male identity for the priesthood. Yet advocacy groups continue to argue, "but . . but," when no answer which cites to centuries of such tradition will ever suffice. Further, Vatican II is not an event to "despise," as many of its teaching documents are profound and true (recall, however, that it expressly was not a "dogmatic" council and can claim no "free pass" on its teachings). What has caused the loss in the Church, presently, is likely supernatural, although it has been aided by the loss of those liturgies and attendant graces which historically have served as protections against evil, against Satan. While a faithful remnant is promised by Christ, the present Church can certainly change, including to largely disappear as it is historically known. The signs of the loss are palpable, including its celebration of an abortionist President, and the many celebrities, such as Maria Shriver and the other pro-abortion politicans, who claim to be Catholic yet who continue to receive communion, and to gather the fruits of an adoring public. These events are certainly all closely related to the loss of faith, and to the elevation of "rational" debate on issues that can never be satisfactorily argued.
|
Posted Tuesday, May 05, 2009 8:44 PM By JLS
Maguire, you've got it backwards. Juridical is the restricted aspect of Catholicism, that tool used for describing the absolute limit beyond which Catholicism does not exist. It is the last hope for those souls who persist in seeking every loophole they can be sold.
|
Posted Tuesday, May 05, 2009 8:47 PM By JLS
There is indeed a problem theologically with having married priests. In a limited dimension it is no problem for the individual priest or his flock; however, there is more to consider than that. There is the whole Church, and tradition has demonstrated that wholesale married clergy would weaken the Church, especially in time of persecution.
|
Posted Wednesday, May 06, 2009 5:16 AM By Fr. M.P.
JonJ, there is an important distinction to be made on married priests so to avoid error. In Church Tradition - capital 'T' - priests never were allowed to get married. Rather it is that married men were allowed to be ordained, which is still practiced in the Eastern Rites. That worked for Popes too, starting with St. Peter. Order is important. You see that same Tradition today for permanent deacons - once ordained, the deacon is not allowed to get married again upon his wife's death. *** In general, anyone with true Catholic eyes can see that we live in the time of great apostasy.
|
Posted Wednesday, May 06, 2009 8:26 AM By John F. Maguire
In reply to JLS: No, the juridical sense of the word (title) Catholic -- turning as it does on a baptismal right -- is less restrictive than an (arbitrary and subjective) assessment of (a) who among the baptized is "devout" (which is sometimes narrowed, as it has been by Mr. Flores, to who, say, is on the right side of one or another issue -- for Mr. Flores, the Notre Dame issue!) and (b) the putatively non-devout, on the other hand. Your and Flores' mistake is to discount the domain of law in general and the juridical organization of the Church in particular. I've listed various types of remissive Catholics (the insensate Catholic, the self-contradictory Catholic, the indifferent Catholic, etc.) but by pointing out that despite their remissiveness, these Catholis by-and-large have yet to lose the title Catholic, I've kept (I hope) the title Catholic intact. It is a sectarian impulse to RESTRICT acknowledgment of Catholics as Catholics to an acknowledgment only of strong and devout Catholics as entitled to the name Catholic to the exclusion of the weak and feckless. Have these weak and feckless Catholics renounced their faith, even if it is a dead faith rather than a living faith? Have they apostatized? You see, JLS, the juridical title is what is inclusive here, not the sort-out of the sort contemplated by a sectarian (puritan) spirit of disrespect for a baptismal right.
|
Posted Wednesday, May 06, 2009 4:42 PM By Kenneth M. Fisher
JpnJ, you are partially or historically correct when you state that Latin was the language of the time; however it was used up until some time after Vatican Council II precisely because of the Church's then teaching of "Universal". I went to the Chartres Pilgimage and personally experienced that still existent "Universality" in the fields of France where persons from over 30 different countries and cultures celebrated that Universality in the Tidentine Mass. All we needed was our own Missals. At the end of that Pilgrimage we all enjoyed a message from Pope John Paul II read to us by the Ecclesia Dei Head.
