Have Your Say 

Recent Comments

1. It appears to me that the clergy were only trying to foster ecumenism - what a pity for us all that the Vatican has seen fit to intervene. Perhaps the day will come when we can be Australian Catholics rather than Roman Catholics, governed from a distant country whose inhabitants do not understand the culture of ours. We would thus be able to promote the love God through Christ to all our separated brethren, uniting in many services and promoting the ecumenical cause.

   Posted By: PAT

2. Here we go again. The thought Mafia at work. What unfortunate things some do to further what they think is correct. Let us pray that their hearts are filled with love

   Posted By: Parakrama Bahu

3. Another attempt by Rome to set aside Vat II this time on Ecumenism. Also the "Prayer of Jesus" John 17, 21 When will they ever learn ???

   Posted By: George Ripon

4. The first and greatest commandment is that you must love the Lord you God with your whole mind, body and soul and the second is that you mustlove your neighbour as yourself. The Roman Catholic Church seems to be excluding itself from these laws of God. It is so choked by Canon Law that it is speeding towards irrelevance. I am reminded of the problems faced by the early church when the numbers were being swelled by non-Jewish converts. Peter and Paul and the other apostles were able to get together and work out how to assimilate them into one fold. The Church adapted itself to the customs of the various cultures such that the times of pagan feasts became the times of feasts of the church. They were pragmatic times and the church thrived during them.Why can't the churches come together and become united under one fold? Surely the things that they agree on are greater than those that divide them.

   Posted By: Peter Harrigan

5. Seems the Vatican so often is working against the people, including Bishops, at the coal face. One would have to assume that the 'temple police' are at it again. There are serious issues here, not the least the authority of local bishops.

   Posted By: Jim Walsh

6. As Vatican II stated, "all faiths illuminate". This celebration could have been a clear affirmation of a rarely quoted expression.

   Posted By: john mc carthy

7. What a sad state of affairs. What would Jesus say or do? I pray that we all will be one body in Christ. Let the Spirit do what is best.

   Posted By: luisa hogan

8. This intervention only adds to the deliberate moves by Rome to move away from the Ecumenical Movement which was encouraged by Vatican 11. The movement grew quite strongly in Australia but has declined over recent years.
   
   Good on both Bishops who were moving to celebrate Confirmation together. Perhaps they could make a stand and go ahead anyhow.

   Posted By: Brian Godsell

9. The Church strongly encourages ecumenical services and ecumencial cooperation, but a celebration of a valid Sacrament can never be combined with a celebration of an invalid simulated sacrament. "Confusing messages" is putting it mildly. Every bishop is surely well aware of this.
   
   The fact that some way-out wacko in England might have once tried on such a thing 20 years ago does not create a "precedent". Otherwise there would be a precedent for virtually everything.
   
   This is not a "blow" to the bishops nor to the Tri-Diocesan Covenant, which makes no mention or even hint of such an absurd idea.
   
   

   Posted By: Ronk

10. One could say that the "messages" of the first Pentecost were confusing, all those 'enthusiasts' babbling in strange languages, but it wasn't. Those observing and listening heard the message of the Spirit in their own language/way.
    
    What is the Vatican so afraid of? There is so much fear.
    
    Well, it is the supreme way of keeping people obedient. What other message can we get from this but "be careful, you might be corrupted".
    
    Give us SOME credit.

    Posted By: Oh Yet We Trust

11. What a disgraceful decision by the Vatican.

    Posted By: Conor Bradley

12. And incredibly CathNews repeats the Herald’s blooper in calling it a “Pentecostal” service! Gee wasn’t it bad enough without claiming it’s a service of an extreme protestant denomination?

    Posted By: Ronk

13. And what of the Anglican converts, for whom receiving the sacrament of Confirmation is the very act of their rejection of Anglicanism and joining the Catholic Church?

    Posted By: Ronk

14. I was impressed when I heard both the Catholic & Anglican Bishops talking about this event.
    
    Interesting, too, that a similar event was held in the UK previously, with no 'stop' from the Vatican.
    
    Someone must have done some 'tipping off', in this case.
    I hope someone doesn't 'tip off' the Vatican that, every year, I, a Catholic, take our Tibetan Spaniels (Buddhist....truly) to a local Anglican Church for the Blessing of the Animals Service.
    Part of that service, was to write an apposite prayer & place it on a 'prayer tree'. As it was the animals' day, I wrote, on behalf of our Tibetan dogs,
    'Please free Tibet!'.
    
    Now there's a really 'confusing' scenario for the 'tippers off' to think about, reporting to the Vatican.

