"While Anglicans — especially Anglican bishops or priests — becoming Roman Catholic after disagreeing with their community's stands on ordaining women or openly gay men has made news, the movement of Catholic priests and laity to Anglicanism seldom makes headlines."
….
"Anglicans who become Roman Catholic generally become very conservative [orthodox] Roman Catholics, while Roman Catholics who become Anglican tend to become very liberal [cacodox] Anglicans…"
(Fedora Tip: Curt Jester)
Sounds good to me. Both sides get what we want. Better yet, with a constant influx of heretics, the Anglican Communion will continue to destroy itself from within, leading to more their orthodox folks coming to Rome. 
Funky Dung
Comments 9
"A general principle of the ecumenical movement is that dialogue partners do not seek the 'conversion' of each other's members, but that as both seek deeper conversion to Christ they naturally will draw closer to each other."
This seems a little odd. It kind of implies that, as we draw closer to Christ, we'll work out our differences of religious doctrine. That implies that one of the groups was in error. If that's the case, than how is the end goal of ecumenism not the conversion of one group to the faith of the other? Secondly, this kind of thinking seems as though it would promote a dangerous kind of indifferentism and lazy universalism, as well as an attitude that emphasizes only what is shared. I think the best way to do ecumenism is to make clear to others what you believe (whether other like it or not), and then try to understand what other groups believe on their own terms (whether *we* like it or not).
+0
Posted 15 Nov 2005 at 5:43 pm ¶Well that's the most good spirited set of statements I've heard all day.
+0
Posted 15 Nov 2005 at 5:43 pm ¶wow! we posted at exactly the same time.
+0
Posted 15 Nov 2005 at 5:44 pm ¶Hmm… cacodox sounds a whole lot like CACA-dox… a deliciously appropriate word… in a manner of speaking
+0
Posted 15 Nov 2005 at 10:25 pm ¶On a the more serious note of ecumenism, Tom, while I'd have to agree with your basic concerns, and admit that this is all too often the case, i.e., the ecumenism means little more than giving up on what we seriously and rigorously believe and instead telling each other we're all okay, I do think that drawing closer to Christ can (strong emphasis can) bring people together in the truth (contra away from it). People in their communities tend to adopt certain ways of seeing and (more importantly) talking about certain things. From time to time this artificial separation of "genetic material" can lead to persistent and profound misunderstandings. Witness the reconciliation between Lutherans and the RCC on justification. When you boil it all down, Lutherans and Catholics really do believe the same thing about justification, but have merely and unfortunately expressed it in mutually incoherent ways. Lutheran's do not therefore fall under the Tridentine Anathema against those who would say (to the effect) no work of faith is necessary. I think this is an example (one lonely little example in an admitted sea of counter examples) where true ecumenism leads people both closer together and closer to Christ.
My $0.02
+0
Posted 15 Nov 2005 at 10:37 pm ¶Sorry for the topical segue. I work for Liguori Publications and I wanted to thank you for mentioning our book Handbook for Today's Catholic
. I am very glad to hear you found it so useful.
Would you mind emailing me at pdelricci at gmail.com? I am impressed by your site and would like to discuss something with you.
Peace,
P. Del Ricci - Dark Glass
+0
Posted 16 Nov 2005 at 2:48 pm ¶Steve,
Although I haven't read the actual document of the Lutheran-Roman Catholic Joint Statement on Justification (or whatever its title is), all that I've heard about it is good. I do think that it was undertaken for good reason and that it has been fruitful.
I believe that real ecumenism, the peaceful establishment of our differences for the purpose of mutual understanding, is a good thing. And if, through ecumenical action, a member of one church discovers that what he believes is the doctrine of the other church, conversion would seem to be the only option, as opposed to the Catholic News Service story, which states that "A general principle of the ecumenical movement is that dialogue partners do not seek the 'conversion' of each other's members." Other goals, of, at least, Protestant-Catholic ecumenism seems to be counter to the relevant encyclicals of both Pius XI and XII. (Although, to be fair, all I've done is skim Pius XI's Mortalium Animos.)
It seems clear to me that, as you said, most of ecumenism is not the good stuff. That's why I tend to be a bit wary of unbridled ecumenism. The thing is, the Catholic Church jumped into the ecumenical movement at the same time that the false and pernicious "Spirit of Vatican II" started its world tour; naturally, most ecumenists threw our beliefs out the window when they didn't conform to the supposedly higher ecumaniacal, I mean ecumenical, goal. Perhaps, had the Church begun its ecumenical mission well before the Council, or waited until well after, we would've been okay. For now, however, most of the ecumenism being done in the Church is courtesy of the bratty "Spirit of Vatican II" crowd, which is why I'm wary of ecumenical undertakings.
+0
Posted 17 Nov 2005 at 8:24 am ¶cacodox
+0
Posted 19 Nov 2005 at 12:54 am ¶I try to make a comment and it doesn't work. Now, gentry, do you see why I don't use these infernal contraptions more often? So, yes cacodoxy is very close to 'kaka'; it comes from the Greek for 'bad belief/worship'. Indeed, it is a good term for such evil people as Protestants (though the Anglicans at least have some good taste). On the other hand, it's not as if I judge most to be something other than 'evil', but that's another story.
"Universal Damnation" would be a much more entertaining theory than universal salvation;)
+0
Posted 19 Nov 2005 at 12:59 am ¶Post a Comment