quote:

---

The Vatican has announced that Pope Benedict is setting up special provision for Anglicans, including married clergy, who want to convert to Rome together, preserving aspects of Anglican liturgy. They will be given their own pastoral supervision, according to this press release from the Vatican:

“In this Apostolic Constitution the Holy Father has introduced a canonical structure that provides for such corporate reunion by establishing Personal Ordinariates which will allow former Anglicans to enter full communion with the Catholic Church while preserving elements of the distinctive Anglican spiritual and liturgical patrimony.”

---

[ 06. May 2010, 19:07: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 

---

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Interesting story, cor. What intrigued me was the para in the link which you left out.

Are there thousands of disaffected Anglicans (I mean disaffected in that particular direction)? I suppose the Pope would not have done this without some evidence that there are significant numbers who might welcome such and opportunity. There may be some on board, I suppose, but I'm not asking them to come out.

The other side of this is the question of whether Lambeth was consulted/informed in advance. Any news about that yet?
 

---

Posted by cor ad cor loquitur (# 11816) on :
 
B62, I left out that last paragraph because Damian's blog is so tendentious -- though compared to his commenters he's a model of sweet reason.

A press conference started in London at 10 am UK time involving Abp Nichols (Westminster) and the Archbishop of Canterbury. I haven't seen any report of what was said. So Lambeth was involved in some way, if not consulted in advance.
 

---

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Thanks, cor - fair point about the blog and commenters!

Re your Lambeth news, my curiosity tastebuds have just started salivating ...
 

---

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
The press release says former Anglicans, so I presume the Pope means Continuing Anglicans. Who strictly speaking are not really Lambeth's concern any more than the Methodists are.

Lambeth might conceivably welcome the move, as a way of calling the bluff of Continuing Anglicans. I am rather suspicious of groups who claim to be maintaining the "Catholic" tradition and yet put themselves outside of any "Catholic" structure*. If the Pope is allowing them to retain aspects of Anglican liturgy, then ISTM their last reservations towards union with Rome must evaporate.

* Quotes round "Catholic" because I mean "Catholic according to their own definitions of the term".
 

---

Posted by Anthropax (# 11234) on :
 
Joint Press Release from the Archbishops
 

---

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Just about to link it, but Anthropax got there first. Looks good. Some clear signs pointing to mutual co-operation and understanding.
 

---

Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :
 
Fr Aquilina has various statements on this.

Thurible
 

---

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :
 
I think something along these lines has been expected ever since the announcement about the TAC discussions. So yes, it does seem to be primarily a response to activity by continuing anglicans.

But its significance goes well beyond that to affect parts of Anglicanism directly. Those parts of FiF which seem to be hovering on the brink of departure - have they been asked to wait for this announcement? Where does B16's forthcoming visit to Britain fit into all this? Will this interest people outside the papalist wing of FiF? Just some questions that spring to mind -
 

---

Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on :
 
I still find myself asking why this is necessary. If people genuinely want to become Catholics, rather than simply not be Anglicans, what is their problem with joining already-existing communities of Roman Catholics?

[ 20. October 2009, 10:45: Message edited by: Divine Outlaw Dwarf ]
 

---

Posted by Anthropax (# 11234) on :
 
I think the part about Anglican liturgical patrimony means an appeal to those beyond A-Pism, as most Anglo-Papalists I know simply use one form or another of the Roman rite - although I imagine that's only in England - so an attempt to reach out to those in other parts of the world, not just one little island
 

---

Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on :
 
What I have seen pass for 'Anglican patrimony' amongst non-English traditionalist Anglicans is some sort of mixture of pre-Vatican II RC worship with the BCP. It is hardly an ancient tradition; just a fall-out from 20th century Anglo-Catholicism. These groups are in a completely disimilar position from, for example, the Eastern groups who formed uniate bodies.

Pastoral provision has been made already for Anglican Use amongst those attached to it. I don't see why anything more robust is needed. To put it bluntly: when I was an Anglican, I got the feeling that most reluctance about joining mainstream RC ecclesial structures on the part of A-Cs was along the lines of 'I don't want to go to those nasty churches full of foreigners and polyester vestments'. Doesn't seem a very good reason for creating a prelature.
 

---

Posted by Max. (# 5846) on :
 
I've asked this on both my facebook and my twitter and I'm going to ask it here:

What will the Traditional Anglicans do when 20 years down the road, the Vatican decides to ordain women to the priesthood?

In response to Anglicans joining RC Churches with nasty vestments and buildings, all I can say is that the sacristy cupboard in my house chapel has some lovely fiddleback chasubles and spade stoles (including a rose set and a black set) as well as rainbow stoles and ethnic stoles with tassels hanging down the back.
It's all about variety!


Max.

[ 20. October 2009, 10:58: Message edited by: Max. ]
 

---

Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on :
 
Form the Holy and Continuing Catholic Apostolic Church of Our Lady of the Fiddleback and St King Charles Stuart the Martyr (Croydon).
 

---

Posted by Isaac David (# 4671) on :
 
More details from the Vatican here.
 

---

Posted by Sacred London (# 15220) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Max.:
What will the Traditional Anglicans do when 20 years down the road, the Vatican decides to ordain women to the priesthood?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Max.:
I've asked this on both my facebook and my twitter and I'm going to ask it here:

What will the Traditional Anglicans do when 20 years down the road, the Vatican decides to ordain women to the priesthood?

In response to Anglicans joining RC Churches with nasty vestments and buildings, all I can say is that the sacristy cupboard in my house chapel has some lovely fiddleback chasubles and spade stoles (including a rose set and a black set) as well as rainbow stoles and ethnic stoles with tassels hanging down the back.
It's all about variety!


Max.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
I think that's a very silly question anyway. It's like asking a former Anglican "what would you do if the Pope infallibly declared Mary to be co-Redemptice and Mediatrix of all grace?" In other words, you are setting up a litmus test as to whether they accept the authority of the Pope or not, based upon an imponderable unlikelihood.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
And, less selfishly, I just think it is a shame that individuals within these groups are being denied the opportunity for growth and conversion which goes with individual reception. I remember quite vividly sitting at Mass* after my own reception when some minor liturgical 'error' was made. I felt the part of me which had been conditioned by A-Cism leap into action and say 'that's wrong'. But almost immediately a new instinct pushed it aside and said, 'It doesn't matter. God's Church doesn't stand or fall with the position of the priest's hands'. And I felt at home.

---

quote:

---

It has been the frequently expressed hope and fervent desire of Anglican Catholics to be enabled by some means to enter into full communion with the See of Peter whilst retaining in its integrity every aspect of their Anglican inheritance which is not at variance with the teaching of the Catholic Church.

We rejoice that the Holy Father intends now to set up structures within the Church which respond to this heartfelt longing. Forward in Faith has always been committed to seeking unity in truth and so warmly welcomes these initiatives as a decisive moment in the history of the Catholic Movement in the Church of England. Ut unum sint!

---

quote:

---

This is not a time for sudden decisions or general public discussion. We call for a time of quiet prayer and discernment. The coming season of Advent and the celebration of the mystery of the Incarnation at Christmas, seem to us to provide a good opportunity for this quiet prayer and discernment to take place, as well as some pastoral discussions. Some Anglicans in the Catholic tradition understandably will want to stay within the Anglican Communion. Others will wish to make individual arrangements as their conscience directs. A further group of Anglicans, we think, will begin to form a caravan, rather like the People of Israel crossing the desert in search of the Promised Land. As bishops we would want to reassure people that, whatever decisions people, priests and parishes make, they will find peace and blessing in following what they discern to be God's will for them. We have chosen 22nd February, The Feast of The Chair of Peter, to be an appropriate day for priests and people to make an initial decision as to whether they wish to respond positively to and explore further the initiative of the Apostolic Constitution. Many, understandably, will need a much longer period of discernment and we would counsel against over-hasty reactions of whatever kind.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anthropax:
I wonder about the use of Local Ecumenical Partnerships in this - there must be plenty of places with a large Anglo-Catholic Church building, and a good proportion of people who would convert- sensitivity by both bishops could let there be a lot less heart-ache, and maintenance cost could be split, freeing up cash for mission.

---

quote:

---

The Italian vaticanologist Andrea Tornielli has written his thoughts about the unilateral decision of the Holy See to receive Anglicans in full communion with the See of Peter. He says that the Archbishop of Canterbury was not privy of this up to two days ago. He says that the Holy Father has changed the old policy of receiving people individually and now he is open to receive whole communities. Ordination to the priesthood will be offered to those whom the Church believes to be called. There is no provision for first generation married bishops. As is the custom of the Church, East and West, episcopacy will be celibate. The (married) Anglican bishops will be invited to work as priests.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anthropax:
Joint Press Release from the Archbishops

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thurible:
Fr Aquilina has various statements on this.

---

quote:

---

The forthcoming Apostolic Constitution provides a reasonable and even necessary response to a world-wide phenomenon, by offering a single canonical model for the universal Church which is adaptable to various local situations and equitable to former Anglicans in its universal application. It provides for the ordination as Catholic priests of married former Anglican clergy. Historical and ecumenical reasons preclude the ordination of married men as bishops in both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. The Constitution therefore stipulates that the Ordinary can be either a priest or an unmarried bishop.

---

quote:

---

In the years since the Council, some Anglicans have abandoned the tradition of conferring Holy Orders only on men by calling women to the priesthood and the episcopacy. More recently, some segments of the Anglican Communion have departed from the common biblical teaching on human sexuality - already clearly stated in the ARCIC document "Life in Christ" - by the ordination of openly homosexual clergy and the blessing of homosexual partnerships.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
You wish, CmN!

(FCA-UK???)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by FCB:
I think a lot of Anglicans think that the differences between Anglicanism and the RCC are relatively minor. And for some Anglo-Papalist this might be true in terms of doctrine. But, at least from my experience in the US, the differences in ecclesial and ecclesiastical culture are huge (ranging from parish size to the exercise of authority to attitudes toward liturgy), and many former Anglicans find life in the Catholic Church something of shock to the system. But that's the reality of Catholicism and it's probably best to face up to it sooner rather than later.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cor ad cor loquitur:
I think the Orthodox discipline is similar: a cleric can be married before ordination, but once ordained can no longer marry.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:
The press release says former Anglicans, so I presume the Pope means Continuing Anglicans. Who strictly speaking are not really Lambeth's concern any more than the Methodists are.

Lambeth might conceivably welcome the move, as a way of calling the bluff of Continuing Anglicans. I am rather suspicious of groups who claim to be maintaining the "Catholic" tradition and yet put themselves outside of any "Catholic" structure*. If the Pope is allowing them to retain aspects of Anglican liturgy, then ISTM their last reservations towards union with Rome must evaporate.

* Quotes round "Catholic" because I mean "Catholic according to their own definitions of the term".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by aumbry:
If in the hypothetical situation where the vast body of anglo-catholics did cross over (and I think in fact that is unlikely) what sort of church will the Church of England be? Presumably something akin to the Methodists with a few rather enfeebled affirming parishes tacked on.

---

quote:

---

I'd love to see the figures, but I doubt if there are any churches where 100% of the PCC, let alone the general congregation, has signed up for the F in F agenda. And that's their agenda as existing, not an active proposal to seek papal oversight.

---

quote:

---

this establishes a tradition of married Roman Catholic clergy in the west...

If the former Anglicans can train up successors who will also be able to have wives, the Roman Catholic church may have found a way to escape the prospect of a largely gay priesthood to which the doctrine of compulsory celibacy appeared to condemn them. It is ironic that Anglican efforts to deal honestly with the problem of sexuality should have provided the Catholics with the excuse they needed to strike this decisive blow.

---

quote:

---

...there is even the possibility that married Anglican laymen could be accepted for ordination on a case-by-case basis – a remarkable concession.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
Pastoral provision has been made already for Anglican Use amongst those attached to it. I don't see why anything more robust is needed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Shadowhund:
I suppose that a bishop could forbid an Anglican ordinary from operating in his diocese like he can the prelate of Opus Dei. Few forbid the latter these days.

Cardinal Mahony declined to permit St. Mary of the Angels parish in Hollywood, CA, to join the Archdiocese of Los Angeles. If the parish now wants to join the Catholic Church, it will be interesting to see whether he will try to block the parish again.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cor ad cor loquitur:
A couple of interesting bits from Andrew Brown's piece:

quote:

---

this establishes a tradition of married Roman Catholic clergy in the west...

If the former Anglicans can train up successors who will also be able to have wives, the Roman Catholic church may have found a way to escape the prospect of a largely gay priesthood to which the doctrine of compulsory celibacy appeared to condemn them. It is ironic that Anglican efforts to deal honestly with the problem of sexuality should have provided the Catholics with the excuse they needed to strike this decisive blow.

---

and Damian Thompson adds that

quote:

---

...there is even the possibility that married Anglican laymen could be accepted for ordination on a case-by-case basis – a remarkable concession.

---

though where he gets this last conclusion I don't know; he has a long history of announcing substance-free "facts" and "inside information".

---

quote:

---

From Andrew Brown's piece:

quote:

---

The real long term significance of this announcement is the talk about seminaries ...If the former Anglicans can train up successors who will also be able to have wives...

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Shadowhund:
I suppose that a bishop could forbid an Anglican ordinary from operating in his diocese like he can the prelate of Opus Dei. Few forbid the latter these days.

---

quote:

---

Cardinal Mahony declined to permit St. Mary of the Angels parish in Hollywood, CA, to join the Archdiocese of Los Angeles. If the parish now wants to join the Catholic Church, it will be interesting to see whether he will try to block the parish again.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr Weber:
That maneuver always struck me as a rather extreme way to ensure that there would be no kneeling in his diocese.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pete173:

And then we'll have a very different CofE.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pete173:
They'll just say take Benny's Tiber jet.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:

---

Originally posted by pete173:

And then we'll have a very different CofE.

---

I can see that we might have a very different Diocese of London, or even Willesden Episcopal Area. Bearing in mind the figures quoted by Ricardus, showing the tiny number of F in F parishes in some dioceses, how much difference will it make to the C of E as a whole?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
What's a miracle about the pope grasping at a few more butts in his pews?

Zach

---

quote:

---

But under the pastoral provision, as I understand it, one cannot marry again once ordained -- just as a married candidate for the permanent diaconate vows that he will not remarry if his wife dies. Presumably an unmarried Anglican priest who becomes a Catholic priest under this new provision will thereby commit himself to lifelong celibacy.
[/QB]

---

On the bright side, things should be looking up for the often-neglected clergy wives whose husbands move over. If he doesn't look to her care and feeding, he'll be condemned to a celibate widowerhood.

 

---

Posted by Martin L (# 11804) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by LA Dave:
Anglo-Catholicism, American-style, is not Anglo-Papalist.

---

quote:

---

How is it going to work out when English Catholic priests are told they can't marry, while the ... Anglicans can?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alt Wally:

quote:

---

How is it going to work out when English Catholic priests are told they can't marry, while the ... Anglicans can?

---

It will probably work a lot like it does with the Eastern Catholic churches who maintain a married priesthood alongside the celibate - Respect the traditions of local churches, and don't switch particular churches to circumvent the disciplines of your own.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Max_Power:
What I found the most intriguing piece of the puzzle was/is the joint declaration signed by the Archbishops of Winchester and Canterbury. I wonder if +RW is perhaps, with a sigh and a shrug, letting the ACs go, or is he perhaps extending to them a 'double-dog-dare'? In other words, is he calling their collective bluff? Doing so would effectively allow him to get on with the programme and tell everyone who remains to just suck it up.

Kent

---

quote:

---

What then?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alt Wally:

quote:

---

What then?

---

Build a mylar balloon and claim a bishop of small stature has been accidentally carried away in it to divert attention. Barring that...

A generation ago, who would have foreseen allowance of the Anglican Use or the re-birth of the TLM, etc. A generation ahead is hard to predict. Fear is not a reason not to do the right thing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
What irony is that, Alt?