    Posted By: Marie H

15. It was a combined CONFIRMATION service that was the problem not an ecumenical pentecost service.

    Posted By: cas

16. The vatican is a positive disgrace.
    Those who reported to Rome are so weak, there is no word to describe them.
    Ecumenism is what we pray for when we pray that "all will be one."
    No wonder people are leaving the institutional catholic church in droves. Only the very conservative people will survive.
    I am ashamed to call myself roman catholic.

    Posted By: Marianne

17. This unwarranted interference by the Church Hierarchy only serves to weaken the bonds between Christian Denominations and at a time when there is a desperate need for such bonds to be strengthened. Indeed, in the Church's long history, if it is to be a force for good in the world, there has never been a greater need for steps to be taken which will lead to Christian unity.

    Posted By: David

18. I have a simple solution for the progressivists loudly wailing here on CathNews: leave. Leave the Roman Catholic Church. If the 'hierarchy' (which Christ Himself mandated) bothers you so much, then you belong elsewhere. Join the Anglicans, a 'Church' that was basically established so a monarch could satisfy his raging libido and lust for power. This same faith would be spread by the sword across England and Ireland with tens of thousands of Catholics refusing to convert and being executed as a result (St. Thomas More, St. John Fisher etc).
    
    That way, you can rid us young Catholics of your annoying 'Spirit of Vatican II' nonsense and theological illiteracy. We can begin to properly rebuild the Church which so many of you callously stripped and desecrated.
    
    

    Posted By: Aquino

19. Regardless of one's ecumenical opinions, something like this cannot happen.
    
    For those of you who know their theology of confirmation, you can see quite quickly the farcical nature of such an attempt.
    
    Confirmation is about coming into the fullness of the Church. To hold an event where people are not coming into fullness in the Church is plain confusing.
    
    Furthermore the event could be seen as recognising as valid the confirmation by an Anglican.
    
    Let us not forget that Newman, whom we all know and love, was himself confirmed in the Catholic Church even though he had been through a ceremony in the Church of England.
    
    Full unity will not come about through pretending or holding such nonsensical events together. It can only come about through truth and love, not through holding hands, clicking our shoes together and wishing that it were so. They can gather together as much as they want, but they cannot deny essential truths of the faith. It's not the Vatican's fault that Anglicans lost their Holy Orders, that's their own.

    Posted By: Quasi-Seminarian

20. Another frightening example of the Vatican's ultra-conservative move towards "we're right and everyone else is wrong" thinking.

    Posted By: Paul w

21. "What would Jesus do?"
    
    Well for a start he would do the RIGHT thing. True charity involves true justice, and well, truth. The truth is that the Anglican church cannot confer a valid sacrament of confirmation as they do not have valid orders.
    
    To have a combined event where both churches allegedly confer this sacrament is thus in essence an enormous fabrication, a gross untruth, dressed up to look like it is true. Such confusing messages do nothing to foster true ecumenism - striving for one church under one shepherd.
    
    There is so much pent up hate of 'the Vatican' evident in this thread of comments. And this catch cry of 'Australian Catholicism' has all the echos of Lucifer's 'non serviam' - pride: an overweaning love of self.

    Posted By: Peter

22. Another coup for the Temple Police!

    Posted By: Conor Bradley

23. Most of the comments here display a deplorable ignorance of even the basic facts of Catholicism.
    Vatican II did NOT state "all faiths illuminate". It said that non-Catholic religions sometimes "reflect a ray of that truth", which is found in its completeness only in the Catholic Church, which is truly one, as it is the fulfilment of our Saviour's prayer recorded by St John. Or do you claim that the Father does not listen to Christ's prayer??
    
    This has nothing to do with discouraging ecumenism, or not adapting to the various cultures of the world, much less a lack of love. On the contrary the Pope shows Christ's love for us by preserving the integrity of His sacraments.
    
    I'm pretty certain Bp Walker never envisaged anything like this occurring when he signed the Covenant. He certainly wouldn't take part in such a celebration.
    
    

    Posted By: Ronk

24. George R and John McC, here's some things that Vatican II REALLY said:
    
    "as Vicar of Christ and pastor of the whole Church, the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme and universal power over the Church. And he is always free to exercise this power"
    
    "it is the duty of all bishops to promote and to safeguard the unity of faith and the discipline common to the whole Church ... Every legitimate celebration of the Eucharist is regulated by the bishop, to whom is committed the office of offering the worship of Christian religion to the Divine Majesty and of administering it in accordance with the Lord's commandments and the Church's laws"
    
    "The laity should, as all Christians, promptly accept in Christian obedience decisions of their spiritual shepherds, since they are representatives of Christ as well as teachers and rulers in the Church.”