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher, Founder & Chairman
Concerned Roman Catholics of America, Inc.
|
Posted Wednesday, May 06, 2009 10:01 PM By JLS
Kenneth, on the same topic, I frequently refer to the teaching and illumination by St Paul in the various gifts of the Holy Spirit, one of which has to do with language and understanding it. The Tridentine is ideal for this ... and I believe is why its language is oft refered to as "elevated" ... it allows the soul to wander in the eye of God as no lesser construct of languages can do. Most if not all of these lesser constructs force one to dwell on the more mundane, the more pedestrian levels ... aka the "horizontal" dimension of spirituality.
|
Posted Thursday, May 07, 2009 1:41 PM By JLS
Let me add an important point to my post. When the mind is allowed to "wander" in spiritual terms, one must absolutely be standing firmly on solid ground. The Tridentine liturgy provides this; I've found by contrast that too many novus ordo liturgies take too many liberties with the structure and words, which makes it more like walking on shifting sand than on solid rock. Thus people tend to wander loose from the protection of the Shepherd, and get lost. So, in the novus ordo the faithful over the years in order to retain their position in the pasture guarded by the Shepherd, have had to curtail much of their spiritual playground. At best in my experience a well done and faithful novus ordo is kind of a clipped version of the Tridentine liturgy.
|
Posted Thursday, May 07, 2009 6:45 PM By JonJ
St. Christopher, I suggest you educate yourself with respect to the odd case of married Anglican priests in the early 80's who were ordained as fully practicing catholic priests under the auspices of John Paul II. In short, the Anglican church ordained a female bishop in the early 80's, causing many priests to leave the Anglican church. Many of these men became catholic priests despite their marriages. The Catholi Church accepted these men as priests because celibacy was simply "dicipline" and is NOT a theologically required mandate for catholic priesthood. (Male ordination is another matter. Being male is a dogmatic requirement). Ask any canon lawyer if you doubt me. I also remind you that, while the catholic church has had a 1200 year tradition of celibate priesthood, the celibate priesthood over-turned an 800 year tradition of allowing married priests. Celibacy only became an official requirement of priesthood after Charlemange was crowned Holy Roman Emperor on New Years day 800. Dark Age monarchs did not like married clerics because the only way they could support the Church was to give them land (and the attendant serfs and fighting men that went with being a fuedal overlord) since the european money economy had collapsed in late Roman times. Married clerics could theoretically use their church position to pass lands to legal heirs, who could conceivably become a challenge to the monarch's power. Celibate clerics solved this problem, and allowed dark age monarchs to trust the Church. Indeed, throughout the dark ages, Kings would appoint clerics as regents when the monarch took the field with his army, because clerics had far less dynastic interest than any other possible caretaker.
|
Posted Thursday, May 07, 2009 9:09 PM By JLS
JonJ, you are right in one sense, that a few married men have been ordained as Catholic priests. St Peter was the first one. There was some talk about those Anglican converts being a test case, but that really was not the issue. Also, as I recall vaguely, some Anglican orders were or are valid and thus the priest of such an order who came into the Catholic Church did not have to be ordained, since he already was. In either case those Anglican convert priests did not get married after ordination, but before, as it was with St Peter. When you lay out a lot of detailed complications involved with married clergy, why don't you consider that the actual reason is theological? Priests are not role models for marriage, but for Christ, a single male, a bridegroom waiting for His espoused. How can a married priest be such a role model? He can't. Have you ever read of St Peter having children? I have not either.
|
Posted Friday, May 08, 2009 2:27 AM By BJ
If i said i was a baseball supporter but never watched or listened to games and didn't have much time for the players or umpires views...... who would seriously listen to my opinions about baseball?
|
Posted Friday, May 08, 2009 2:58 PM By Kenneth M. Fisher
JLS, I don't believe you are correct because no Anglican Orders have ever been valid. Check it out.