Zach

---

quote:

---

I'm not sure if this is the irony that Alt intended, but for many RCs Anglicanism is a Pretend Catholic church.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Max_Power:
What I found the most intriguing piece of the puzzle was/is the joint declaration signed by the Archbishops of Winchester and Canterbury. I wonder if +RW is perhaps, with a sigh and a shrug, letting the ACs go, or is he perhaps extending to them a 'double-dog-dare'? In other words, is he calling their collective bluff? Doing so would effectively allow him to get on with the programme and tell everyone who remains to just suck it up.

Kent

---

I think Archbishop of Canterbury simply realized that there was really nothing he could do about it.

Zach

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by moveable_type:
For the ABoC, it undermines a difficult faction, as pointed out upthread. A more interesting question is why anybody thinks he can negotiate for Anglicans outside England - perhaps, like the Israelis, Rome just wanted somebody to negotiate with. [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:

---

I'm not sure if this is the irony that Alt intended, but for many RCs Anglicanism is a Pretend Catholic church.

---

I figured. How DARE we pretend to be followers of Christ?! Isn't it a smack in the face to the Church of Rome that we think our orders and sacraments are valid?

Zach

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
There is really no way to tell right now, AB. The Roman Church itself hasn't decided how this will go down yet. Hopefully the pope's sense of integrity will kick in, and the demands that the pseudo-Anglicans actually be Catholic all the way will deter most of them from leaving.

Zach

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
If the Catholic Church accepts a variation of the 1662 BCP as a legitimate rite, I can hear Cramner's body roll over in the grave. He after all, died while declaring that the Pope was not a good person*.

*The biggest understatement of the century.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
If the Catholic Church accepts a variation of the 1662 BCP as a legitimate rite, I can hear Cramner's body roll over in the grave. He after all, died while declaring that the Pope was not a good person*.

*The biggest understatement of the century.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
If the Catholic Church accepts a variation of the 1662 BCP as a legitimate rite, I can hear Cramner's body roll over in the grave. He after all, died while declaring that the Pope was not a good person*.

*The biggest understatement of the century.

---

Cranmer actually died declaring "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit... I see the heavens open and Jesus standing at the right hand of God."

Maybe that's one of those ironies Alt was talking about. The Church of Rome officially sanctioning a liturgy written by a man it burned at the stake!

Zach

---

Most liturgists like to quote Hippolytus as one of their earliest sources - but don't state whether his liturgy was drawn up before or after he was excommunicated for heresy.
 

---

Posted by caercybi06 (# 15105) on :
 
There seems to be a touch of hypocrsy here .On 1 hand ex Anglicans can retain their married clergy but there are RCs who are being disiciplined for thinking out loud about a married clergy or worse female priests .
And I doubt that too many of the right wing of the Anglican family will want to bend the knee to the Pope . As to retaining buildings
here in Canada the diocese thus the Bishop owns all buildings not the congregation . There have been cases where people were told you can keep your buildings , but when the split happens they are out of luck.
So overall I think this whole idea is a bad one . If you are going to join the RCC then take instruction in said church. Otherwise forget it.
 

---

Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on :
 
There is no doubt that Pope Benedict is committed to ecumenism. That ecumenism has always been the traditional Roman Catholic form of ecumenism: return to Rome and accept the Magisterium in full.

If people ever doubted that or thought their personal opinion on reunion counted with the Vatican they were misleading themselves.

Father Webber is quite correct, much of the recent arrangement, which will be presented in full detail later, was a result of the representations made to Rome by the TAC.

There was talk at one stage of the TAC being accepted as a personal prelature. Whether this was really seriously considered by the Vatican I have no idea. The current Primate of the TAC being a twice divorced exCatholic priest would certainly have put paid to his chance of becoming a priest, let alone a bishop.

There appear to be both Catholics and Anglicans disappointed with what has happened. Unfortunately for them, they were way outside what was happening. Venting steam will do no good: the state of play has changed.

The conversations with the TAC (initiated by the TAC); the clear statements made by the Vatican representatives at Lambeth; the current difficulties in the Anglican Communion and the likelihood of women bishops in the Church of England soon obviously made the Pope think he needed to act now.

The Pope has acted perfectly correctly according to his lights and Roman Catholic teaching.

I think we remaining Anglicans have to look to ourselves and work from there. Nothing else will do much good.
 

---

Posted by multipara (# 2918) on :
 
Hardly an irony, young Zach.

After all Joan of Arc was burned as a sorcerer and heretic and was eventually canonised.

I just wonder what all these disaffected Anglicans think they are getting into...they mght be in for a rude shock after all that FiF Anglo-Catholicism.

And yes, it does stick in my craw that married clergy from the Anglican and (some) Orthodox traditions are welcomed with open arms, and the local lads are expected to burn rather than to marry ( those who are that way inclined).

m
 

---

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
So many details of what is being offered will only come with the published text of the Apostolic Constitution, so I don't want hazard too many guesses here.

However, it seems abundantly clear to me that this deal is for the most part for the TAC who submitted themselves a couple of years back to Rome in full acceptance of the Magisterium, asking for a corporate reception. Since then, of course, and long before too, the "mainstream" solid Anglo-Papalists and some tentative camp-followers have been asking for much the same kind of deal. Their end goal, however much they got sidelined by the cosy status quo (which got less and less cosy as time went on), was always full reunion as a body with the Holy See.

I can understand that desire - even though I submitted personally some time ago, after being an A-P for all of my adult life, and am heartily glad I did. That was definitely the right move for me. But other A-Ps who have been nurtured in the Catholic faith (and this is true whatever one may think of the validity of orders and whatever) in their own parishes and organisations, and have strong attachments to their own clergy and fellow parishioners as living ecclesiastical communities, with their own histories of witnessing to the faith, already have a corporate Catholic identity which it seems perfectly healthy and reasonable to want to keep hold of as much as possible through the transition. Provided they submit fully to the complete teaching of the Church, I see no reason why some sort of corporate allowance be made for the good of their souls. That's the supreme rule, after all.

Therefore, any notions that this is a cynical attempt at sheep-stealing some Anglicans by allowing them to be pseudo-catholics just to get one over on the Anglican Communion is, well, unfair. The Pope will be in so much trouble over this with his own bishops, if past reactions to such schemes are anything to go by, that this should rather be seen as a heroically generous attempt to Do The Right Thing by shepherdless sheep.

[ 21. October 2009, 09:22: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]
 

---

Posted by Jon G (# 4704) on :
 
Originally posted by Multipara

quote:

---

those who are that way inclined

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jon G:
I like what Bishop Alan wrote about all this.

---

quote:

---

you’ll get two sorts of “convert”:

1. people who really should try out and perhaps are called by God to be part of the Roman tradition: Hip, hip, hooray!

2. people who aren’t terribly good at living in any tradition on anything but their own terms.

The second sort of convert will carry on inexorably being as they are, because it’s personaity based and they can’t help it. This may not be good news for your own people. Where, for example, does it leave genuine Roman Catholic clergy who have faithfully and heroicially struggled and somehow managed to live within their Church’s discipline, because they sincerely believed it was necessary, to know that Auntie in Rome is now doing a PostModern family promotion for married Anglicans, but you’re not invited?

---

Though what has really changed? Individual Anglicans (priests and laity) have been welcomed on those terms already. The 'Continuing Anglicans' (who hardly exist in England anyway, and are not necessarily or mostly pro-papal in the US or elswhere) are the only real groups that might consider the offer. A few C of E priests might take a small remnant of laity with them, and submit as a group. But there aren't going to be any parishes as such that take up the offer.

[ 21. October 2009, 10:52: Message edited by: Angloid ]
 

---

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
Isn't it a smack in the face to the Church of Rome that we think our orders and sacraments are valid?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:

On one hand, at least in the short-term, this would further entrench the evangelical ascendancy in the CofE.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
[Is the Vatican really promising to bypass or short-circuit or fast-track that process for Anglicans? If they are, then this is de facto recognition of the Anglican processes of discernment and formation, which looks a lot like de facto recognition of Anglican orders.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by caercybi06:
... but there are RCs who are being disciplined for thinking out loud about a married clergy or worse female priests.

---

quote:

---

And I doubt that too many of the right wing of the Anglican family will want to bend the knee to the Pope.

---

I'm not sure that the phrase "right wing" is very helpful here. In England (it might be different in the USA) a lot of theologically orthodox Anglicans are politically left-wing - both Anglo-Catholics and Evangelicals. And at least some of the theological liberals are politically right-wing.

Also its confusing to the fevered brains of those few of us who have read histories of the 16th and 17th century, because the more extreme Protestants are often called the "left wing of the Reformation"

quote:

---

As to retaining buildings here in Canada the diocese thus the Bishop owns all buildings not the congregation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr Weber:
Indications are that the rite will be the Book of Divine Worship. The Mass is basically the 1979 BCP rite (in traditional and contemporary-language flavors), with the BCP canon removed and the Gregorian canon substituted. I've seen some wild fantasizing online about the Knott Missal being authorized and what-not, but I'll believe that when I see it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angloid:
A few C of E priests might take a small remnant of laity with them, and submit as a group. But there aren't going to be any parishes as such that take up the offer.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
It would be a shame if anyone takes this as a cue to try to push the objectors out of the CofE entirely by deliberatly making a system to exclude them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spawn:
I think this initiative will be taken very seriously around the Communion among many Anglicans who believe in the provisionality of our Church, and deplore the ossification of Anglicanism in an effete liberal-catholicism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angloid:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jon G:
[qb] I like what Bishop Alan wrote about all this.

---

quote:

---

you’ll get two sorts of “convert”:


2. people who aren’t terribly good at living in any tradition on anything but their own terms.

The second sort of convert will carry on inexorably being as they are, because it’s personaity based and they can’t help it. This may not be good news for your own people. Where, for example, does it leave genuine Roman Catholic clergy who have faithfully and heroicially struggled and somehow managed to live within their Church’s discipline, because they sincerely believed it was necessary, to know that Auntie in Rome is now doing a PostModern family promotion for married Anglicans, but you’re not invited?

---

quote:

---

Full circle in what way

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angloid:
If that makes me an 'effete liberal-catholic', well, so be it. But I think we might well be a stronger voice in the C of E than that dismissive epithet suggests.

---

quote:

---

I'm somewhat bemused by comments here, mostly but not entirely, I think, from the far side of the pond, worrying about introducing a bunch of ex-Anglicans of a fractious authority-challenged 'nature' into the Catholic Church. As if the Catholic Church had any shortage of that sort as it is.

---

quote:

---

By the way, there’s also nothing preventing the Anglican Communion from creating similar structures to welcome aggrieved Catholics who support all the measures these disaffected Anglicans oppose. Certainly, after today, the Vatican would have no basis to condemn such a move as an ecumenical low blow.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
Methodists, or Presbyterians or whoever). Is the Vatican really promising to bypass or short-circuit or fast-track that process for Anglicans? If they are, then this is de facto recognition of the Anglican processes of discernment and formation, which looks a lot like de facto recognition of Anglican orders.

---

quote:

---

What chance of an opposite flow?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
What chance of an opposite flow?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
What chance of an opposite flow?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alt Wally:
In the U.S., they have an existing flow now. Does the ECUSA need a prelature for support of the Pauline mass? I doubt it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Organ Builder:
I'm not sure anyone has any firm numbers, but every TEC church I've ever been part of has a sizable group of ex-Romans.

Given the relative sizes of the two churches in the US, I think it likely that numerically there are more leaving Rome than joining her. I would hesitate to suggest it was a larger percentage of the total, however.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
I have read surveys that suggest that in the U.S. Roman Catholics become Episcopalians at a 5 to 1 ratio than in the other direction.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Organ Builder:
The two churches keep membership records (and therefore numbers of members) in completely different manners. I'm not sure, therefore, that they are directly comparable. I suspect most of those converts to TEC are still on the Roman count...

...Episcopalians are really no threat to the RCs, and to be honest the RCs aren't really a threat for us. The RCs are losing many more members to various charismatic and pentecostal groups--especially from the hispanic groups which were the backbone of the Catholic church in the Southwest where I grew up.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cor ad cor loquitur:
How will the new Anglican-Catholics cope with the liturgical chaos they will find on this side of the Tiber? The Catholic Church has everything from ‘make it up as you go along’ to ‘strictly by the book’, with, in some circles, a ritual mutaween ready to file a video report with Rome if anyone breaks the rules. It is truly ‘here comes everybody’. And this chaos (healthy diversity?) often works within a single parish – the 8 am Mass may be guitars and tambourines, the 10:30 Latin and chant. Maybe this is also the case in Anglican parishes, but given that some of these migrating Anglicans seem to be from the ‘high churc’ faction, I wonder how they will get on.

---

quote:

---

Finally, it seems to me that both the traditionalist Anglicans and the SSPX – and some tradbloggers have suggested that the SSPXers will be next to be given personal ordinariates – have defined themselves primarily in opposition to other movements. The ‘Affirmation of St Louis’, for example, claims early on that ‘the Anglican Church of Canada and the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America, by their unlawful attempts to alter Faith, Order and Morality … have departed from Christ's One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.’

Once these oppositional, enclavist groups come into the wider space of the Catholic Church, what will they have to fight against? If their identities are defined primarily by what they oppose, what happens when there is no longer much to oppose?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cor ad cor loquitur:
...Once these oppositional, enclavist groups come into the wider space of the Catholic Church, what will they have to fight against? If their identities are defined primarily by what they oppose, what happens when there is no longer much to oppose?...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sonata3:

And, I found the following quote from Bishop Iker (in this morning's WSJ) interesting: "Not all Anglo-Catholics can accept certain teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, nor do they believe that they must first convert to Rome in order to be truly catholic Christians."

---

quote:

---

I'm surprised that the issue of divorce has not been more often mentioned in this thread.

---

quote:

---

This was not an initiative of the Holy See but of over 50 Anglican Bishops, of whom about half are still in the Anglican Communion

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fuzzipeg:
Anglicans seem to be obsessed with what people do rather than their spiritual health and the Ship seems to reflect that.

---

quote:

---

It has been the frequently expressed hope and fervent desire of Anglican Catholics to be enabled by some means to enter into full communion with the See of Peter whilst retaining in its integrity every aspect of their Anglican inheritance which is not at variance with the teaching of the Catholic Church.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulTH*:
The Bishop of Fulham and Fr Geoffrey Kirk of Forward in Faith began their rsponse to these plans with the following words:

quote:

---

It has been the frequently expressed hope and fervent desire of Anglican Catholics to be enabled by some means to enter into full communion with the See of Peter whilst retaining in its integrity every aspect of their Anglican inheritance which is not at variance with the teaching of the Catholic Church.

---

It seems to me that this ecumenical gesture by Pope Benedict XVI will cater for this expressed hope and fervent desire. So where does this leave the General Synod in its struggle to provide for those who can't, in good faith, accept the priesthood of women? I would say its a "get out of jail" card! I was once a strong supporter of the FiF proposal for a Third Province. I have now come to realise that, if the C of E has decided, which it has, by constitutional means to ordain women bishops, it is entitled to say, "this is what the Church of England does. If you can't accept it you will need to find a spiritual home elsewhere."

This Apostolic Constitution answers the needs of both groups, and must radically change the way the Synod deals with this issue. What FiF couldn't get from the C of E it can get from Rome, ie an independent structure, which also answers the long term goals as set out in + Fulham's statement. The C of E has no further need to make any structural provision, even that recently proposed of statutory transfer of jurisdiction. It can safely install a weak code of practice for dissenters in the knowledge that, if they dissent strongly enough, their structural provision lies over the Tiber.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spawn:
Increasingly many liberal catholics reject any concept of provisionality, and have turned their backs on the Anglo-Catholic-driven quest for full, visible unity with the Holy See. (Strictly speaking, that probably makes them liberals who like tat.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Think²:
The Times front page claims amximum of 2000 priest might cross - though they guess a thousand or less - out of 14,000.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulTH*:
The C of E has no further need to make any structural provision, even that recently proposed of statutory transfer of jurisdiction.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Man with a Stick:
...which will leave a lot of conservative evangelicals very annoyed, and falling into the arms of FOCA.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by shameless:
I find it very strange in my study of the history of the church that each sovereign power, or country had its' own version of the catholic church. Yes there was and is an English Catholic Church. Don't forget that catholic means universal and universal means encompasing the many variations. We are all one body though many parts.