    Posted By: Ronk

25. Why are some of you people so upset? I was an Anglican priest for many years and am now a Catholic. I have discovered that Catholics live in a very big ghetto and know very little about the nature and reality of Anglicanism. (Except for the fact that some of the 'liberals' in the catholic church seem hell-bent on going down the same path to extinction that the Anglican communion is quickly treading.) Go ahead and have your 'ecumenical Confirmation service'. I would be very interested to see what 'creed' was recited by the candiates and the congregation. It's a simple fact that Anglicans do not agree on any of the credal statements of the apostolic church. Let alone the nature of the Church and the Sacraments. And some of you want to stand side-by-side and thereby state liturgically and publicly - we all believe the same things?
    Ecumenism does not gloss over important differences of belief. The Vatican has acted charitably and correctly.

    Posted By: Phillip Turnbull

26. Apart from Ronk, do any of the contributors really appreciate the significance of what was being proposed...the simultaneous celebration of two confirmation rites, one valid, the other most certainly invalid? And from this, of course,there then arises, inter alia, the question of the validity of the orders of the Anglican clergy.
    involved.
    
    Instead of the blithering nonsense about Vat II ecumenism, certain correspondents would do well to do a course in the Vat II documents, including the post-conciliar ecumenical directives.
    
    The real Vat II, not the one of uninformed, starry-eyed phantasy, never countenanced communicatio in sacris based on invalidity.
    
    Had the proposed service been simply a Pentecost "Para-liturgical" celebration we can be certain that the reaction of the Holy See would have been both positive and supportive....but playing games with the sacraments never.
    
    Maitland and Newcastle can have all the ecumenical services they like...but not with confirmation, or any other sacrament "concelebrated".

    Posted By: Marco Elliott

27. I'm with Ronk on this one - the Eucharist is what it is all about in this case and as is obvious most Australian Catholics are already hugely confused if they do not understand why a combined mass is impossible and only ecumenical services without the consecration are possible.
    As Peter rightly states, the first commandment is to love the Lord your God with your whole mind, body and soul. In a Catholic service the host becomes God during the consecration - this is what our faith is all about. This is why the Vatican makes such a fuss. They try and teach that one should only go to communion when one is worthy of receiving Jesus within oneself. Just as you would not invite the Queen or PM into a dirty, messy house you should extent the same courtesy to Jesus. This is why Catholics go to reconciliation - "to clean up the place" before receiving Jesus.
    But as obviously our bishops are already confused - no wonder the congregation is confused and hence the necessity for the Vatican to "explain" to the bishops what is the right thing to do.
    The media just sensationalises it - and people are quick to condemn the Vatican but I wonder how many take the trouble to find out the truth. And this is what Jesus is all about - the TRUTH

    Posted By: annemie

28. One can only despair at what is going in our beloved Catholic Church.
    
    The claim that Catholics might be confused with this common celebration of the feast of pentecost is almost laughable.
    
    What confuses us more is the incredible decision to lift the excommunication of the SSPX crowd.

    Posted By: Elias Nasser

29. There are some quite significant differences between Catholic confirmation and Anglican confirmation (and indeed other sacraments). Within the Anglican church there are differences between dioceses as to the sacraments. Anglicans do not recognise confirmation as one of the seven sacraments of the gospel.
    
    
    "The Anglican Church holds that "Confirmation is not to be counted for a sacrament of the Gospel . . . for it has not the like nature of sacraments [sacramentorum eandem rationem] with Baptism and the Lord's Supper, for it has not any visible sign or ceremony ordained of God" (Art. xxv)."
    
    http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04215b.htm

    Posted By: Michael

30. I agree with Ronk. Sacraments are too important in the Catholic church to be confused with the non-sacramental protestant versions.
    
    There is a large push towards ecumenism and reconciliation in the Catholic church, which is a good thing, but the fact remains that protestants reject the authority of Rome and so, it would seem, do a lot of posters here who call themselves Australian Catholics - does this make them de facto protestants?
    
    

    Posted By: LM

31. For goodness sake we are all worshipping the same God!
    
    The temple police at work again?
    
    What sort of Christians are we? The temple police dobbing fellow Christians and others in "power" encouraging and listening to them.

    Posted By: Chris

32. Oh No, the Vatican interferes again and all those who cannot accept its authority are out to bash it without finding out all the facts first. Have a bit of objectivity first without your fast judgmental attitudes and you might realise that the Vatican is correct. If this is a joint Confirmation service than it makes no sense, it will confuse the people. What were the Bishops thinking?

