Pages

Thursday, March 14, 2013

Anglican Ordinariate unnecessary according to Pope Francis

Reactions 
Greg Venables, former Anglican Archbishop of the Southern Cone and based in Argentina, offers a look at what Bergoglio "is really like." He writes:

[Bergoglio] is much more of a Christian, Christ centered and Spirit filled, than a mere churchman. He believes the Bible as it is written.

I have been with him on many occasions and he always makes me sit next to him and invariably makes me take part and often do what he as Cardinal should have done. He is consistently humble and wise, outstandingly gifted yet a common man. He is no fool and speaks out very quietly yet clearly when necessary.

He called me to have breakfast with him one morning and told me very clearly that the Ordinariate [creating by the Catholic Church to accommodate alienated Anglicans] was quite unnecessary and that the church needs us as Anglicans.

I consider this to be an inspired appointment not because he is a close and personal friend but because of who he is In Christ. Pray for him.

Source

Cathcon-  the Cardinals have chosen the anti-Ratzinger Pope.   The hermeneutic of continuity in theory and practice is dead.

This is not an attitude that St Francis would have taken on any reading of St Francis.

4 comments:

Nick said...

I don't think it's right to say Benedict was a traditionalist, so the "anti-Ratzinger" references don't fit. There was no "hermeneutic of continuity" implemented to undo in the first place.

From what I can tell this early on, Francis is a lot more like Benedict and JPII than people realize.

Timothy O'Brien said...

This post is rather confusing. Is he saying that Pope Francis wanted the Anglicans to stay Anglican in schism or stay Anglican in practice within the RCC?

Timothy O'Brien said...

I'm not sure I understand this post. Does it mean he wants them to stay Anglicans and not be in communion with the RCC or simply stay Anglican in practice while being in communion with the RCC?

john-of-hayling said...

This post would be more interesting if there were a date to this alleged breakfast meeting. It could well be that the concept was unwelcome, but being presented with the practice some years later is another matter. It reads as though the correspondent is trying to stir up trouble. It is actually similar to the negative posts about his attitude to the Malvinas and the junta. Can we let the man get on with things?