Shameless

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fuzzipeg:

Anglicans seem to be obsessed with what people do rather than their spiritual health and the Ship seems to reflect that. [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
What chance of an opposite flow?

---

Good question.

FD
 

---

Posted by aumbry (# 436) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by multipara:
Jeez, I have.

Aumbry, you need to get out more.

m

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by shameless:
It just amazes me all the fear from so many detractors. The paint isn't even dry and all that can be seen are the defects.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
I think I would diverge mildly from Organ Builder though in pointing out that although there are similarities with the American precedent (soon to be former?), there are also major departures from it, not least of which is the separation of the ordinary from the role of diocesan bishop. How it pans out, time will tell though.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Foaming Draught:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
What chance of an opposite flow?

---

Good question.

FD

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Organ Builder:

I heard an interview with a reporter from the National Catholic Review this morning, who feels this will bolster the conservative wing of the RCs. As a result, most of the uneasiness in the US seems to be from the non-conservative RCs--especially those (as ChastMastr has noted) who welcomed Vatican II.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

Yep, its hard to see why liberal RCs should be worried.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by St. Punk the Pious:
I would hope the CofE would be gracious (and help their money situation) by selling buildings to departing parishes on reasonable terms.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
Is the RCC going to want to shell out millions of pounds for historical landmark buildings that will cost a fortune to maintain? Or even just 19th-century piles that require a lot of upkeep?

---

Grade One listed buildings in city centres? Who would be without them?

On the other hand the RCs are also closing churches and losing numbers so they have their own redundant buildings.

For example, this magnificent pile. I bet there are loads of Anglo-Catholics in Lancashire who'd love to get their chasubles into that!

[ 22. October 2009, 15:40: Message edited by: ken ]
 

---

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
Perhaps they could arrange church swaps...
 

---

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Forthview:

It is surely OTT to suggest ,as some have done,that the pope is really trying to bring into the Catholic church Lutherans. Of course in one sense ,yes, the pope would wish to bring all of humanity into visible and full communion with the Catholic church,but German Lutherans anyway have a different way of looking at the Church.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

How many of them work in gin and lace middle-class, eclectic parishes and will they want to be sent where they are needed, amongst the poorest communities rather than middle class suburbs.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChastMastr:
Things seem to me to have changed, especially recently with the current Pope, in the RCC. I perceive a kind of reactionary anger -- bumper stickers that say "The cafeteria is CLOSED!" and things like that. A growing sense that Rome is trying to throw out Vatican II.
David

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
How many of them work in gin and lace middle-class, eclectic parishes and will they want to be sent where they are needed, amongst the poorest communities rather than middle class suburbs.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr Weber:
Of course, we'll all have to wait to see exactly what the Apostolic Constitution says. It just seems to me that a lot of the speculation flying around is going way beyond the actual content of the press release.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sarum Sleuth:
Originally posted by St Punk the Pious don't Anglo-Caths have a distinguished history of work amongst the poor?

I hope Leo doesn't mind me jumping in on this one!
Yes, some did, but I suspect they were in a minority. Names like Lowder and Stanton immediately spring to mind, and many of the great shrine churches were in poor areas in days gone by. However, it is forgotten that a lot of Anglo-Papalists in particular held extremely right wing views, eg Fr Spencer Jones's defence of Franco and Mussolini. This tendency is still not dead: I can think of a few current Anglo-Catholic blogs which are pretty well to the right politically.

SS

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChastMastr:
Some of those issues are ones held in high importance by the "continuing Anglicans," though it still saddens and frustrates me that it was sexual and not Creedal matters which led to their departure.

---

quote:

---

... bumper stickers that say "The cafeteria is CLOSED!"

---

quote:

---

A growing sense that Rome is trying to throw out Vatican II.

---

quote:

---

But the people who left the Episcopal church for "continuing Anglican" churches ... have seemed to me to be full of shrill anger, not trying to build bridges and have dialogue with those with whom they disagree, but with bitter, venomous invective, full of malice and resentment, even once they've left still talking nonstop about how those horrible liberal people are destroying all that is good.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by New Yorker:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChastMastr:
Some of those issues are ones held in high importance by the "continuing Anglicans," though it still saddens and frustrates me that it was sexual and not Creedal matters which led to their departure.

---

But you miss the point. Those in the Continuing Anglican movement that I know disagree with "sexual matters" because of their faith. So it is not just sexual issues, but sincere doctrinal issues.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by New Yorker:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChastMastr:
Some of those issues are ones held in high importance by the "continuing Anglicans," though it still saddens and frustrates me that it was sexual and not Creedal matters which led to their departure.

---

But you miss the point. Those in the Continuing Anglican movement that I know disagree with "sexual matters" because of their faith. So it is not just sexual issues, but sincere doctrinal issues.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

But the people who left the Episcopal church for "continuing Anglican" churches ... have seemed to me to be full of shrill anger, not trying to build bridges and have dialogue with those with whom they disagree, but with bitter, venomous invective, full of malice and resentment, even once they've left still talking nonstop about how those horrible liberal people are destroying all that is good.

---

This description does not apply to any member of a Continuing Movement I know. That is not to say that it is not a description of some Continuers. But, many liberal members of TEC could be described this way.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
Oh, come on -- we all know there is plenty of invective coming from folks on all sides.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thurible:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

How many of them work in gin and lace middle-class, eclectic parishes and will they want to be sent where they are needed, amongst the poorest communities rather than middle class suburbs.

---

You what? I can think of one or two but where all these middle-class ABC parishes?

Thurible

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sarum Sleuth:
Originally posted by St Punk the Pious don't Anglo-Caths have a distinguished history of work amongst the poor?

I hope Leo doesn't mind me jumping in on this one!
Yes, some did, but I suspect they were in a minority. Names like Lowder and Stanton immediately spring to mind, and many of the great shrine churches were in poor areas in days gone by. However, it is forgotten that a lot of Anglo-Papalists in particular held extremely right wing views, eg Fr Spencer Jones's defence of Franco and Mussolini. This tendency is still not dead: I can think of a few current Anglo-Catholic blogs which are pretty well to the right politically.

SS

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Organ Builder:
I would bet that the option to become Roman priests will NOT be extended to those who have been divorced--but that is obviously pure speculation.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

... bumper stickers that say "The cafeteria is CLOSED!"

---

I want one! Of course, not having a car I'll have to hold it out the window of the bus or over my head in the subway.

---

I have wondered however, if the Catholic Church in the US will simply be getting cafeteria converts. In general, the friends who have left our (Episcopal) parish won't mind the veneration of Mary or prayers for the Pope inserted in their 1928 Prayer Books, but I wonder whether they will conform to the church's teaching when it comes to artificial birth control. (Albeit most of the women I know who have left are beyond childbearing age.)The "splitters" (to quote from "The Life of Brian") have become accustomed to having their own say and doing things their own way.
 

---

Posted by Alt Wally (# 3245) on :
 
There is not even just no point in being a cafeteria convert, it is in fact a crazy idea. If you're going to join the club, you really should buy off on it lock, stock and barrel. I think that goes back to the point (I'm pretty sure somebody made) that if the potential converts really believed the underlying precepts of the RCC, they would live with a hideous Pauline mass now or a while ago instead of holding out for their own liturgy. I would imagine the argument goes something like that.

[ 22. October 2009, 20:28: Message edited by: Alt Wally ]
 

---

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alt Wally:
There is not even just no point in being a cafeteria convert, it is in fact a crazy idea. If you're going to join the club, you really should buy off on it lock, stock and barrel.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Organ Builder:

quote:

---

Originally posted by St. Punk the Pious:
I would hope the CofE would be gracious (and help their money situation) by selling buildings to departing parishes on reasonable terms.

---

Given the Establishment of the C of E and the Parish system (separate from a Congregation), can this be done without the involvement of Parliament?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
If every Anglo-Catholic in the world joined the RCs they would hardly be 1% of the total number of catholic churchgoers... Yep, its hard to see why liberal RCs should be worried.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thurible:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

How many of them work in gin and lace middle-class, eclectic parishes and will they want to be sent where they are needed, amongst the poorest communities rather than middle class suburbs.

---

You what? I can think of one or two but where all these middle-class ABC parishes?

Thurible

---

I live in one!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Man with a Stick:
Combine two parishes into one (mother/daughter church arrangement), make daughter church redundant, sell/give church to the swimmers. Simples.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alt Wally:
I think that goes back to the point (I'm pretty sure somebody made) that if the potential converts really believed the underlying precepts of the RCC, they would live with a hideous Pauline mass now or a while ago instead of holding out for their own liturgy. I would imagine the argument goes something like that.

---

I would think that if they really believed the underlying precepts of the RCC they'd have simply acknowledged the primacy of the Pope and that their own non-RC orders were invalid all this time -- and, therefore, they'd not be waiting for a bunch of their fellow parishioners to switch over before joining the "one true" Catholic Church. That aspect of all of this baffles me -- if they put themselves under Papal authority, doesn't that include assenting to the idea that they've been in a Sacramentally invalid church all the way up till that moment? When someone converts to RC, how have priestly orders been transferred over up till now?

[ 22. October 2009, 21:08: Message edited by: ChastMastr ]
 

---

Posted by The Man with a Stick (# 12664) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Organ Builder:

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Man with a Stick:
Combine two parishes into one (mother/daughter church arrangement), make daughter church redundant, sell/give church to the swimmers. Simples.

---

That sounds pretty easy here on the computer screen--would it create unholy screeching on the ground?

---

quote:

---

I would think that if they really believed the underlying precepts of the RCC they'd have simply acknowledged the primacy of the Pope and that their own non-RC orders were invalid all this time -- and, therefore, they'd not be waiting for a bunch of their fellow parishioners to switch over before joining the "one true" Catholic Church. That aspect of all of this baffles me -- if they put themselves under Papal authority, doesn't that include assenting to the idea that they've been in a Sacramentally invalid church all the way up till that moment? [Confused] When someone converts to RC, how have priestly orders been transferred over up till now?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
The issue of divorce raised earlier in this thread is interesting -- well, actually, it seems kind of vexed to me. Will the RCC allow divorced and remarried former Anglicans to take communion on the grounds that they weren't properly married in the RCC in the first place? What would that say about the status of those second marriages? Will they ordain divorced priests?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChastMastr:
I would think that if they really believed the underlying precepts of the RCC they'd have simply acknowledged the primacy of the Pope and that their own non-RC orders were invalid all this time -- and, therefore, they'd not be waiting for a bunch of their fellow parishioners to switch over before joining the "one true" Catholic Church. That aspect of all of this baffles me -- if they put themselves under Papal authority, doesn't that include assenting to the idea that they've been in a Sacramentally invalid church all the way up till that moment?

---

quote:

---

When someone converts to RC, how have priestly orders been transferred over up till now?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
Why? Lots of people already in the club don't.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eddy:
I was surprised to read in the paper that there are actually so few Forward in faith members in England, but it seems that its more from Australia the request for unity with Rome has come.

---

Are you confusing two things here? The TAC (a continuing Anglican communion not in communion with Canterbury) has petitioned Rome for union. FiF is the traditionalist catholic pressure group. Uk membership is "around 10,000" (quoted from Church Times). It is the second largest membership body within the CofE after the Mothers Union, though it is not restricted to the CofE and is active in other Anglican communions.
 

---

Posted by Fr Cuthbert (# 3953) on :
 
Forward in Faith have a few problems I guess. Some ought to move to Rome asap. For others they like being different and going to Rome means they become small fish in a very big pond. Some wont like that.

Then some of the priests will have problems:
so many "irregular" marriages, or gay partners, or they have doubts about papal infalllibility or dislike of Roman discipline...
 

---

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alt Wally:
But honestly, why would you become a RCC if you didn't assent to doctrine considered non negotiable? Would it be wise to become a convert dissenter? Does that make sense? I'm not talking about becoming a raving fundy either by simply accepting the basic teachings as a convert.

---

Resurgam's post, which sparked this exchange, mentioned artificial birth control. I wouldn't have thought that constituted "basic doctrine".

As I understand Catholicism, you are "allowed" to dissent, it's just that the burden of proof is on you to justify your dissent. A convert is probably in a good position to do that, on the assumption that anyone who goes to the trouble of converting will probably have a pretty thorough understanding of Catholic theology and, consequently, where it can be bent.
 

---

Posted by Alt Wally (# 3245) on :
 
What is the point in converting then?
 

---

Posted by Organ Builder (# 12478) on :
 
Since this is what the TAC has been asking for, I think they will probably be subsumed as soon as the details are worked out. Their presence in the US is miniscule, however, and I gather from this thread they aren't very large in the UK either.

In spite of all our bloviating on this thread (and we've been a lot more restrained than the blogosphere) most Anglicans/Episcopalians/Whatever are Anglican/Episcopalian/Whatever because they want to be. If they wanted to be Catholic, they would be. If they wanted to stay at home on Sunday morning, they would.

Aside from the TAC, I'm skeptical that this new arrangement will gather anyone to Rome who wouldn't have gone there anyway.
 

---

Posted by Eddy (# 3583) on :
 
Gregory Beyer of NPR has received a message from Vatican City for Anglicans.

You can read it here.


 

---

Posted by Alt Wally (# 3245) on :
 
Altough Ricardus I will admit dissenting converts would be better than a know-it-all ready to go back and let their former confessional cohorts know how wrong they are and have been about everything.
 

---

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:
As I understand Catholicism, you are "allowed" to dissent, it's just that the burden of proof is on you to justify your dissent.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Father Gregory:
Dear Martin L

You have been dealing with too many "Greeks" .... OR I'll just assume that was an analogy to an ecumenist ecclesiology which is being severely challenged in Orthodoxy right now. Orthodoxy's position that "the Church is the Church" is identical to Rome's view in ones important respect. It is the whole package. This is not inconsistent with a certain diversity. Don't forget that Orthodoxy has western rites (pretty lousy ones admittedly).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alt Wally:

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
Why? Lots of people already in the club don't.

---

I guess for those in the club; they have the excuse of habit, family, tradition, ethnicity, familiarity, etc. But honestly, why would you become a RCC if you didn't assent to doctrine considered non negotiable? Would it be wise to become a convert dissenter? Does that make sense? I'm not talking about becoming a raving fundy either by simply accepting the basic teachings as a convert.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr Weber:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:
As I understand Catholicism, you are "allowed" to dissent, it's just that the burden of proof is on you to justify your dissent.

---

Not exactly; you're allowed to dissent from points of doctrine (though not dogma), but you are not allowed to act on that dissent. In other words, you can hold the opinion that there's nothing wrong with artificial birth control, and even make arguments against it in public, but you can't disobey the Church's directives regarding its use.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
But you can disobey the church's directives on birth control -- millions of Catholics do every day, with no perceivable consequences.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr Weber:
Not exactly; you're allowed to dissent from points of doctrine (though not dogma), but you are not allowed to act on that dissent. In other words, you can hold the opinion that there's nothing wrong with artificial birth control, and even make arguments against it in public, but you can't disobey the Church's directives regarding its use.

---

quote:

---

It may well happen that some people, having conscientiously concluded to the possibility of responsible dissent on a particular moral issue, will nonetheless remain hesitatnt as to the prospect of acting on this possibility, and thus they opt for continued observance of the magisterium's authoritative fallible teaching. Such a decision is understandable and to be respected, but it does not present itself as the only moral course of action available to responsible members of the Catholic community.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr Weber:
Not exactly; you're allowed to dissent from points of doctrine (though not dogma), but you are not allowed to act on that dissent. In other words, you can hold the opinion that there's nothing wrong with artificial birth control, and even make arguments against it in public, but you can't disobey the Church's directives regarding its use.