    Posted By: Markodan

33. Good on you Vatican for standing up to incompetent bishops.
    
    The Catholic Church is obviously the only Church Jesus Christ established, so if the Church of England wants to establish relations with the one true Church - it can open its eyes and see its own church was formed by King Henry and to do the right thing - and join the Catholic Church.
    
    Now that is the only true form ecumenism.
    
    Lord Jesus, LET THEM BE ONE.

    Posted By: Uncle Chop, Chop

34. Ronk, Anglicans do not have to "reject" the Anglican church to become Roman Catholics, it can just be a "moving on". Anglican confirmation is valid and so an Anglican joining the Roman Catholic Church does not have to be re-confirmed. I speak from personal experience.

    Posted By: exa

35. The Anglican sacraments were proclaimed invalid by Pope Leo XIII in his letter Apostolicae Curae. That would be why the Vatican is quite rightly axing this combined Confirmation.
    
    Holding combined ceremonies will do nothing for Christian Unity. Christ himself said there was only one Church, the Church built on the Rock of Peter. That would be the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

    Posted By: Invictus Maneo

36. I'd doubt that the Vatican would've stepped in if Anglicans and Catholics got together to drink tea, or do Bible study, or even to celebrate an ecumenical "event".
    
    But for those receiving "confirmation" or baptism at such Anglican-Catholic combined event, how will you validate the sacraments?
    
    Wouldn't that be rather impractical and blurring as Sikhs and Hindus co-celebrating their sacraments in their ecumenical event?
    
    Perhaps, shouldn't people think about the reason before badgering the Church without missing a beat?

    Posted By: Joey

37. This is an extremely disappointing move, however predicatable from Rome. Its all about Power and Control.
    
    Why can't we keep our FAITH simple?, and ask:-
    
    What would Jesus do? Jesus was inclusive, compassionate, loving and wise. Jesus came for all, not just the right winged conservative few!
    
    I'm sure Jesus would be the first to agree to a joint Pentecostal service by the Newcastle and Maitland Catholic and Anglican bishops.

    Posted By: Bernadette McPhee

38. Is it not the same Spirit that we are confirmed by? If the Catholic Church recognises other Christian denominations' Baptism as legitimate, then surely Confirmation must be recognised - you cnnot defy logic though some often try!

    Posted By: Michael

39. I am a convert from Anglicanism. I think this whole plan was nonsense to begin with, and thank God that the Vatican (more properly the Congregation for Divine Worship) intervened, if indeed they were going to perform a combined Confirmation. Conversion isn't easy, and many make the journey. I am glad I converted, and proud of being a Catholic. I had something (Anglicanism) to convert from, and something else (Catholicism) to convert to, and they are different realities. To deny this is to offer us converts a massive insult, and to cheat ourselves (Catholics) and lie to others (non-Catholics).
    
    
    Anglicans and Catholics cannot have joint confirmations, nor joint Masses, the simple reason for which is that Anglicans (except when they have obtained them from another group) do not have Valid Holy Orders, and are (even if they have valid but illicit Orders) objectively at least in schism, if not heresy. This is not to be offensive, just truthful.
    
    
    I think it is a good thing before we talk about ecumenism to recognize where we disagree. A friend is someone who is confident to tell you where they disagree with you, and where you (in their opinion and perhaps objectively) are in the wrong. We cannot make moves towards reconciliation by pretending that we don't disagree. That would just be false peace.

    Posted By: Adeodatus

40. Was this pentecostal service going to be held instead of Mass? Catholics are obliged to attend Mass on Sunday and if he was going to have Mass as well, was he going to ensure that non-Catholics did not receive Holy Communion? By all means pray with the Anglican community but don't water down or compromise our Faith, our Truth.

    Posted By: Monica Brown

41. If they were planning to have confirmations during this service, then there would be no choice but to call it off, as any knowledgable Catholic could tell you. I'm all for ecumenism, but we can't go celebrating the sacraments with other denominations. If we did then we would be saying that one denomination is as good as the other, and that there is no real point in being a Catholic.
    
    It seems that the majority of people who have commented on this story either haven't read it thoroughly, or need to learn some more about their faith.

    Posted By: Paul Keen

42. 'Common participation in worship (communicatio in sacris) which harms the unity of the Church or involves formal acceptance of error or the danger of aberration in the faith, of scandal and indifferentism, is forbidden by divine law.' Vatican II, Orientalium Ecclesiarum, 26.

    Posted By: John L

43. Elias Nasser
    
    You would do well to go and read something about the actual facts of the lifting of the penalty excommunication of 4 bishops of the SSPX, in particular that this penalty was applied for a very specific canonical offence NOT some ill-defined 'difference' as your illinformed comments indicate.