God bless, yours in Their Hearts, Kenneth M. Fisher, Founder & Chairman Concerned Roman Catholics of America, Inc.
|
Posted Friday, May 08, 2009 8:21 PM By Bob
Let us refer to Chapter 3 of first Timothy: "Qualification of various Ministers. Whoever aspires to the office of bishop desires a noble task. Therefore, a bishop mus be irreproachable, married only once, temperate, self-controlled, decent, hospitable, able to teach, not a drundard, not agressive, but gentle, not contentious, not a lover of money. He must manage his own household well, keeping his children under control with perfect dignity, for if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how can he take care of the church fo God?" This, of course, was written by St. Paul.
|
Posted Friday, May 08, 2009 8:27 PM By Anne T.
JLS and Kenneth, I believe there have been some Anglican priests who were ordained by Eastern Orthodox bishops, and therefore have valid Sacraments while remaining Anglican. The Orthodox Sacraments are valid. Many of these Anglicans and Orthodox are devoted to Our Lady of Walsingham, an English Saint (originally Catholic and still Catholic). Other Anglican priests have never received valid ordination since their break from Rome, so their sacraments are not valid, and the host does not become the Body and Blood of Christ, whereas it does when the Anglican priests ordained by the Orthodox say the Liturgy. It is complicated, but it happens. There is an Anglican Use Mass in the United States that was okayed by Pope John Paul II for Anglicans and Anglican priests (some married before ordination) who have converted to the Catholic Church. Perhaps Fr. M.P. can explain it better than I. My rendition sounds more like the "Who's on First, Who's on Second Routine" of Abbott and Costello.
|
Posted Friday, May 08, 2009 8:32 PM By Anne T.
A correction: make that the "Who's on First, What's on Second Routine".
|
Posted Sunday, May 10, 2009 8:00 PM By JLS
Kenneth, I'm not sure: I heard and/or read back in '79 when about a dozen Anglican priests were brought into the Church, that there were some old Anglican orders that retained the line of succession from the apostles or from a Catholic bishop. At that time I knew almost nothing of the Church, and was just learning ... the details of that sort of thing and the verification were simply way beyond anything I would have looked into at that time.
|
Posted Monday, May 11, 2009 8:50 PM By Kenneth M. Fisher
I would welcome any proof that there ever were Anglican Orders recognized as valid by the Church. Everything I have read says NO!
God bless, yours in Their Hearts, Kenneth M. Fisher, Founder & Chairman Concerned Roman Catholics of America, Inc.
|
Posted Tuesday, May 12, 2009 12:09 AM By Steve
January 9, 2009: A father and son who worked for years as Anglican vicars have been ordained as Catholic priests.
The two men were ordained by Archbishop Vincent Nichols of Birmingham and will both serve as parish priests in his archdiocese.
Fr Dominic Cosslett, 36, was ordained in December before of more than 60 priests, many of whom were former Anglican clergy who had helped him in his journey to Rome.
Archbishop Nichols said: "This is a unique occasion and a great day in the life of the diocese. Both a father and his son will be serving as Catholic priests."
Fr Ron Cosslett, 70, had been ordained in 2005 and is now priest-in-charge at St Joseph's, Darlaston, in the West Midlands.
The whole family - Fr Ron's wife and daughter as well as his son - have converted to Catholicism since 2004.
His son, Fr Dominic, was ordained at the Church of Christ the King and Our Lady of Lourdes, Coventry. He said it was "a wonderful day".
He said both he and his father had always felt the Catholic Church was "the rock from which we were hewn".
|
Posted Tuesday, May 12, 2009 3:27 PM By Mark from PA
There is a former Anglican priest in Scranton PA who was reconsecrated as a Catholic priest. He has a wife and five children.
|
© California Catholic Daily 2009. All Rights Reserved.
|