---

This book - published by the Benedictines - disagrees:

quote:

---

It may well happen that some people, having conscientiously concluded to the possibility of responsible dissent on a particular moral issue, will nonetheless remain hesitatnt as to the prospect of acting on this possibility, and thus they opt for continued observance of the magisterium's authoritative fallible teaching. Such a decision is understandable and to be respected, but it does not present itself as the only moral course of action available to responsible members of the Catholic community.

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mother Julian:
... if I should swim the Tiber and twenty years later the Catholic Church decides to ordain women priests, I would be very happy, as the Catholic Church has the authority to do this.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
They would probably agree that the sacraments were not sacraments of the Catholic church, but nobody is claiming (these days at least) that they were devoid of efficacy

---

quote:

---

...as Catholics, we have access to the very sacraments instituted by Christ and ministered through His one holy priesthood. For this reason, it is never permissible for us to receive Holy Communion or absolution from an Anglican clergyman. Because of the invalidity of the Anglican priesthood, these sacraments are not valid.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
Depends on what you think "basic teachings" are.

---

quote:

---

Suppose someone is basically on board with the majority of Catholic doctrines and believes that the RCC is the only full and true expression of the faith delivered to the apostles, that the only valid sacraments are those of the RCC, but has no intention of leaving family planning up to the rhythm method -- would it be right for that person to convert? Especially in light of the real practice of most of the Catholics that person knows?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:
That said, does anyone else observe a certain irony in the stated denominational affiliations of the posters arguing on this particular tangent?

Alt Wally - Orthodox
Fr Weber - Anglican
RuthW - Anglican
Ricardus - Anglican (OK, I'm as guilty as everyone else in pontificating on what other people's churches teach ...)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LQ:
AIUI, TAC already doesn't permit the communion of divorced and remarried persons. However, I will be quite saddened no longer to be able to communicate in ACCC parishes once they are bound by Roman rules of closed communion.

---

Really, because the Primate,++ John Hepworth, is twice divorced, as well as being a former Latin Rite priest.
 

---

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr Weber:
I'm not sure that really signifies. Charles Curran published plenty of books (and most of them were published by RC houses, IIRC); it didn't prevent him from being told to shut up and sit down.

---

quote:

---

I have already quoted the words which Cardinal Gousset has adduced from the Fourth Lateran; that "He who acts against his conscience loses his soul." This dictum is brought out with singular fulness and force in the moral treatises of theologians. The celebrated school, known as the Salmanticenses, or Carmelites of Salamanca, lays down the broad proposition, that conscience is ever to be obeyed whether it tells truly or erroneously, and that, whether the error is the fault of the person thus erring or not [Note]. They say that this opinion is certain, and refer, as agreeing with them, to St. Thomas, St. Bonaventura, Caietan, Vasquez, Durandus, Navarrus, Corduba, Layman, Escobar, and fourteen others. Two of them even say this opinion is de fide. Of course, if a man is culpable in being in error, which he might have escaped, had he been more in earnest, for that error he is answerable to God, but still he must act according to that error, while he is in it, because he in full sincerity thinks the error to be truth.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alt Wally:
What do you make of it? I'm actually not certain of the irony.

---

quote:

---

Thread: Pope announces plans for Anglicans to convert in groups

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mother Julian:
... if I should swim the Tiber and twenty years later the Catholic Church decides to ordain women priests, I would be very happy, as the Catholic Church has the authority to do this.

---

There are those who would see that only a General Council of the Whole Church (that means a reunion of East and West and a legitimately called and universally ratified Ecumenical Council) could do this, difficult or 'impossible' as this may seem.

Otherwise the whole Church will still remain divided and in effective schism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChastMastr:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
They would probably agree that the sacraments were not sacraments of the Catholic church, but nobody is claiming (these days at least) that they were devoid of efficacy

---

Actually, at least some are claiming precisely that.

Link...

quote:

---

...as Catholics, we have access to the very sacraments instituted by Christ and ministered through His one holy priesthood. For this reason, it is never permissible for us to receive Holy Communion or absolution from an Anglican clergyman. Because of the invalidity of the Anglican priesthood, these sacraments are not valid.

---

That's my understanding of Rome's current position in a nutshell.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
FiF, yes; I'm not necessarily convinced about the TAC either - will they all be prepared to swallow the Assumption, the Immaculate Conception, transubstantiation etc all in one gulp?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by aumbry:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
FiF, yes; I'm not necessarily convinced about the TAC either - will they all be prepared to swallow the Assumption, the Immaculate Conception, transubstantiation etc all in one gulp?

---

I've seen this sort of question so many times. Surely if you can believe in Christ's divinity then none of the above can be that difficult to believe?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Is it ever a good idea to switch denominational allegiance for negative as opposed to positive reasons?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by aumbry:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
FiF, yes; I'm not necessarily convinced about the TAC either - will they all be prepared to swallow the Assumption, the Immaculate Conception, transubstantiation etc all in one gulp?

---

I've seen this sort of question so many times. Surely if you can believe in Christ's divinity then none of the above can be that difficult to believe?

---

quote:

---

Is it ever a good idea to switch denominational allegiance for negative as opposed to positive reasons?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by FCB:
Of course for an Anglican who believes that he has, through the sacrament of Holy Orders, been ordained into the priesthood of the Catholic Church, this is not much help. But for an Anglican who is doubting the validity of his orders, it is a way of seeing that his ministry has not been "fake" or without value.

---

I think that's the thing -- I don't have the sense that those who have left the Episcopal Church over recent developments are in doubt about their own orders at all, and it seems to me that if things had gone differently, they'd still be staying. So if they're not really doubting their own orders, won't they basically be paying lip service to the idea that they've been invalid all this time?
 

---

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
That's right, ChastMastr - but this does not preclude God's using Anglican sacramental acts as means of efficacious grace. As far as I'm concerned, anyone who says that we can know for sure that God's grace does not operate on Anglicans as they go about their sincere wroship of Him are just crazy people. There is no authentic Catholic teaching to that effect.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
FiF, yes; I'm not necessarily convinced about the TAC either - will they all be prepared to swallow the Assumption, the Immaculate Conception, transubstantiation etc all in one gulp?

---

quote:

---

My fellow bishops have indeed signed the Catechism of the Catholic Church and made a statement about the ministry of the Bishop of Rome, reflecting the words of Pope John Paul II in his letter “Ut Unum Sint”.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:

quote:

---

Originally posted by aumbry:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
FiF, yes; I'm not necessarily convinced about the TAC either - will they all be prepared to swallow the Assumption, the Immaculate Conception, transubstantiation etc all in one gulp?

---

I've seen this sort of question so many times. Surely if you can believe in Christ's divinity then none of the above can be that difficult to believe?

---

Oh, it's quite possible for a Christian to believe such things, if s/he believes in the divinity of Christ. But that's very different from wanting to believe them or easily accepting them as dogma, which may involve a wholesale reassessment of one's theology, particularly soteriology.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Organ Builder:
Since this is what the TAC has been asking for, I think they will probably be subsumed as soon as the details are worked out. Their presence in the US is miniscule, however, and I gather from this thread they aren't very large in the UK either.

---

quote:

---

Aside from the TAC, I'm skeptical that this new arrangement will gather anyone to Rome who wouldn't have gone there anyway.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Father Gregory:
A few minutes ago I started listening to the audio transcripts of the first three addresses of the FiF National Assembly online. I cancelled the connection after hearing this opener from the Bishop of Beverley ...

"We are Catholics of the Latin rite separated from Rome by an Act of State some 500 years ago ...."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
FiF, yes; I'm not necessarily convinced about the TAC either - will they all be prepared to swallow the Assumption, the Immaculate Conception, transubstantiation etc all in one gulp?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LQ:
AIUI, TAC already doesn't permit the communion of divorced and remarried persons. However, I will be quite saddened no longer to be able to communicate in ACCC parishes once they are bound by Roman rules of closed communion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thurible:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thurible:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

How many of them work in gin and lace middle-class, eclectic parishes and will they want to be sent where they are needed, amongst the poorest communities rather than middle class suburbs.

---

You what? I can think of one or two but where all these middle-class ABC parishes?

Thurible

---

I live in one!

---

I know - and yours is one of three that I can think of in the whole of the Ebbsfleet area (Clifton, Stony Stratford and Sarum S, Martin) off the top of my head!

Thurible

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Organ Builder:
Since this is what the TAC has been asking for, I think they will probably be subsumed as soon as the details are worked out. Their presence in the US is miniscule, however, and I gather from this thread they aren't very large in the UK either.

---

Its an almost purely US organisation. They don't really exist here at all - if there are any at all they will probably be a few US expats and a perhaps a handful of tat-loving Tory trainspotters. ["tatoraks"?] Whatever they look like in America, over here they have less impact than Jonty Blake and his friends.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Organ Builder:
According to that Font of All Knowledge Wikipedia their US branch claims 5200 members. It was my understanding the bulk of the 400,000 members claimed by the group is in Australia.

Of course, it wouldn't be the first time Wikipedia was all wet. Shadowhund could probably give us more info--he seems to have that trainspotter's sort of interest in the various continuing Anglican groups

---

quote:

---

In an interview with the Chilean daily, “El Mercurio,” the Superior General of the Society of St. Pius X, Bernard Fellay, acknowledged that the Vatican is considering the possibility of converting the Lefebvrist group into a personal prelature as part of the discussions aimed at bringing about reconciliation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChastMastr:
I would think that if they really believed the underlying precepts of the RCC they'd have simply acknowledged the primacy of the Pope and that their own non-RC orders were invalid all this time -- and, therefore, they'd not be waiting for a bunch of their fellow parishioners to switch over before joining the "one true" Catholic Church. That aspect of all of this baffles me -- if they put themselves under Papal authority, doesn't that include assenting to the idea that they've been in a Sacramentally invalid church all the way up till that moment?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
I think it goes more like this.

Anglo-Catholic priest says to self: 'I have been ordained in the Anglican Church, which is a part of Christ's Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. My ordination and the scaraments I celebrate are valid. (I acknowledge that the Vatican takes a different view of this, but that is down to the unfortunate events of the C16 which are not my fault). Now, the Anglican Church has taken actions which have effectively separated itself from Christ's Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. So my ordination and sacraments which have been valid catholic sacraments (as I understand it) will be no longer. Therefore I will need to move over to the only Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church left. Hello, Pope! That I need to be re-ordained is a bit of bureaucratic detail which is understandable from the Pope's perspective, and needn't impact my previous validity as I understand it.'

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Nothing to stop them disregarding that 'Act of State' and crossing the Tiber - why don't they?

---

quote:

---

If they really had the ecclesiology their theology implies, they would have left with the rest of the Continuers thirty years ago.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
So my ordination and sacraments which have been valid catholic sacraments (as I understand it) will be no longer. Therefore I will need to move over to the only Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church left. Hello, Pope! That I need to be re-ordained is a bit of bureaucratic detail which is understandable from the Pope's perspective, and needn't impact my previous validity as I understand it.'

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
...
But, also, the Catholic Church does not acknowlegde that any other body of Christians has a greater authority - because the Church "subsists in" the Catholic Church. The Councils of the Catholic Church are properly Œcumenical already, as far as Catholic teaching is concerned.

---

quote:

---

I don't know if Wikipedia can be blamed for that; it sounds as though they're going by the TAC's own figures. I confess to being somewhat skeptical about 400,000, but maybe someone in Australia who's familiar with their organization there can offer a more informed opinion.

---

I don't know of any accurate census, but I suspect that 4,000 would be much closer to the mark, and the real figure is likely to be below that. The one church in Sydney - only a couple of kilometres from where I am sitting - has a regular congregation of 15; and I know of no other TAC church in NSW. There are a few in South Australia and Queensland, but very few.

The major opposition in Australia to ordination of women, and the other contentious ecclesiological issues raised by GAFCON, comes from the Jensenite group in Sydney. Members of that are very unlikely to want to join with Rome. There are exceptions, of course, but there would be little support here for the Forward in Faith stance. Evangelicanism generally outside the Jensenites is quite happy with OOW etc.
 

---

Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on :
 
Religious statistics are often inflated, Gee D.

From what I perceive, those who wish to go across to Rome would be from the 'Conservative Anglo-Catholic' side. Evangelicals and liberals wouldn't, so prospective bunfights would in future be between these remnant wings. Nothing new as Conservative A-Cs feel they have been effectively sidelined.

The TAC Primate is based very close to the Bishop of the Murray's HQ and there is a wellknown commonality of interest between them and Conservative A-C bishops, both within and without the Communion, worldwide. The TAC and FIF can be seen as overlapping organisations.
 

---

Posted by Pancho (# 13533) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gee D:
I suspect that 4,000 would be much closer to the mark, and the real figure is likely to be below that. The one church in Sydney - only a couple of kilometres from where I am sitting - has a regular congregation of 15

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):

I shall be watching, with considerable interest, what does, or does not, eventuate between Rome and Moscow. Any reunion here will dwarf what is happening now between disaffected Anglicans and Rome.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gee D:
I don't know of any accurate census, but I suspect that 4,000 would be much closer to the mark, and the real figure is likely to be below that. The one church in Sydney - only a couple of kilometres from where I am sitting - has a regular congregation of 15;

---

quote:

---

Evangelicanism generally outside the Jensenites is quite happy with OOW etc.

---

quote:

---

...there are over 125 independent ‘Anglican’ churches. A neat list can be found here with a fascinating selection of names and abbreviations... These churches include some that can be taken seriously: their bishops and clergy are learned and their congregations are growing and their structure is sound. Then there are those that cannot be taken seriously: their clergy are educated online. They have one or two congregations meeting in someone’s basement or garage. Some of the schism churches have been around for over 100 years, others were founded yesterday. Some reacted against Anglicanism because it was too liberal, others because it was not liberal enough.

Amazingly, the Vatican has decided to take the breakaway groups seriously. This does not mean they are going to accept the Right Reverend Phineas D. Snakeoil with his online degree, his mail order miter and crozier and his group of ‘faithful’ old women who meet in his attic in Podunck Tennessee for Solemn High Mass. It does mean, however, that they are willing to talk to the Bishops of the Traditional Anglican Communion ... Even closer to Canterbury, they are willing to talk to the ‘flying bishops’ who have carefully and gently led the traditionalist Anglicans in the Church of England over the last 20 years. ...

What will the Vatican do with all the other eccentric ecclesiastics in the many different ‘continuing Churches’? … The trickiest of all will be the members of the established Anglican Churches who seek to ‘come home to Rome’. The Vatican’s skills will need to be exercised with delicacy and tact for the good of each person and group, but also with a view to the unity of Christ’s whole church.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Is it ever a good idea to switch denominational allegiance for negative as opposed to positive reasons?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
According to yesterday's Church Times, each priest will have to undergo a period of scrutiny and extra training before being ordained.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
No that's wrong. I have listened to the FiF speeches and read other stuff. Existing married priests can be re-ordained, new candidates will have to be celibate.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CJS:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gee D:
I don't know of any accurate census, but I suspect that 4,000 would be much closer to the mark, and the real figure is likely to be below that. The one church in Sydney - only a couple of kilometres from where I am sitting - has a regular congregation of 15;

---

I am dying to know which parish in Sydney represents this (by local standards) very exotic breed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eddy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Nothing to stop them disregarding that 'Act of State' and crossing the Tiber - why don't they?

---

Because some of them like being grumpy seperatists!

Because some of them couldn't because they are divorced and remarried.

Because some of them have live in boyfriends.

Because some like being big fishes but in RC church would be small ones.