    Posted By: Peter

44. Unless EXA is speaking of a case that was clearly a dubium,or the "receiving" priest was a totally ignorant ecumaniac, this correspondent is wrong.
    
    The position of the Catholic Church - and the Orthodox - is that valid confirmation requires at least valid priesthood. As the Catholic Church considers Anglican orders, per se, invalid, there can be no valid confirmation administered by either an Anglican priest or an Anglican bishop.
    
    Also, the confirmation rite of Anglo-Catholics, which mimics that of the Catholic Church, including the use of "chrism', is not the typical historic Anglican confirmation ceremony in which the minister only imposes hands.See the Book of Common Prayer.
    
    Amongst the evangelical Anglicans confirmation is not even regarded as a sacrament.
    
    I can assure EXA that the normal method of reception of baptised Anglicans into the Catholic Church is by profession of faith and confirmation....and I speak from personal experience.
    
    Perhaps, at the absolute most, some VERY, VERY, rare cases have been given permission to be "re-confirmed" conditionally. However, I have yet to encounter a case in Australia.
    
    Also, perhaps when "quoting" or refering to, Vat II documents, contributors could give the references. Having to do so means having to look at the relevant section....that might save a few Vat II howlers.

    Posted By: Marco Elliott

45. It seems the neo-protestant “Catholics” who make up their own doctrines, sacraments and liturgies, far from being proud of the fact like real protestants, are ashamed of it and do everything possible to prevent the Church authorities finding out; damning anyone who mentions it to them as “temple police”, “sycophants”, “thought Mafia”, “tippers off”, “so weak, there is no word to describe them”, “very conservative”, “dobbing” and “right winged”.
    
    If they thus succeed in bullying everyone into silence at least once, so that the Church authorities don’t find out about an incident of abuse until afterwards, they then proclaim: “A similar event was held previously, with no 'stop' from the Vatican, so we have a precedent!”
    The hypocrisy is sickening.
    
    Exa, sorry to inform you, but if the only “confirmation” you have received was by an Anglican, you have not received the sacrament of Confirmation. If a Catholic priest told you otherwise he was tragically misinformed and derelict in his duty. I speak from personal experience having assisted several adult Anglican converts to enter the Church through Confirmation, which is required for all Anglican converts.
    
    Michael, ANYBODY, even an atheist, can baptize somebody. Nobody but a validly ordained priest can confer Confirmation. It is your false analogy which defies logic.
    

    Posted By: Ronk

46. OYWT and Elias, surely you cannot seriously claim that there was NO danger of any Catholics (let alone Anglicans) getting the impression that the Church teaches that Anglican confirmations are valid, or as good as Catholic confirmations? Or at least becoming confused about the question? I think the comments on this article are evidence enough that plenty of Catholics are appallingly ignorant about their faith and would have got exactly that impression.

    Posted By: Ronk

47. Ecumenism is fine as far as it goes and should be encouraged. But to combine liturgies dilutes them. The Catholic liturgy is not conducive to being incorporated into protestant liturgies since the central part of the liturgy is the Eucharist. It seems that the clergy involved do not quite understand the importance of the Eucharist to a real Catholic. The Vatican is entrusted to protect the validity of the Catholic Church which was established by Jesus through our first Pope, Peter, remember?

    Posted By: Vin

48. exa, Anglican Confirmation is simply invalid. Anglicans do not have valid episcopal (or priestly) orders, and as such cannot confer Confirmation.
    
    Michael, I don't know about you, but I was confirmed by a human being. There was no dove hovering around. Yes, it was the Holy Spirit acting through him, but the normal procedure for the conferral of the sacraments involves a normal human being validly deputed to act on behalf of the Holy Spirit. And your logic is flawed. A layman can confer baptism, and I was baptised by a layman. But a layman cannot confer Confirmation. That said, confirmation conferred by an Orthodox Bishop, to the Orthodox, is valid, precisely because they have valid orders.

    Posted By: Adeodatus

49. As I understand it, the service would have been far from 'confusing'.
    The Anglican Bishop would confirm the Anglicans & the Catholic Bishop would confirm the Catholics.
    The people simply stand side-by-side to acknowledge the Christian belief in the workings of the Holy Spirit.
    And all attending would have been blessed in doing so.
    Whole thing strikes me as an example of primitive 'taboo' thinking. For Catholics to stand beside Anglicans while the Anglican Bishop confirms them, is seen as one step before the sky falls in. And for Anglican to be standing beside Catholics who are being confirmed by the Catholic Bishop, will make that sky fall twice as fast.
    
    On the contrary, it's a demonstration of psychological & social maturity.

