I belong to a group called Affirming Catholicism. It is not a Roman Catholic organisation but rather an Anglican (Episcopalian/Church of England) body. Even though we are a reformed church we have always had a strong sense of our catholic identity and we treasure that.
In these days of significant disagreement in the Anglican Church, Affirming Catholicism lines up on the side of openness and inclusiveness. We want to affirm what is good about Christianity, and encourage a spirit of universality (which is what catholicism means), this has particular expression in the fact that we affirm the place of women in ordained ministry. We believe that the church is not just a clergy dominated group, but want to affirm the mutual ministry, care and support of lay people and clergy together working for the advancement of God's kingdom.
In the traditional Anglican way we affirm that theology is a rigorous and exciting pursuit and we want to embrace its breadth rather than its narrowness. Likewise we understand a key focus for all Catholic Christians is exciting and engaging worship, a rigorous and disciplined prayer life and a deep commitment to the Bible....all of this to make us "universal" or catholic in our openness to the Spirit of Jesus.
We are having our AGM at St Oswald's Parkside at 5 p.m. tonight. Come and be with us for Evensong, High Tea and Meeting....we welcome you!!
8 comments:
Literally firmamental, so it is true.
The word "Catholic" can provoke some interesting reactions.
Firstly:
Many translations of The Third Article of The Creed in Luther's Short Catechism read "I believe in the Holy Ghost; one holy Christian [or holy Universal] Church, the communion of saints; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body; and the life everlasting. Amen."
The expression "holy Catholic Church" is avoided.
Secondly:
When I got hooked by Jesus, I figured I should get me a Bible. The array of Bible translations was bewildering for a newbie like me. So I asked a friend who also happened to be an Uniting Church MOW and he said that at theological college his lecturers had recommended both the RSV and the Jerusalem translations. So I got both an NRSV and a New Jerusalem. I told one of the Elders at my local church that I had a New Jerusalem Bible and that I read it a lot because I found its language seemed to flow more readily than the language of the NRSV. The Elder was horrified - what was I doing reading the "Roman Catholic" Bible?
I sort of understand the Lutheran fear of the word catholic, though it seems to be less these days than it was a decade ago. But I sort of hate giving words away to prejudice, so I am not prepared to jettison the word catholic and give it to the Romans.
In a way Roman Catholic is an oxymoron (contradiction in terms) it is like saying specific-universal.
Likewise the issue about Bibles. For me as an amateur biblical scholar....the question is not about the doctrinal emphasis of a text but its accuracy. What is often curious is that rabid anti-Papalists so often prefer the King James version which is clearly and demonstrably innacurate (even if it is poetic). If they were so hung up about biblical literalism then surely they should bother to get the most accurate text.
The Jerusalem Bible is essentialy a work of French (therefore predominantly Roman Catholic) biblical scholars. But it is the work of scholars. Ignorance would prefer the work of partisans, I want a degree of objectivity.
The RSV and the NRSV have (in my opinion) the top ecumenical scholarship in the world.
I am not so fond of NIV which is generally more acceptable to Protestants, but does have some doctrinal bias.
In the end the radical biblical scholar John Robinson in his book "Can we trust the New Testament?" says of most of the textual variations (and I agree)that they are minor.
There is of couse an issue (perhaps for another day) about gender neautral language. It is not accurate to translate the word "people" as 'men' any more...or when you are talking about members of a family or community to refer to them as 'brothers' when you are trying to include men and women....but as I say...that's for another day
How did your meeting go, what was discussed? Were there many attendees?
Hi Louise
Things went well
Good attendance. The Archbishop talked about what it means to be "in" and "out" and how the catholic movement needs to regain some of its edge.
Quite good.
Nice worship
What does it mean to be "in" and "out"? Do you mean like fashion, or maybe a belly-button, lol.
I think that by "in" and "out" he was drawing our attention to the fact that this is how we humans relate.
We create little "in groups" and hate those who are "outside".
Jesus is drawn and draws us to those who are "out"
I know that I am part of a number of "in" and "out" groups, and often tend to act as though I hate those that are not in my group. Shall think more about this idea. Thanks for bringing it up!
Post a Comment