Because some couldnt cope with the style of Rome and want choral music and old churches.

and so on

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albertus:
And because some of them would find it hard to cope with a church that actually expects its clergy to obey their ecclesiastical superiors?

---

Well, in theory, anyway. The bishops of the USCCB aren't exactly tripping over themselves to follow the recent directives regarding altar girls, ex tempore changes to the liturgical texts, the routine use of extraordinary ministers to distribute Communion, etc. So it appears to me that within the RCC there is quite a bit of precedent for disregarding authority and doing what you please because you're "right".
 

---

Posted by FreeJack (# 10612) on :
 
Doesn't this mean that the organisation of Forward in Faith splits?

Surely you have to resign once you are received into the Roman Catholic Church? If many of its key leaders have said they will go now/soon, then FiF will need new leaders who are staying in the CofE.
 

---

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
Ultimately yes - the PEVs were cautiously saying that we/they should accept the Holy Father's invitation. The Synod members were saying that we/they should wait to see what Synod comes up with in February or July.

I have just spoken to someone fairly high up in FiF who said that the debate and general mood was to go with the PEVs.

That leaves the rest of us Catholics somewhat more isolated than we already feel.

[ 24. October 2009, 19:12: Message edited by: leo ]
 

---

Posted by FreeJack (# 10612) on :
 
So we also need new PEVs next year who are committed to the CofE for a five year period or so. Perhaps Reform will finally get a cons.evo. flying bishop to replace one of Ebbsfleet or Richborough? Would only seem fair based on respective strength and might be their price of support in Synod?
 

---

Posted by pete173 (# 4622) on :
 
Listening to the FiF debates, it's clear that they need to make up their minds. Lots of pleas from their lay members for clergy to give leadership. And to take the Synodical task seriously. But I think that the hope of structural provision for catholics against the ordination of women bishops fades minute by minute as more of them get excited by the exit strategy. Can't personally see any attraction whatsoever in being part of the RC church, but very happy for them. If you're offered a gift horse, stop examining the dentistry...

It'd be quite good to know the tactics sooner rather than later; I have a Revision Committee that is taking up rather a lot of my waking moments. If they're off to Rome, I'm not going to continue to bust a gut seeking to make statutory provision for them. If they want to stay, they need to say so clearly and commit.
 

---

Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
There will inevitably be a split in FiF, with the PEV's suggesting that people should be deciding by February 22nd next whether to take the Pope's offer seriously, and other members urging to stay put and see what concessions can be got from Synod in February or July. The latter have nothing to lose because they could always take up the offer later.

Given that, by no means all members of Resolution C parishes will want to swim, and those who do are not likely to be numerically significant enough to form a worshipping community, conversion to Rome will most likely remain an individual thing as it is now.
 

---

Posted by Resurgam (# 14891) on :
 
(Good gentles, may I ask what a PEV is? I've checked Acronym Finder.com, but their top six choices don't seem to apply: Politique Européenne de Voisinage, Partido Ecologista os Verdes, Potenciales Evocados Visuales (Spanish: Visual Evoked Potentials; brain activity), Prediction Error Variance, Peta Electron Volt, Positive Effect Variegation. )
 

---

Posted by pete173 (# 4622) on :
 
Provincial Episcopal Visitors (aka Flying Bishops) who give pastoral care to parishes who are opposed to the ordination of women.
 

---

Posted by Martin L (# 11804) on :
 
Pete, would the departure of many FiF (and related) to Rome help the cause of those who support the elevation of women to the episcopacy?

Would it need to be a large number who swim the Tiber, or would even a small number tip the scale in favor?
 

---

Posted by pete173 (# 4622) on :
 
I don't want to think about that. I want to carry on working at keeping traditionalist catholic Anglicans in the CofE if they want to stay. But if they want to go, we'll be the poorer for it, but I'll wish them God speed.

The CofE without them will of course give a much clearer run to the full and equal ministry of women as priests and bishops - something I also long for. We wouldn't have to legislate for what everyone recognises is discriminatory. But the CofE without them will also be poorer for the loss of part of its catholic heritage, and for the loss of credally orthodox and missional people.
 

---

Posted by FreeJack (# 10612) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulTH*:
There will inevitably be a split in FiF, with the PEV's suggesting that people should be deciding by February 22nd next whether to take the Pope's offer seriously, and other members urging to stay put and see what concessions can be got from Synod in February or July. The latter have nothing to lose because they could always take up the offer later.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pete173:
It'd be quite good to know the tactics sooner rather than later; I have a Revision Committee that is taking up rather a lot of my waking moments. If they're off to Rome, I'm not going to continue to bust a gut seeking to make statutory provision for them. If they want to stay, they need to say so clearly and commit.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pete173:
I don't want to think about that. I want to carry on working at keeping traditionalist catholic Anglicans in the CofE if they want to stay. But if they want to go, we'll be the poorer for it, but I'll wish them God speed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pete173:

It'd be quite good to know the tactics sooner rather than later; .. ..If they want to stay, they need to say so clearly and commit.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pete173:
But the CofE without them will also be poorer for the loss of part of its catholic heritage, and for the loss of credally orthodox and missional people.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Edward Green:

One question I do have is what will happen to parish's who have signed resolutions for reasons that are not tied to Catholic ecclesiology. I know a few that really would rather have a man to lead matins. The PEV's have (generously) offered pastoral care for a number of 'central and prayerbook' parishes and I do wonder what will happen to them if an exodus occurs.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by FreeJack:
...They lose credibility if it just becomes about tactics.

If Father Kirk and +Ebbsfleet really believe that the Holy Father is the Holy Father then what are they waiting for?

How can a priest or bishop who believe in the Roman Catholic Church as they now claim to do so continue to celebrate the sacraments of the heretical church outside?

I think that ++Canterbury should suspend +Ebbsfleet now. I don't see how he can give the requisite oaths of allegiance any longer.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by FreeJack:
I think that ++Canterbury should suspend +Ebbsfleet now. I don't see how he can give the requisite oaths of allegiance any longer.

---

quote:

---

Even the parish priest’s title and status are a sign of the conflict. Bishop Moyer is not a bishop in the Episcopal Church, but he uses that title because he was made a bishop in the Traditional Anglican Communion, a conservative splinter group that played a crucial role in persuading the Vatican to welcome the Anglicans.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
I'm not sure that this has all that much to do with Anglicanism as Church, other than that the TAC provided a convenient pivot point. I think this has more to do with Anglican liturgy, since BXVI really considers liturgy as the core business of the Church. Basically, BXVI is killing off Trent on liturgy. Yes, not supporting it, killing it. Because what was really important about Trent was not the now so-called "Extraordinary Form" of the Latin rite as such, but that it was imposed on the whole Church in 1570 by Pius V.

Now, BXVI faces a severe practical problem. He has to deal urgently with that "liturgy by committee", which disrupted Catholic traditions worldwide in the 60s and which remains in dire need of a "reform of the reform" before it becomes the swan song of the Church. But unlike most people pushing for a "reform of the reform", he knows that it cannot be reformed by a committee imposing wholesale change on the Church again - because on one hand that would be a reductio ad absurdum of the main critique of the ordinary liturgy, and on the other hand the obedient Catholics of the 50s, which would have swallowed such change, have largely disappeared. So I think BXVI is killing Trent: he is re-introducing liturgical diversity - traditional diversity, not the clown mass side of things - in order to generate a sizable "liturgical gene pool" from which a future unified liturgy of the Church can organically grow again. This is a project of centuries, most likely, but he's making as much of a start as he can.

It's very ironic that his first, and major, strike against Trent was the freeing the "Tridentine mass". There must be a bit of a smile on his face when he considers the celebrations of the SSPX. This is now a second strike, making a third Latin rite widely available. I'm not enough of a liturgy expert to know what other moves he can viably make to increase traditional diversity in liturgy. Perhaps we will see something next concerning the special rites of religious orders, like the Dominicans. Perhaps he can even find some way of bringing Orthodox worship into the Latin world. That would require some genius machinations, but I think the man is a bit of a genius, and I'm sure that he would love to do it...

---

Ingo. I agree 100% with this. The RCC, liturgically speaking, sold the family silver long ago and now BXVI is investing in some new antiques. FWIW I think the eastern rite presents the most 'living' of the ancient liturgies and so would be interested to see more import from this.

What this then says about the fact the Western Church sold the heritage down the river whilst the Eastern Church preserved the Faith is ironic indeed...

As the RCC must realise, not all that's new is good.
 

---

Posted by Badger Lady (# 13453) on :
 
Out of interest, would a married priest who crossed from Cantebury to Rome be able to become a bishop of the Roman Catholic church? Would he be able to become a cardinal or any other higher rank in the RC cardinal?
 

---

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :
 
I think that there is no provision for married men to become bishops,as there is no tradition in either the Western (mainly rc) church nor in the Eastern (mainly orthodox) of married bishops.

Cardinals technically do not have to be bishops and some were not (even) priests. However a recent pope,(I think Paul VI) decreed that all cardinals should have the rank of archbishop.
 

---

Posted by the coiled spring (# 2872) on :
 
There has been an unpleasant story doing the rounds that the 600 Anglican clergy were hoping to charter flights from Ryan Air to go to Rome. Seems that has fall threw as Michael O'Leary want to deal on the baggage. The problem is that the Anglican deserters carry so much baggage that the cost so they are going to have to hitchhike for Le Harve. Their leaders have said Calais is a bit dangerous because of all the illegal immigrant camps.
The warmth from the lighted candles will keep them comfortable at night on the journey to Rome
 

---

Posted by rosamundi (# 2495) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Badger Lady:
Out of interest, would a married priest who crossed from Cantebury to Rome be able to become a bishop of the Roman Catholic church? Would he be able to become a cardinal or any other higher rank in the RC cardinal?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pokrov:
The RCC, liturgically speaking, sold the family silver long ago and now BXVI is investing in some new antiques. FWIW I think the eastern rite presents the most 'living' of the ancient liturgies and so would be interested to see more import from this.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pokrov:
What this then says about the fact the Western Church sold the heritage down the river whilst the Eastern Church preserved the Faith is ironic indeed... As the RCC must realise, not all that's new is good.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
If he is self-appointed as a bishop (which puts him in the same boat as some of the Pentecostalist independents), can he actually accept the discipline of a system that clearly has a boss? If he really believes in apostolic succession, how could he accept the nomination of bishop without that laying on of the hands?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rosamundi:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Badger Lady:
Out of interest, would a married priest who crossed from Cantebury to Rome be able to become a bishop of the Roman Catholic church? Would he be able to become a cardinal or any other higher rank in the RC cardinal?

---

One of the things I read about this (sorry, I can't remember where) said quite clearly that any married Bishops who joined the RCC would not be ordained Bishop in the Catholic Church, although they may be ordained as a priest.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pete173:
I don't want to think about that. I want to carry on working at keeping traditionalist catholic Anglicans in the CofE if they want to stay. But if they want to go, we'll be the poorer for it, but I'll wish them God speed.

The CofE without them will of course give a much clearer run to the full and equal ministry of women as priests and bishops - something I also long for. We wouldn't have to legislate for what everyone recognises is discriminatory. But the CofE without them will also be poorer for the loss of part of its catholic heritage, and for the loss of credally orthodox and missional people.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the coiled spring:
There has been an unpleasant story doing the rounds that the 600 Anglican clergy were hoping to charter flights from Ryan Air to go to Rome. Seems that has fall threw as Michael O'Leary want to deal on the baggage. The problem is that the Anglican deserters carry so much baggage that the cost so they are going to have to hitchhike for Le Harve. Their leaders have said Calais is a bit dangerous because of all the illegal immigrant camps.
The warmth from the lighted candles will keep them comfortable at night on the journey to Rome

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin L:
This is currently what happens in the US. Any clergy who become Roman Catholic priests only have a chance of becoming a bishop if they are unmarried. RC bishops cannot be married, per Catholic preference, not scripture. Perhaps one day that will change.

---

quote:

---

some 20+ years ago when I briefly attended a pastoral provision Anglican Use RC parish in Austin, Texas the pastor there told me that RC liturgical scholars were very desirous to have the American 1979 BCP materials for themselves

---

quote:

---

hence, the liturgy of the Pro-Diocese of St Augustine that was based on the 1549-American 1928 BCP wasn't allowed when the group submitted to the Holy See, not just because the group's revised Eucharistic Prayer was still out of step with RC standards

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by New Yorker:
Could a married priest who is widowed become a bishop?

---

quote:

---

Silly man - you're talking about some principled and holy people, many of whom are my friends.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by New Yorker:
What about the 79 BCP would the RC liturgical scholars want? I mean what did that BCP have that we Romans did not already have?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the coiled spring:
Would very much like to know if all this nonsense is Scriptural as are really supposed to be so splintered and right all the time.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the coiled spring:
Just because one is a priest does not make one holy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
According to yesterday's Church Times, each priest will have to undergo a period of scrutiny and extra training before being ordained.

---

So... they will need to be re-ordained, and officially consider their previous ordinations wholly invalid or at least dubious, then? If they already believed this, why didn't they convert then, and if they didn't believe this before, have they really decided en masse to change their beliefs about their own ordinations and the Apostolic Succession -- or lack thereof -- of the Anglican churches for the last several hundred years?

Seriously, am I missing something here? Because unless the Pope has suddenly declared the Anglican Communion (but only up till the last few years or so) to have truly been sacramentally valid all this time, that seems like the only alternative, and not one which I can see as being acceptable from the position that one's holy orders, sacraments, etc. as an Anglican/Episcopal priest or bishop have been valid all this time. (Which, given some of the issues involved -- such as whether or not ordaining women to the priesthood and especially as bishops will damage future Anglican apostolic succession -- seems kind of weirdly ironic to me. If there was no real apostolic succession all this time in the Anglican Communion to preserve and all...)
 

---

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
There is no problem with a celibate widower being ordained to the episcopate.

Cardinal Manning was a widower.


I haven't really got involved in this particular thread. As I'm a Protestant rather than Catholic member of the CofE, I don't see it as such a big issue. In some other ways, I'm perhaps a bit old fashioned, but one feature of that is that I tend to resent hearing the Oxford Movement and its successors described as traditionalists. To me, it is they that were the innovators.


Obviously Rome would like to reverse the events of 1530-60, but this isn't really going to happen without a change in the Roman understanding of what I believe is called the magisterium. Those of us outside 'the Roman obedience' would like there to be ecumenical unity throughout Christendom, but don't believe the phrase 'Roman obedience' or that understanding of the nature of authority is either biblical or patristic.

Indeed, I'd go further and say that we would all have to give up at least one thing we dearly love and feel strongly about to achieve that unity, and for Rome, that seems to me a surrender it would have to make.


Also though, this doesn't seem to have been handled in a very ecumenical way. One gets the impression that it was not just Canterbury but also Westminster that only heard about it at the last minute. By analogy, it would be as though Rowan had suddenly announced without telling the Piskies or the CofS that he was setting up a CofE Presbytery with a flying bishop based in Edinburgh for Church of Scotland ministers who wanted episcopacy but to retain a kirk session at the same time.
 

---

Posted by otyetsfoma (# 12898) on :
 
The "Anglicans" that appealed for this were not CofE but Continuing Anglicans. I met with some of them in Canada last year and expressed doubts whether it was a good idea. I was assured that no one expected it to happen soon! I think their bishops are keener on the idea than their laity- I certainly hope so.
 

---

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :
 
Let's all sing together

And no, this Anglo-catholic is certainly not doing the Vatican Rag.
 

---

Posted by Badger Lady (# 13453) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by rosamundi:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Badger Lady:
Out of interest, would a married priest who crossed from Cantebury to Rome be able to become a bishop of the Roman Catholic church? Would he be able to become a cardinal or any other higher rank in the RC church?

---

One of the things I read about this (sorry, I can't remember where) said quite clearly that any married Bishops who joined the RCC would not be ordained Bishop in the Catholic Church, although they may be ordained as a priest.