    Posted By: Marie H

50. In September, 2008, Dr Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury, with seven Anglican bishops, led an Anglican pilgrimage to Lourdes, for the 150th anniversary of the apparitions.Cardinal Walter Kasper was the papal legate to the same celebrations.
    
    The Anglicans used the upper basilica for the celebration of their Holy Eucharist.
    
    At the international Mass celebrated by Card. Kasper, the Anglican bishops, had a place of honour and were vested in copes and mitres.
    Canterbury preached an admirable sermon to a congregation of some twenty thousand.
    
    Each night the Anglican pilgrims took part as a pilgrimage group in the procession.
    
    Any problems with the Holy See? No! Because this is the ecumenical activity that Vat II envisages and for which it provides. READ the documents and the post-conciliar directives.
    
    NB.At the Lourdes celebrations everyone was seen clearly for who he was...no concelebration or similtaneous celebration of SACRAMENTS...no misguided syncretism.
    All above board, all in the true spirit of Vat II.
    
    I am told by a Catholic priest resident in Lourdes that the several days of the Anglican pilgrimage were most rewarding and most edifying.
    
    
    
    

    Posted By: Marco Elliott

51. I agree wholeheartedly with the Vatican. We cab respect others beliefs and get along well with them, but having an ecumenical service like that should not be up to a bishop or archbishop to decide on, rather it should be something that comes from the Vatican and would be the same for the whole Catholic church not just one or two archdioceses.

    Posted By: Anita

52. Ronk, If anyone can baptise then it follows that anyone can confirm. Basic logic - since it is only in the West through historical circumstances that what today is known as confirmation evolved. A type of Darwinian Sacramental evolution would'nt you say?
    Michael

    Posted By: Michael

53. What a sad event. Roman catholic is the true church.The Vatican intervened for all sorts of reason. eg.
    Pope Leo XIII's Apostolic Curae. Anglican orders were declared invalid,null & void.

    Posted By: Fr. Robert

54. Ronk, where is the problem with a Catholic Bishop confirming Catholics....& standing nearby an Anglican Bishop is confirming Anglicans?
    
    I realise my Tibetan Spaniels crossed the line a bit, being blessed by an Anglican priest....& a woman at that....to celebrate the Feast of St Francis.
    
    No one, however, would have been crossing the gap in the Newcastle-Maitland service. Catholics lined up for the laying of hands of the Catholic Bishop & Anglicans lined up for that of the Anglican Bishop.
    
    Nice & tidy....& not a neo-protestant in sight.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    

    Posted By: Marie H

55. The Lourdes celebration was a mistake. If I, an orthodox layman, cannot preach at a Mass, and I shouldn't be allowed to, why should someone else be allowed to do so who is also lay, whose orders are invalid, and who additionally does not hold to the Catholic Faith? It creates a confusion among ordinary faithful about sacramental validity. So, the precedent doesn't hold. There are problems with common celebrations with Anglicans and other 'protestants' (using the term in Newman's meaning of those originating from the Reformation).

    Posted By: Adeodatus

56. I thought Vat II emphasised our commonality rather than differences with other Christian religions.We're all baptised in Christ so what's the problem with being confirmed in Christ?

    Posted By: Bill P

57. Well, you could knock me over with a feather! Thirty-five years ago, that priest who received me into the Roman Catholic Church told me that my Anglican confirmation was valid, and so I was not re-confirmed and have happily been practising as a Roman Catholic ever since. Now, the eminent authorities on this board tell me that Anglican confirmation is invalid. Should I seek an annulment?

    Posted By: exa

58. EXA it is unfortunate that the priest who received you into the Catholic Church was in error concerning the validity of Anglican confirmation.
    
    It is not a case of anyone in this forum telling you something...it is the position of the Catholic Church.
    
    There is no need to be knocked over by a feather or even something more substantial. See your present parish priest, explain the situation to him, and, arrange to be confirmed.
    
    As you have already been received into the Church, he may feel that he may not celebrate the sacrament for you - unlike when he RECEIVES adult converts. However, a phone call to the Bishop or VG should resolve that matter quite quickly.
    
    And, please, do not make light of the matter by misuse of the term "annulment".

    Posted By: Marco Elliott

59. EXA, the priest who received you in 1974 (?) should have been aware of #101 concerning confirmation of Anglican converts in the "Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism".(1967)Please read it.
    
    ADEODATUS, I do not know what precedent you are writing about...read my contribution again. I gave the carefully prepared and controlled Lourdes example not as a precedent for the proposed Maitland-Newcastle ceremony but as a contrast to it.
    
    As for the vested and mitred Anglican bishops and the honour given them, read #119 in the above mentioned Directory.(1967!!)
    
    As for Canterbury preaching. It is not unheard of for non-Catholic hierarchs to preach at Catholic Masses. Although obviously in a different situation to Cantuar, the Ecumenical Patriarch has spoken at Papal Masses (2008)....the canons and #134 of the above mentioned Directory not withstanding.
    
    I suppose the Holy Father considers the situations of Constantinople and Canterbury as being just a little different from that of the average lay person being let loose during Sunday Mass at St Something-or-another.
    
    Then again, perhaps he just subscribes to the axiom, "The law giver is above the law."

    Posted By: Marco Elliott

60. Michael, your logic is simply flawed. Confirmation is a sacrament and recognized as such by both east and west. Anyone can baptize in an emergency, but Confirmation is a sacrament which, like many others, is reserved in some degree. I sincerely hope you are not suggesting, for instance, that anyone can anoint or that anyone can say Mass.
    
    exa, no. You need not seek an annulment, and you would have no grounds for one as far as I am aware. Non-confirmed Catholics can enter marriage in some circumstances. You can and should get confirmed, however.
    
    Marie, the problem is the implicit recognition of Anglican confirmation. I think I prefer a return to a state where a Catholics would rarely if ever attend an Anglican service.

    Posted By: Adeodatus

61. There are multiple questions running through this thread.
    1. Is a simultaneous parallel confirmation service of Anglicans and Catholics, where both bishops participate, unacceptable, but sequential confirmations are OK? If the plan was to have, say, the Anglican confirmation rite for the Anglicans followed by the Catholic rite for the Catholics, would that have raised objections in Rome?
    
    2. What is required of Anglicans who seek communion with Rome? It seems some Catholic clergy require a signed profession of faith and Catholic confirmation; others only ask for the profession of faith. This really should be clarified.
    
    3. Is mixing sacramental rites with ecumenical outreach confusing or an acknowledgement that the different believers present have different beliefs and ecumenism implies that these different stances are accepted as honest and authentic forms of Christian faith, though perhaps not canonically accepted as equivalent in authority?
    
    I think ecumenism is bound to be confusing, as life in its complex realities is confusing. If we want to be dead certain all the time perhaps we really shouldn't reach out at all.
    
    Incidentally, I recently attended a morning of religious ceremonies in thanksgiving for the health and safety of my workplace. We began with recitation of the rosary interspersed with Catholic hymns. That was followed by prayers chanted by the local Muslim clergy. Then after a short break we had chanting by Buddhist monks. Ecumenical? Acceptable? I don't know. They were three distinct ceremonies, but all employees attended all ceremonies. We have 300 Christian, Muslim and Buddhist employees. I'd say less than a handful chose not to because of some objection.

    Posted By: Poppenhauer

62. Adeodatus, confirmation is not necessary for the VALID reception of any sacraments after baptism. It is not a case of unconfirmed Catholics being able to marry in "some circumstances" - it is in any of the same circumstances as a confirmed Catholic.
    
    The Church does encourage people who have not been confirmed to request the sacrament before the celebration of marriage, however, it is not a sine qua non, by any means.

    Posted By: Marco Elliott

63. (Michael) “it is only in the West through historical circumstances that what today is known as confirmation evolved. A type of Darwinian Sacramental evolution”
    Nonsense. Confirmation has been conferred as a separate sacrament from Baptism, at a later time and conferred only by the Apostles and their successors, since long before Christianity even reached the West. See e.g. Acts 8:12-17. The present custom in many Eastern churches, of conferring Confirmation and First Communion immediately after infant baptism, is of later origin.
    
    Poppenhauer, the answers to your questions HAVE been clarified by the Church.
    1. Combining a sacrament with an invalid simulated sacrament is not permitted, whether simultaneous or sequential. And apart from anything else, the proposed ceremony was to take place in an Anglican church.
    2. All Anglican converts require Confirmation.
    3. Nobody is claiming the Anglicans don’t honestly hold their beliefs and that they are a form of Christian faith. But it is at best a severely limited form and not the authentic faith of the Apostles.
    
    I’m sure no Catholic would object to the ceremony at your workplace. The Rosary and Catholic hymns are not sacraments. In fact many of our separated brethren pray the Rosary and sing Catholic hymns even when no Catholics are present.
    

    Posted By: Ronk

64. Marco, thank you kindly for the clarification. I stand corrected
    
    Poppenhauer, the answer to your questions are:
    
    1) Probably not, provided there was no sense that the validity of Anglican Confirmations was being recognized by Catholics.
    
    2) There never has been doubt as far as Anglicans, qua Anglicans, are concerned. They are to be received into the Church, and Confirmed.
    