---

Thanks Rosamundi (and others). I must say, as an outsider to all this, and not meaning to derogate the issues involved, it does strike me as deeply ironic that the traditionalists who cross the Tiber will be in the same position as women vicars have been in the Anglican church up to now. They can be ordained but cannot aim to any 'higher' things. Perhaps proof, if it were needed, that God has a very nuanced sense of humour...
 

---

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :
 
Fr. Weber tells me that 9 bishops laid hands on Bishop Moyer, so that makes it all OK. But if the raising to the episcopate is done by people who who are on the outs with their own church, and the gentleman in question is not accepting the discipline of his church, what is he bishop OF?

Come to that, why are all those bishoply people still bishops in the church they dislike so much? Adolescent rebellion isn't much of an excuse, and it certainly doesn't look good on supposed adults.

ISTM that this proposal by the Holy Father makes life much easier for the Anglicans, who can now say

quote:

---

“you have been sat to long here for any good you have been doing. Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!.”

---

quote:

---

Fr. Weber tells me that 9 bishops laid hands on Bishop Moyer, so that makes it all OK. But if the raising to the episcopate is done by people who who are on the outs with their own church, and the gentleman in question is not accepting the discipline of his church, what is he bishop OF?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
the legitimacy of apostolic succession is dependent on submission to the Bishop of Rome.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rosamundi:
And the Orthodox are even stricter - their bishops may only be ordained from within the ranks of vowed monks. Celibacy for Bishops is the norm. Is "for the sake of the Kingdom" not scriptural?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Edward Green:

One question I do have is what will happen to parish's who have signed resolutions for reasons that are not tied to Catholic ecclesiology. I know a few that really would rather have a man to lead matins. The PEV's have (generously) offered pastoral care for a number of 'central and prayerbook' parishes and I do wonder what will happen to them if an exodus occurs.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by angelicum:
given the dimunitive size of the UK RC population

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gee D:

Pancho , within 5 km of here, there are large RCC parishes at Wahroonga, St Ives and Pymble. The Cathedral is little further (at least geographically). If they follow the usual Australian pattern, very, very few parishioners would be unhappy with the present liturgy, normal grumblings aside. Each of the 3 is associated with a primary school. It would be strange if more than a dozen overall left to go to the Anglican Rite.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rosamundi:

quote:

---

Originally posted by New Yorker:
Could a married priest who is widowed become a bishop?

---

I'm not sure. I know they wouldn't be able to marry again, so I'd have thought there was then no bar to them becoming a Bishop, but I don't know.

---

Cardinal Manning was widowed IIRC.

And if St Peter was the first Pope, then we've had at least one married Pope
 

---

Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
It's not relevant to the OP but personally I believe that Orthodox bishops should be taken from the married clergy as well. As with Rome and priestly celibacy it's a discipline thing not a faith and order issue.
 

---

Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Father Gregory:
It's not relevant to the OP but personally I believe that Orthodox bishops should be taken from the married clergy as well. As with Rome and priestly celibacy it's a discipline thing not a faith and order issue.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
Perhaps this article from the National Catholic Reporter's might clarify the matter supposedly under discussion on this thread?

http://ncronline.org/news/what-vaticans-welcome-anglicans-means

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eddy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Nothing to stop them disregarding that 'Act of State' and crossing the Tiber - why don't they?

---

Because some of them couldn't because they are divorced and remarried.

Because some of them have live in boyfriends.

Because some like being big fishes but in RC church would be small ones.

---

quote:

---

You can’t fault the Pope’s timing. The Vatican’s announcement last week that it would welcome back disaffected Anglicans after centuries of schism was a calculated move to coincide with the 500th anniversary of Henry VIII’s accession.

The Catholic Church has a profound historic awareness. What better moment to indicate that it believes the English Reformation, which was irrevocably set in motion during Henry’s reign, can — and should — be reversed?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
The discussion beneath [the NCR article] shows that there are a lot of paranoid loonies everywhere...

---

Exactimundissimus.

[ 26. October 2009, 12:26: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]
 

---

Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
.... and you know, they are all out to get us!
 

---

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by FreeJack:
[

If Father Kirk and +Ebbsfleet really believe that the Holy Father is the Holy Father then what are they waiting for?

How can a priest or bishop who believe in the Roman Catholic Church as they now claim to do so continue to celebrate the sacraments of the heretical church outside?

I think that ++Canterbury should suspend +Ebbsfleet now. I don't see how he can give the requisite oaths of allegiance any longer.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albertus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by FreeJack:
[

If Father Kirk and +Ebbsfleet really believe that the Holy Father is the Holy Father then what are they waiting for?

How can a priest or bishop who believe in the Roman Catholic Church as they now claim to do so continue to celebrate the sacraments of the heretical church outside?

I think that ++Canterbury should suspend +Ebbsfleet now. I don't see how he can give the requisite oaths of allegiance any longer.

---

Can anyone clarify reports (referred to in a letter in Friday's Times) that +Ebbsfleet and +Richborough flew to Rome to talk about this without telling ++Rowan? If this is true (and I'm not saying it is) then (i) Rome has been rather discourteous in talking to the monkeys without consulting organ grinder (ii) Ebbsfleet and Richborough have bitten the hand that fed them, big-time.
But as i say, I don't know whether this report is true or not.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alex Cockell:
From what I gather, the congo transfers across if the individual pastor decides to defect/transition to Rome. Wouldn't this be causing problems in the consciences of some of that pastor's congo, in that they might find themselves being asked to pray stuff that goes diametrically against what they'd previously been taught?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
But isn't it Rome's perspective that the break from the Church under Henry VIII forever and irrevocably tainted the line of Apostolic succession of England's priests?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fifi:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albertus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by FreeJack:
[

If Father Kirk and +Ebbsfleet really believe that the Holy Father is the Holy Father then what are they waiting for?

How can a priest or bishop who believe in the Roman Catholic Church as they now claim to do so continue to celebrate the sacraments of the heretical church outside?

I think that ++Canterbury should suspend +Ebbsfleet now. I don't see how he can give the requisite oaths of allegiance any longer.

---

Can anyone clarify reports (referred to in a letter in Friday's Times) that +Ebbsfleet and +Richborough flew to Rome to talk about this without telling ++Rowan? If this is true (and I'm not saying it is) then (i) Rome has been rather discourteous in talking to the monkeys without consulting organ grinder (ii) Ebbsfleet and Richborough have bitten the hand that fed them, big-time.
But as i say, I don't know whether this report is true or not.

---

The report is not true. The Archbishop was fully briefed, both before and after their trip to Rome.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Father Gregory:
What a degenerate understanding of Apostolic Succession.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rosamundi:
If a priest decides to convert, he won't be dragging his congregation with him willy-nilly. Likewise if one or two, or even the majority, of a particular church's membership decides to come to Rome, those who wish to remain as Anglicans will do so.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

It seems evident to me that it should be the ones who remain Anglicans.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by caercybi06:
I think that any union like this proposed one is rubbish. Look at all the problems that come with it , what to do with married clergy, with female clergy, and in Canadas case female bishops . How will people used to reciving communion in both kinds take to reciving in just 1 kind ? The 2 churches have evolved away from each other since the split in the 16th century. Lets just say thanks but
no thanks.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by caercybi06:
I think that any union like this proposed one is rubbish. Look at all the problems that come with it , what to do with married clergy, with female clergy, and in Canadas case female bishops . How will people used to reciving communion in both kinds take to reciving in just 1 kind ? The 2 churches have evolved away from each other since the split in the 16th century. Lets just say thanks but
no thanks.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fifi:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

It seems evident to me that it should be the ones who remain Anglicans.

---

On what grounds do you reach that conclusion, I wonder?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Organ Builder:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fifi:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

It seems evident to me that it should be the ones who remain Anglicans.

---

On what grounds do you reach that conclusion, I wonder?

---

Given the Establishment of the English church, it seems clear any division of property will, at the very least, remain in the power of the Anglican church.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by caercybi06:
Look at all the problems that come with it , what to do with married clergy, with female clergy, and in Canadas case female bishops.

---

quote:

---

How will people used to reciving communion in both kinds take to reciving in just 1 kind ?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fifi:
But might it not be a good thing - in the case of a parish where a clear majority of the members wished to avail themselves of the Holy See's offer - if the C of E agreed that the property went with them? After all, some might think it a thoroughly Christian thing to do . . .

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fifi:
But might it not be a good thing - in the case of a parish where a clear majority of the members wished to avail themselves of the Holy See's offer - if the C of E agreed that the property went with them? After all, some might think it a thoroughly Christian thing to do . . .

---

The bottom line is that some parishioners are going to be without a church to go to. I fail to see what's so wrong with the idea that the ones who leave the church should be the ones who are, well, leaving the church...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
The question is, which group gets to keep the church building itself - the priest and his followers, or the loyal Anglicans?

It seems evident to me that it should be the ones who remain Anglicans.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fifi:

Might not my solution be a more effective Christian witness to a secular world?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Organ Builder:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fifi:

Might not my solution be a more effective Christian witness to a secular world?

---

Before speculating too much on how effective a witness your solution would be, I would want to know if you or your congregation would stand to gain by your solution--something I do not know at present, but which I think would be germane to the question.

---

quote:

---

I confess that I am unclear as to why female clergy or female bishops would be interested in availing themselves of a provision aimed at those whose main problem with Anglicanism is, er, the ordination of, er, women . . . . . .

---

Not so simple actually.

It's nice to see the Roman Church catching up with us. The Patriarchate of Antioch has managed "group solutions" with filtered existing clergy for at least 30 years on both sides of the Atlantic and in Australia / NZ. During that time in England alone I know of at least two female priests who have surrendered their orders and become Orthodox.

[ 26. October 2009, 15:47: Message edited by: Father Gregory ]
 

---

Posted by Organ Builder (# 12478) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fifi:
Quite. I guess the answer really is something as simple as 'continuity'. And if most of a worshipping community wish to go, and there is in truth no other real need for the property, then another serious gain would be goodwill all round!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fifi:
Anything that can be done to avoid what has been happening in one province of the Communion in recent months would be a very good thing indeed!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trisagion:
Indeed, but is New Yorker's understanding, not that of the Catholic Church.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
I suspect Fifi was referring more to the seemingly interminable litigations that seem to accompany departures in the USA, Organ Builder.

---

quote:

---

The sort of scenario outlined may well be possible in cities and bigger towns, though I am pretty sure that one of the earliest announcements I read specifically excluded buildings. Which is not to say that something could not be negotiated subsequently of course.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fifi:
But might it not be kinder to them to recognise from the outset that (assuming that they really are a minority) a pile of property will be a millstone around their necks? Better, surely, for them to move to the next C of E parish and be part of something bigger and stronger?

---

quote:

---

Might not my solution be a more effective Christian witness to a secular world?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alex Cockell:
My concern is what about your average member?

From what I gather, the congo transfers across if the individual pastor decides to defect/transition to Rome. Wouldn't this be causing problems in the consciences of some of that pastor's congo, in that they might find themselves being asked to pray stuff that goes diametrically against what they'd previously been taught?

One other question I have, which isn't apparent from areas where I've looked.. what *is* the RC hierarchy's view of the Baptist Union etc? Cos I've taken communion in an Anglican joint before - no probs.. (yeah I know this bit's DH)...

What will be the effect on churches working together?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
The article says pretty much what most people have been saying here. The discussion beneath it shows that there are a lot of paranoid loonies everywhere...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
The worship life of a community should not depend on economics. People who have been going to the same church for their whole lives - who have been baptised there, confirmed there, and in some cases married there and held funerals for loved ones there - should not be told they can never again worship in that church because they had the affront to stay within the faith that the church has always professed.

Those who deliberately join another worship community are a different matter.

---

quote:

---

. . . Though you do point to an interesting conundrum - a CofE church is obligated to offer a church baptism/wedding/funeral to anyone living in the parish. If the parish church is no longer CofE, where are those parishioners to go? Somehow I can't see the RCC being happy to hatch, match or dispatch them all!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
The worship life of a community should not depend on economics. People who have been going to the same church for their whole lives - who have been baptised there, confirmed there, and in some cases married there and held funerals for loved ones there - should not be told they can never again worship in that church because they had the affront to stay within the faith that the church has always professed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by angelicum:
No one is suggesting that they can't worship there surely? I'm sure the ordinariate will still welcome these people.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Father Gregory:
The clarification is not, therefore, entirely clear.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Perhaps it's too much of a tangent for this thread, but it would be interesting to discuss the pros and cons of ordinations sub conditione for Anglican clerical converts, particularly as seen from the RC POV.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Organ Builder:
Although I suspect anyone reading this thread is already reading the "Act of Love" thread, I'm going to link to this post by ken.

---

Terribly flattered by the line but I feel honour-bound to say that in that post I used these phrases:

"No-one knows"
"I suspect "
"likely to be"
"I would guess"
"on very little hard evidence"
"I guess"

Tentative much?


 

---

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :
 
Sounds about right to me too, ken.

I'll leave you to apply it to whichever bit you think it fits best...

 

---

Posted by Organ Builder (# 12478) on :
 
I did acknowledge that it was a guess...

Still, it's more than anyone else has had the chutzpah to do.
 

---

Posted by rosamundi (# 2495) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by angelicum:
No one is suggesting that they can't worship there surely? I'm sure the ordinariate will still welcome these people.

---

Oh sure - just as long as they convert as well.

Or will the ordinariate be perfectly OK with unconverted Anglicans continuing to avail themselves of the Eucharist there?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
Perhaps this article from the National Catholic Reporter's might clarify the matter supposedly under discussion on this thread?

http://ncronline.org/news/what-vaticans-welcome-anglicans-means

---

The article says pretty much what most people have been saying here. The discussion beneath it shows that there are a lot of paranoid loonies everywhere...

---

I'm not sure that anyone on this thread, which has continued for some time and has had some long, tenuous and irrelevant posts, has ever summed up what is actually happening so thoroughly, concisely and authoratively.
 

---

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :
 
So... er... it hasn't yet been made clear what the status of ordaining or re-ordaining former Anglican clergy will be if they become RC under the new rules?


 

---

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :
 
Ah, I found a link...

quote:

---

"It is difficult … to make precise comment upon this until one has seen the actual text of what the pope is going to say," said the Rev. Robert Wright, professor of ecclesiastical history at General Theological Seminary in New York, in a telephone interview. "So far, all we have is a vague sort of press release. It leaves open a lot of questions. Does it mean that they are prepared to recognize the Anglican orders of priests who convert or not? … Anglican orders were called invalid in 1896 by a papal bull. Does this mean this invalidation is going to be lifted?"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChastMastr:
Ah, I found a link...

quote:

---

"It is difficult … to make precise comment upon this until one has seen the actual text of what the pope is going to say," said the Rev. Robert Wright, professor of ecclesiastical history at General Theological Seminary in New York, in a telephone interview. "So far, all we have is a vague sort of press release. It leaves open a lot of questions. Does it mean that they are prepared to recognize the Anglican orders of priests who convert or not? … Anglican orders were called invalid in 1896 by a papal bull. Does this mean this invalidation is going to be lifted?"

---

Okay, so if a Professor of Ecclesiastical History at GTS doesn't know the answer yet, I suppose it really hasn't been spelled out yet.

---

In a word 'Yes' but I'm not sure he'll be first to hear.
 

---

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :
 
I don't get the joke.
 

---

Posted by FreeJack (# 10612) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by rosamundi:
I'm sure people with more Canon law than me will be able to advise if there is a problem with a church building being shared.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChastMastr:
Ah, I found a link...

quote:

---

"It is difficult … to make precise comment upon this until one has seen the actual text of what the pope is going to say," said the Rev. Robert Wright, professor of ecclesiastical history at General Theological Seminary in New York, in a telephone interview. "So far, all we have is a vague sort of press release. It leaves open a lot of questions. Does it mean that they are prepared to recognize the Anglican orders of priests who convert or not? … Anglican orders were called invalid in 1896 by a papal bull. Does this mean this invalidation is going to be lifted?"

---

Okay, so if a Professor of Ecclesiastical History at GTS doesn't know the answer yet, I suppose it really hasn't been spelled out yet.

---

In a word 'Yes' but I'm not sure he'll be first to hear.

---

The Vatican was extremely careful who was included in the information loop and when.

Virtually everything regarding the new ordinariates is work in progress.

The Vatican would not have anyone from GTS in the loop I fear.

Most of what is said is at least secondhand and much conjecture.

I thought the particular correspondent I linked from NCR might be as close to the source as anyone. Obviously the opinionati here ...

I think I'd like to quit now.
 

---

Posted by Alt Wally (# 3245) on :
 

quote:

---

it hasn't yet been made clear what the status of ordaining or re-ordaining former Anglican clergy will be if they become RC under the new rules?

---

I don't think the new ones will reverse the old ones in regards to this. Dollars to donuts it will be ordination.
 

---

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :
 
I couldn't determine from your link what the decision would be on the whole validity-of-ordination issue, but I've been busy (well, okay, overwhelmed is a better word) and my noggin isn't working as clearly as it might otherwise...

For me this is a somewhat... well, not critical issue, as I wasn't planning on going back to Rome any time soon, but since not many years ago I was wrestling with such issues, and have known various folks who also were, the whole situation definitely has my attention. I just can't understand, from the kind of Anglo-Catholic point of view that I have experienced, the desire to go to Rome if one must accept that one's whole previous Anglican sacramental experience (including ordination) has been, basically, "dressing up and playing 'church'" -- and unless Rome is going to throw out some pretty strict doctrines it's held for some time about who's in and who's out of sacramentality, then it seems to me that this would be the case. I would think that the sort of staunch Anglo-Catholic crowd I've known who would leave the Anglican Communion would be happier to be a smaller "continuing Anglican" group. firm in their conviction of Apostolic Succession and their doctrines, than join Rome and basically declare that all the time they were fighting ECUSA's hierarchy on the ordination of women, etc., they weren't real priests or bishops anyway. So I'm utterly baffled at the welcome reception Rome's offer seems to be getting -- but since I'm not exactly on good terms with the folks I've known with that point of view, I can't easily ask, and the websites for their churches just don't seem to be addressing these matters at all.


 

---

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :
 
'dressing up and playing church' are your words,CM, and not those of the Catholic church.

The Catholic church cannot in normal circu,stances accept Anglican ordination as Catholic ordination,but it accepts the 'vocation' of the Anglican clergy ,that they have been called by God to minister to their Anmglican congregations adn that is one of the reasons why the Catholic church is prepared ,in some way to 'fast-track these men to Catholic ordination.
 

---

Posted by the coiled spring (# 2872) on :
 
If there is a mass exodus from the Anglican church to the Vatican, how do we know if it is God's hand guiding. If it is God's calling does that mean the Anglican church is doomed to spend eternity in the burning pits of hell because of it's sinful and lusting ways and He is leading His children into a place of safety.

If God is calling, why do those being called needed to take their baggage with them and want holy positions. Do we need a position in a church to serve God.

It is not like have a job in one company and moving to another having same position or even a more exalted one. If it is what God wants, there could be chance that you are being called to be the lowest of the low and not standing in a spotlight.

Surely when one is called by God we have to make sacrifices, and as has been described on this thread how holy some are, that should not be a problem.

As a claim has been made that many want to nip across to Rome because of ordination of gay priests and gay bishops, would be interested in knowing what percentage of R.C. priests are gay.

Trust me as i have just had a kipper for breakfast
 

---

Posted by Fuzzipeg (# 10107) on :
 
That's irrelevant, isn't it. As Latin Rite RCC priests have to take a vow of celibacy sexual orientation isn't an issue.
 

---

Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by pete173:
But the CofE without them will also be poorer for the loss of part of its catholic heritage, and for the loss of credally orthodox and missional people.

---

quote:

---

That's irrelevant, isn't it. As Latin Rite RCC priests have to take a vow of celibacy sexual orientation isn't an issue.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
So, is there any kind of consensus as to whether this will make the CofE more or less liberal/evangelical?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
So, is there any kind of consensus as to whether this will make the CofE more or less liberal/evangelical?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Forthview:
If a Reformed/Presbyterian/Baptist pastor were to decide tht his/her true spiritual home is really in the episcopal church and that he/she wised to continue to minister within this new community,what would happen ?

.............

He/she might then say : Good,when can I start to attend to the cure of souls ?

Here I think,and please correct me if I am wrong ,the bishop would say :Well,you cannot start to have the cure of souls ,to celebrate the eucharist,until you have received episcopal ordination. whatever else you may or may not believe you absolutely must have episcopal ordination.

Then the former Reformed/Presbyterian/Baptist pastor might say : But I have been working as a pastor for many years,I have regularly celebrated the Lord's supper and preached the Word of God.

What would the bishop then say ?

I hope that he wouldn't say :Well you have just been play acting and for us you really need to dress up and not dress down.

I think he would say,please correct me if I am wrong: We recognise your vocation and your ministry but if you want to be a member of the Episcopal church you simply have to have been ordained and commissioned by a bishop of an Episcopal community.

What is the difference in the Catholic church saying virtually the same thing to those who wish to minister in its name ?

---

quote:

---

10. The New Rite of Ordination

In his famous Bull, Apostolicae Curae, Sept. 13, 1896, Pope Leo XIII solemnly declared that
Anglican Ordinations are invalid. This means that the Anglican sect doesn’t have valid priests or bishops.


Pope Leo XIII, Apostolicae Curae, Sept. 13, 1896: “… of Our own motion and certain
knowledge We pronounce and declare that Ordinations carried out according to the
Anglican rite have been and are absolutely null and utterly void.”4


In making this solemn pronouncement, it must be understood that Pope Leo XIII was not making
Anglican Ordinations invalid, but rather he was declaring that they were invalid due to defects in the rite. But what were those defects or problems which Leo XIII saw with the Anglican Rite, which contributed to its invalidity?


Pope Leo XIII, Apostolicae Curae, Sept. 13, 1896: “When anyone has rightly and seriously
made use of the due form and the matter requisite for effecting or conferring the
sacrament he is considered by that very fact to do what the Church does. On this principle rests the doctrine that a sacrament is truly conferred by the ministry of one who is a heretic or unbaptized, provided the Catholic rite be employed.[*] On the other hand, if the rite be changed, with the manifest intention of introducing another rite not approved by the Church, and of rejecting what the Church does, and what by the institution of Christ belongs to the nature of the sacrament, then it is clear that not only is the necessary intention wanting to the sacrament, but that the intention is
adverse to and destructive of the sacrament.”5

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Edward Green:
Liberalism is something of a spent force in the Church of England.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
Only if you think it's another party alongside the others you've listed. Doesn't the fact that there is this diversity within the Church demonstrate liberalism in action?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
There is also the possibility that those who reject the factional allegiances that evangelical and catholic strands tend to value may be less attached to regular worship. Such people may still see value in and would identify with the national church if given the chance.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
I suspect its more that theological liberalism is an unspent force, both in the country and in the Church, an unseen, mostly silent majority. But if the institution only promotes a 'missional' mentality derived from theological conservatism and a half-acknowledged desire to reverse the decline in numbers, it's no surprise there's little opportunity for non-worshippers to participate and little visibility for their perspective.

---

quote:

---

Wouldn't anglicans say that any ordination which a Reformed/Presbyterian/Baptist may have had,was not an ordination which allowed that person to function as an anglican priest and to undertake the cure of souls in an anglican context?

I think that anglicans will occasionally allow non episcopally ordained clerics to take services (as opposed to participate in them) in anglican churches.Some anglicans,but presumably not all, would not accept on a regular basis the eucharistic ministrations of a non episcopally ordained cleric.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Edward Green:
What doesn't exist is a powerful Liberal lobby or agenda.

---

quote:

---

as motivation Liberalism isn't as strong as some people would like to suggest.

---

quote:

---

I am very aware of these people. They read the Daily Mail and like to be visited.

---

quote:

---

Christianity like football is a team sport. You can't do it on your own isolated from any sort of community of faith.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Except it's not just saying that (the ecclesiastical discipline/'order' point): it's also talking about sacramental invalidity. However, presumably the Church of England would also be concerned about that vis a vis Bappoes and Presbies, so I guess your point still stands!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
True. But some of us are working on it

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pete173:
Yeah, we do. I wish we didn't, and that we just admitted Baptist and URC and Methodists who come over into the ordained ministry of the CofE. Perhaps that'll change one day and we'll stop staring over the Tiber and look the other way.

---

quote:

---

For example, if someone had been ordained by an Orthodox or Old Catholic bishop there would be no reason for even conditional ordination.

---

quote:

---

That is the sort of sensible step the CofE might be able to make if x% of FiF depart or withdraw into a clique.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
The thing to watch is really not so much the Anglican side, in my opinion. In addition to my point above about Catholic liturgy, it will be really interesting to see to what extent regular Latin rite Catholics, lay and ordained, can become part of this new rite.

---

quote:

---

...that issue was raised at the time our parish was established, and it was determined that since the new Code of Canon Law no longer required a person to fulfill his obligation at his territorial parish, but could be a member of any other Catholic parish, the same would be true for us. It's not as though ours is a different Rite, so there are no other canonical questions to be settled. So the short answer it -- no, you don't need to be a convert to be a registered parishioner in an Anglican Use parish.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alt Wally:

quote:

---

That is the sort of sensible step the CofE might be able to make if x% of FiF depart or withdraw into a clique.

---

It would also push it further along in having a fully Protestant ecclesiology.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Organ Builder:
It might or might not be something the Pope would consider a "good thing", however--it might well be a unforeseen and undesirable consequence in his view.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pete173:
Yeah, we do. I wish we didn't, and that we just admitted Baptist and URC and Methodists who come over into the ordained ministry of the CofE. Perhaps that'll change one day and we'll stop staring over the Tiber and look the other way.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulTH*:
The present position with Synod and the revision committee makes it that the game is over for catholic Anglicans who believe that the threefold order or bishops, priests and deacons, and the reciting of the historic creeds of the undivided Church, makes the C of E part of that Church.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulTH*:

The present position with Synod and the revision committee makes it that the game is over for catholic Anglicans who believe that the threefold order or bishops, priests and deacons, and the reciting of the historic creeds of the undivided Church, makes the C of E part of that Church.

---

quote:

---

Is there anyone posting or reading here who is considering going to Rome in this situation -- who believes that Anglican ordinations have been valid but wishes to enter the RCC anyway? Can you fill us in on how this works for you?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by FreeJack:

The CofE might even sell-off a building that it no longer needs, but that would not be quick if it were the only church in a parish or benefice, as the parish would have to merged in a pastoral scheme as well as the Commissioners selling off a church, so it would be two years plus with goodwill.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by FreeJack:

For instance a third of FiF going next year make women bishops much more likely.

---

quote:

---

That makes talks with the methodists more serious as an option. Which makes social gospel stuff more at the forefront. The younger evangelicals in the CofE are as in to fairtrade etc. as the liberals.

---

quote:

---

But in the short term, there would be a group of evo clergy (from open to charismatic, but perhaps not the most conservative) who would be the biggest clergy group in HoC in Synod, with AffCath only the second largest.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulTH*:
When Walter Cardinal Kasper addressed the General Synod, he said that the Church of England must decide if it sees itself as part of the undivided Church of the first millennium, or does it self-identify as a church of the Reformation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChastMastr:
The present position with Synod and the revision committee makes it that the game is over for catholic Anglicans who believe that the threefold order or bishops, priests and deacons, and the reciting of the historic creeds of the undivided Church, makes the C of E part of that Church.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alt Wally:
I don't think anything is being formally abandoned. The compromise is falling apart. This is a good summary.

---

It looks a lot like a blank web-page stuffed with dodgy links to me Any chance of a summary for those of us the site won't load for?
 

---

Posted by Alt Wally (# 3245) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
It looks a lot like a blank web-page stuffed with dodgy links to me Any chance of a summary for those of us the site won't load for?

---

quote:

---

David Lewis Stokes: On the pope’s outreach to Episcopalians

01:00 AM EDT on Tuesday, October 27, 2009

DAVID LEWIS STOKES

IN EARLY JUNE 1999 I was deposed as a priest in the Episcopal Church. By the month’s end my family and I were received into the Roman Catholic Church. And four years later, I was ordained a priest under what is called the Pastoral Provision.

At that time I made the resolve neither to write about my conversion nor to engage in religious skirmishes on the op-ed page. Knowing that “informed public discourse” is an oxymoron, I had no desire to give offense to a church whose spirituality I loved (and still love) and whose people I had been privileged to serve.

Nor did I have any desire to travel the circuit of professional convert and recite my “story” as something of an over-rehearsed party-piece. Moreover, I have become increasingly allergic to a certain sub-culture that would turn the Roman Catholic Church into an neo-conservative ideology impervious to nuance and devoid of humility. (I confess that I did consent to one newspaper interview and a cable-TV program. But I did so with great reluctance and have lived to regret both.)

But the recent announcement by Rome of an apostolic constitution by which Anglicans — parishes, pastors and people — will be incorporated into the Catholic Church and still retain their ecclesial identity demands comment. Or I should say that the reporting of this news demands comment. For the foundational issue that has roiled the Anglican Communion (especially the Episcopal Church) for three decades continues to be obscured by the simplistic spin to which journalists, theological naifs, are inclined.

The basic issue has never been women priests nor even the ordination of practicing homosexuals. These two issues, as serious and divisive as they may be, are simply the more newsworthy symptoms of a pathology that has gone in and out of remission for some 400 years, and that was fated to return with a fatal virulence upon the demise of British culture.

The basic issue that has eroded the Anglican Communion is what has been eating away at its foundations for 400 years: how ecclesiastical authority is to be understood. Since the 16th Century, two very different understandings of authority have engaged in a tug-of-war within the Church of England and the larger Anglican Communion.

One understanding is that the church is determined and shaped by Catholic tradition. Anglicans committed to this understanding of authority have sought to be faithful to that which has been believed by Christians everywhere and at all times. And while these Anglicans would admit that a correct discernment of Catholic tradition is often difficult, they have always considered their church bound by this tradition.

The second understanding of authority, while often respectful of Catholic tradition, proceeds from the Protestant principle of private judgment. This understanding may (and often does) appeal to Scripture and the Holy Spirit. And as long as it was rooted in a coherent culture, this understanding seemed to possess a theological coherence of sorts. But when it is torn from the soil of a coherent culture, as has occurred over the last century, the roots of this understanding are seen to be what they always were: the occasional opinions of whatever happened to be the prevailing majority.

The first understanding of church authority is that Christian revelation presents us with an objective truth to be pursued. The second understanding believes that if there ever was a Christian revelation, it presents us only with an approximation of whatever God may (or may not) be. That such a house divided has managed to stand for 400 years is an odd testament, I suppose, to the power of British culture. But an ethos can hide incoherence for only so long.

And it is this incoherence that Pope Benedict XVI now seeks to address. Benedict is acknowledging nothing less than the integrity of those Anglicans who have always understood themselves rooted in the Catholic tradition. And, at the same time, he seeks to provide them with a structure by which they may be incorporated into the universal church, without having to jettison a rich devotional patrimony.

To reduce the Vatican’s proposal to ecclesiastical sheep-stealing is of course stupid. And to explain it away as providing a fire escape for those who have “difficulty” with women priests and gay bishops would be condescending if it wasn’t so simple-minded. But given that objective truth has long since ceased to be a concern for many (Anglicans and others), it isn’t surprising that Benedict’s proposal would be viewed simply in terms of one ecclesial corporation engaging in a hostile take-over of another.