    3) I don't know what you mean by "authentic." I suspect it is another word which has become meaningless jargon. At any rate, no other "denomination" can claim to be the Catholic Church, as far as the Catholic Church is concerned. And they might have similar reservations. Some of our beliefs include the invalidity of some of their sacraments, and the falseness of some of their beliefs. With all due respect.
    
    Ecumenism must be motivated by a desire to bring people to the fullness of truth. Otherwise, I agree, it shouldn't be done at all.

    Posted By: Adeodatus

65. RONK, all that Acts 8:12-17 demonstrates is that confirmation CAN be conferred at a time later than baptism....and certainly not before it.
    
    However, I would appreciate a reference, to a reputable theologian-historian, preferably more than one, who would agree with your claim that we, in the Eastern Churches, generally celebrated chrismation apart from the baptism-confirmation rite.
    
    It is true that chrismation was conferred in cases of the already baptised, eg following a clinical baptism by a lay person or a deacon.This is still the practice...however, it is, and always has been, the exception.

    Posted By: Marco Elliott

66. Marco, I only meant that the custom was "later" than Apostolic times. Obviously for the first few centuries the Church was united and there were no "Eastern churches" or "Western churches" as such. My point was merely that Confirmation/Chrismation is not something that Westerners invented and has always been a separate sacrament from baptism.

    Posted By: Ronk

67. What a sad day indeed!
    Smacks of the sort of thing that followed Trent. I strongly agree with the comments that the authority of our local Bishops has been subverted once again by the out of touch clique in the Vatican.
    I thought that a Bishop led his Church-at least that is how it was in the Early Church.
    Please can people stop writing to Rome whenever they disagree with a decision taken by the Local Church !
    Gavin

    Posted By: Gavin O'Brien

68. Gavin, Christ placed St Peter and his successors in authority over the other Apostles and their successors. If you have a problem with that, take it up with Him. Your claim about the early Church is false, as shown by the Acts of the Apostles and by e.g. the Corinthians referring their dispute to the far off Bishop of Rome Pope St Clement I in the first century - and receiving his authoritative directive in reply.
    
    If you want to belong to a "church" whose bishop is answerable to nobody on Earth, go ahead - there are thousands to choose from. But you're deluded if you think the Catholic Church is or ever has been such a church.

    Posted By: Ronk

69. The notion that Catholics and Anglicans can have a combined confirmation ceremony is absolutely absurd, and the reasons for this have been admirably explained by the rational and well informed commentators to this response board.
    We Catholics could well emulate the Anglicans however in their liturgy. Their attention to detail,
    choice of pipe organs over guitars, fantastic choirs singing in perfect four part harmony, tasteful vestments, superior articulation of The Word, beautiful poetic hymns, insistence on reverence and good manners and behaviour within a church building. In short, making our liturgy, wherever it is, and in whatever humble circumstances, the best thing we can offer God in our boring weekly cycle. The beauty of holiness is one great thing that we could learn from Anglicans, instead of acting as though it is some ghastly servitude as is often the case in our times.
    It is still possible to hear Anglicans commenting on our bad taste and patronisingly describing us as " the Roman mission". I find this deplorable, especially when they are on our payrolls, but not that surprising. Our bishops should ask US to lift our liturgical style, not sink further into theological confusion by joint confirmations that have no validity.

    Posted By: eulalia

70. Who is ronk? So many comments from one person is boring. Helen M Hart

    Posted By: helenmary hart

• » Advertise in CathNews

Email to Friend Please fill out the following details (fields marked with a * are mandatory):
Send To Email Address*:
Send To Name *:
Sent By Email Address*:
Sent By Name *:
Text to include in email:
Captcha validation:	please enter the code above:

^ Page Top

Comment on this article

More from this section

1. Police call for witnesses over Liverpool church fire

   Police are appealing for public assistance following a suspicious fire at a Catholic church in Sydney's south-west last night.

2. Adelaide launches Rosary promotion

   A visit to Adelaide by Ireland's Rosary Apostolate director, Fr Anthony McMullan, will become the launch pad for a bid to promote new life for the Rosary in the archdiocese.

3. CathNews celebrates ten years

   Founded in 1999 by Jesuit Fr Michael Kelly, CathNews, one of the Catholic world's earliest exclusively web based publications, turns ten this month.

4. Geelong school site sale awaits Vatican approval

   Melbourne Archdiocese has forwarded details on the proposed sale of Geelong's central city St Mary's Catholic Primary School site to the Vatican for endorsement.

5. Blaze hits Tamworth college

   A suspicious overnight blaze has destroyed the performing arts centre at Tamworth's McCarthy Catholic College in northern New South Wales.