Will there be a mass exodus from the Church of England? Probably not. The few Englishmen who continue to attend their local parish church do so more as a way of staving off the cultural chaos that now ravages English society than out of any confessional commitment. If anything, the pope’s proposal may inadvertently accelerate Anglicanism’s drift to becoming a global equivalent of the Metropolitan Church.

What of the impact on America? I suspect that its impact will be minimal. Within a mere two centuries Americans have become genetically predisposed to the Protestant principle of private judgment — including many “conservative” Episcopalians and, paradoxically enough, a large number of Roman Catholics. Besides, with each passing generation, ethnic Catholic parishes, marginal to begin with, have been absorbed by the larger church or closed. Moreover, it’s hard to imagine the Anglican Book of Common Prayer stemming the flood of liturgical mediocrity any time soon.

But the impact of Pope Benedict’s proposal is really beside the point. Truth has never been about numbers, and victories are always pyrrhic. It is enough for many of us that those Anglicans who have labored long after the Catholic tradition have at last been recognized by the church that most completely instantiates this tradition.

The Rev. David Lewis Stokes, a Catholic priest and formerly an Episcopal one, is an associate professor of theology at Providence College.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
...

I still worry that we might see a disproportionate departure of priests, leading to a lack of people who know how to conduct the kind of liturgy that some of the abandoned parishes might expect.

...

---

quote:

---

The basic issue has never been women priests nor even the ordination of practicing homosexuals. These two issues, as serious and divisive as they may be, are simply the more newsworthy symptoms of a pathology that has gone in and out of remission for some 400 years, and that was fated to return with a fatal virulence upon the demise of British culture.

---

quote:

---

The first understanding of church authority is that Christian revelation presents us with an objective truth to be pursued. The second understanding believes that if there ever was a Christian revelation, it presents us only with an approximation of whatever God may (or may not) be.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
Not sure about that. Maybe its being used to Southwark and Brighton but the Liberal Catholic ascendency looks pretty unassailable here.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
"the demise of British culture." eh? Because of all those gays and women and blacks and Muslims I suppose. I pity the poor parish that had this nasty, bitter man imposed on it as their priest.

---

Wow. I just sped past that line and vaguely imagined he meant something about the demise of sun-never-sets-on-the-Empire British colonialist culture... perhaps even with the implication that a certain type of non-spiritual, cultural "Christianity" (churchianity?) was rightly vanishing, allowing people's real beliefs to come through as the cultural pretenses faded away. Or, er, something like that. I think your analysis is right here...



David
see prior statement about my recently distracted grey matter above; I must work harder on reading for comprehension...
 

---

Posted by FreeJack (# 10612) on :
 

quote:

---

Will there be a mass exodus from the Church of England? Probably not. The few Englishmen who continue to attend their local parish church do so more as a way of staving off the cultural chaos that now ravages English society than out of any confessional commitment.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Edward Green:
I am excited to see what Liberals can bring to the table in terms of discipleship and mission.

---

quote:

---

all the Churches I know which are Liberal and growing are also evangelistic, centered in the tradition, and confessionally creedal, even if the individual is free to interpret as they wish.

---

quote:

---

If the Liberals want a stronger voice in the Church then they need to demonstrate how they are part of Christ's plan 'to build my church'. I am not sure 'being the Church for people who don't go' will work unless some people actually do go in the first place.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pete173:
Yeah, we do. I wish we didn't, and that we just admitted Baptist and URC and Methodists who come over into the ordained ministry of the CofE. Perhaps that'll change one day and we'll stop staring over the Tiber and look the other way.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Forthview:
Myhrr Wouldn't anglicans say that any ordination which a Reformed/Presbyterian/Baptist may have had,was not an ordination which allowed that person to function as an anglican priest and to undertake the cure of souls in an anglican context?

..
Perhaps some Anglican who knows more about this could let us know.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freejack:

quote:

---

---

I thought you left the CofE for Judaism?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChastMastr:
Yikes (from my point of view)! So... you mean the C of E is formally abandoning that, or...?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave Marshall:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Edward Green:
I am excited to see what Liberals can bring to the table in terms of discipleship and mission.

---

If you define 'Liberals' in terms of what they cannot authentically deliver, you're hardly going to see much to get excited about. Although that seems pretty much the view implicit in most of the Fresh Expressions stuff I've seen.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave Marshall:

quote:

---

all the Churches I know which are Liberal and growing are also evangelistic, centered in the tradition, and confessionally creedal, even if the individual is free to interpret as they wish.

---

I don't see anything theologically liberal there. There's no empirical reality by which to compare interpretations for correctness, so it's only ever a matter of degree of variation. Even those happy to trot out a party line may undertstand what they say entirely differently. It makes no sense (unless you have an empire to control) for a faith-related institution to make membership depend on willingness to say a particular form of words.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave Marshall:

quote:

---

If the Liberals want a stronger voice in the Church then they need to demonstrate how they are part of Christ's plan 'to build my church'. I am not sure 'being the Church for people who don't go' will work unless some people actually do go in the first place.

---

Yeah, well, if you assume Church is what you happen to prefer and ignore the possibility that such a model might be outdated, you automatically exclude those who find it irrelevant. But I guess that's Radical Orthodoxy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Edward Green:
I see no intrinsic problem with progressive or radical theology. Even non-Realism brings something to the table in terms of Discipleship or Mission.

---

quote:

---

I would see engagement with a particular set of faith narratives as having meaning and value beyond classical faith as a mark of Liberal Christianity. Not saying 'we don't believe in the resurrection', but saying 'this is what the story of the resurrection means to us'.

---

quote:

---

So the Liberalism you are now suggesting is post-church? I do not deny that the Church needs to be reformed, it always does. But what is the point of being part of a Modern Church-person's Union if you don't believe or wish to participate in the central christian narrative of the church?

---

quote:

---

Sorry Dave, I don't mean to get at you.

---

That's OK. I appreciate the interest.

[ 28. October 2009, 13:20: Message edited by: Dave Marshall ]
 

---

Posted by pete173 (# 4622) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Edward Green:
[QUOTE]I am very glad that when I came into the Church of England an Apostle laid hands on me, and Another Apostle laid hands on me when I was Ordained!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pete173:
And I just wonder how you know (apart from the assertion of the denominations concerned) that those who laid hands on you were apostolic (which I do believe) and those who led the church(es) you were in previously weren't. Tactile succession (historically broken anyway) is a rather feeble way of discerning this curious idea of "validity", don't you think?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChastMastr:
Ah! (Who's NB?) Which is the concept under discussion (albeit tangential to the main topic) here then?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChastMastr:
(Who's NB?)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Edward Green:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChastMastr:
Ah! (Who's NB?) Which is the concept under discussion (albeit tangential to the main topic) here then?

---

'liberal catholic' can mean a lot of different things to different people.

To some it means 'liberals who like dressing up and doing catholic stuff'.

To others it means 'catholic's who are liberal about aspects of their catholicism'

I suspect like the term 'Liberal Evangelical' it is rather broken.

---

And then there would be liberal politically or liberal theologically -- and what that would mean... in the US it is often assumed that "liberal" or "conservative" politics and theology go hand in hand, but this is fortunately not assumed in the UK.

Erm, sorry, I should not derail the thread. Although there may be some overlap come to think of it -- at least in my personal experience, the departing Anglicans who have been leaving the Episcopal Church have tended to also be more conservative politically too. I imagine this need not be the case in the UK?

(And this brings up the whole array of issues of Rome, the Anglican Communion, and various countries' politics, etc. -- all of which deserves its own thread...)
 

---

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChastMastr:
Is there anyone posting or reading here who is considering going to Rome in this situation -- who believes that Anglican ordinations have been valid but wishes to enter the RCC anyway? Can you fill us in on how this works for you?

---

quote:

---

Is there anyone posting or reading here who is considering going to Rome in this situation -- who believes that Anglican ordinations have been valid but wishes to enter the RCC anyway? Can you fill us in on how this works for you?

---

quote:

---

This form had, indeed, afterwards added to it the words "for the office and work of a priest," etc.; but this rather shows that the Anglicans themselves perceived that the first form was defective and inadequate. But even if this addition could give to the form its due signification, it was introduced too late, as a century had already elapsed since the adoption of the Edwardine Ordinal, for, as the Hierarchy had become extinct, there remained no power of ordaining.

---

quote:

---

In this way, the native character or spirit as it is called of the Ordinal clearly manifests itself. Hence, if, vitiated in its origin, it was wholly insufficient to confer Orders, it was impossible that, in the course of time, it would become sufficient, since no change had taken place. In vain those who, from the time of Charles I, have attempted to hold some kind of sacrifice or of priesthood, have made additions to the Ordinal. In vain also has been the contention of that small section of the Anglican body formed in recent times that the said Ordinal can be understood and interpreted in a sound and orthodox sense. Such efforts, we affirm, have been, and are, made in vain, and for this reason, that any words in the Anglican Ordinal, as it now is, which lend themselves to ambiguity, cannot be taken in the same sense as they possess in the Catholic rite. For once a new rite has been initiated in which, as we have seen, the Sacrament of Order is adulterated or denied, and from which all idea of consecration and sacrifice has been rejected, the formula, "Receive the Holy Ghost", no longer holds good, because the Spirit is infused into the soul with the grace of the Sacrament, and so the words "for the office and work of a priest or bishop", and the like no longer hold good, but remain as words without the reality which Christ instituted.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:
ISTM that modern RC theology, by saying a sacrament can both efficacious and invalid, has made the concept of "validity" so abstract as to be meaningless.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
I am slightly hesitant about posting this, because of past experience on the SoF in discussing the RC attitude to Anglican Orders. It is a subject about which Anglicans are naturally sensitive and offended, and can lead to rancour.

---

quote:

---

Indeed, one reason I've not been happy with the Episcopal/Lutheran Concordat is the exact same principle involved here -- and I've said many times before that it's worse for the Lutherans -- since the Lutherans don't believe their previous ordinations were invalid, making them ordain future clergy with at least one Episcopal bishop involved (so that future Lutheran clergy will have Apostolic Succession as we Episcopalians believe in it) is something they should rightly reject, according to their own ecclesiology.

---

quote:

---

If someone believes that the Roman Catholic Church is the correct church, let them be a Roman Catholic, and not some kind of Catholic with elements of the Anglian "tradition" tossed in.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by uffda:
Those who see the Anglican priest and bishop in terms of a sacrificial priesthood, (most closely aligned with the RCC) will find themselves necessarily having to reject the Ordination of Women ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alt Wally:
I think uffda's post encapsulates well how significant the shift was for the Episcopal Church in moving away from what would traditionally be considered the "catholic" understanding of holy orders. This inevitably has led in my experience to a change in the understanding of the sacrament itself, often shifting from substance to sign.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by FCB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:
ISTM that modern RC theology, by saying a sacrament can both efficacious and invalid, has made the concept of "validity" so abstract as to be meaningless.

---

I'm not sure exactly what you mean. An invalid sacrament isn't a type of sacrament (one that, despite being "invalid," can still be "efficacious"); it isn't a sacrament at all. To say that a ritual might be invalid sacramentally but still be an occasion of grace is pretty much the same as saying that reading Graham Greene's The Power and the Glory or listening to Allegri's Miserere are not sacraments, but that they can still be occasions of God's grace. Grace is not restricted to the sacraments. So the ministry of an Anglican priest might be an occasion of grace, even if (in RC eyes) he did not validly receive the sacrament of orders.

---

quote:

---

FB, are you saying that an Anglican Eucharist is equivalent to reading a good book in terms of the grace it affords?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by FCB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:
ISTM that modern RC theology, by saying a sacrament can both efficacious and invalid, has made the concept of "validity" so abstract as to be meaningless.

---

I'm not sure exactly what you mean. An invalid sacrament isn't a type of sacrament (one that, despite being "invalid," can still be "efficacious"); it isn't a sacrament at all.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thurible:
FB, are you saying that an Anglican Eucharist is equivalent to reading a good book in terms of the grace it affords?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Triple Tiara:



The famous 19C English RC scholar John Lingard said that the order used for the ordination of a bishop could equally be used for the admission of a parish clerk. Or as I once argued here, for the blessing of a new school headmaster. There was nothing to indicate that a bishop was being ordained for the Catholic Church.

---

quote:

---

..But then as now the judgement remains the same: from a perspective of conferring Catholic Orders, the Anglican Church gave up both the form and intention of doing so. Thus Pope Leo wrote:

quote:

---

In this way, the native character or spirit as it is called of the Ordinal clearly manifests itself. Hence, if, vitiated in its origin, it was wholly insufficient to confer Orders, it was impossible that, in the course of time, it would become sufficient, since no change had taken place. In vain those who, from the time of Charles I, have attempted to hold some kind of sacrifice or of priesthood, have made additions to the Ordinal. In vain also has been the contention of that small section of the Anglican body formed in recent times that the said Ordinal can be understood and interpreted in a sound and orthodox sense. Such efforts, we affirm, have been, and are, made in vain, and for this reason, that any words in the Anglican Ordinal, as it now is, which lend themselves to ambiguity, cannot be taken in the same sense as they possess in the Catholic rite. For once a new rite has been initiated in which, as we have seen, the Sacrament of Order is adulterated or denied, and from which all idea of consecration and sacrifice has been rejected, the formula, "Receive the Holy Ghost", no longer holds good, because the Spirit is infused into the soul with the grace of the Sacrament, and so the words "for the office and work of a priest or bishop", and the like no longer hold good, but remain as words without the reality which Christ instituted.

---

That judgement still holds. So those now converting will need to be ordained in the Catholic Church if they wish to exercise a priestly ministry.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thurible:
I edited but forgot to post it!

Thanks for that. Does that not make Anglo-Catholics guilty of idolatory?

One of the things that will prevent many A-Cs, whether ordained or no, poping (through the Apostolic Constitution or otherwise) is, to my mind, the fact that they would be denying either their previous sacerdotal ministry or the fact that they had received such.

I am not criticising your view - it is the view of the Catholic Church and makes perfect sense within that community's self-understanding.

What I'm trying to understand, though, is whether those who do not regard Anglican priests as being priests within the Church of God regard their sacraments [sic.] as being misguided but sincere prayers which are simply guilty of misunderstanding what's actually going on or, alternatively, the "blasphemous fables" that some Protestants would accuse them of so being.

Thurible

---

quote:

---

• Prayer at the ordination of a former Anglican minister to the Catholic presbyterate.
This prayer was ordered to be said by the CDF. It is said before the Litany and not, it should be noted, the ordination prayer itself.
Oratio ad gratias agendas pro ministerio ab electo in Communione anglicana expleto
Deinde mones surgunt. Epsicopus, deposita mitra, stans manibus iunctis versus ad electum dicit:
N., the Holy Catholic Church recognizes that not a few of the sacred actions of the Christian religion as carried out in communities separated from her can truly engender a life of grace and can rightly be described as providing access to the community of salvation. And so we now pray.
Et omnes, per aliquod temporis spatium, silentio orant. Deinde, manus extensis, Episcopus orat dicens:
Almighty Father, we give you thanks for the x years
of faithful ministry of your servant N. in the Anglican Communion [vel: in the Church of England],
whose fruitfulness for salvation has been derived
from the very fullness of grace and truth
entrusted to the Catholic Church.
As your servant has been received into full communion
and now seeks to be ordained to the presbyterate in the Catholic Church,
we beseech you to bring to fruition that for which we now pray.
Through Jesus Christ, our Lord.
Populus acclamat:
Amen.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
From 1550 to 1662 there was not even a mention of the words priest or bishop in the service of ordination. 1550 simply used the formula "Receive the Holy Ghost" and "Take the Holy Ghost", without saying for what.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Shadowhund:
I would not globablly describe latter-day Anglicans as idolatrous or sacriligious. (I might well say that about Cranmer, Ridley, Hooper, and Latimer, and perhaps even Parker himself though he is a more sympathetic human being than the first four.) .

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Max.:
I've asked this on both my facebook and my twitter and I'm going to ask it here:

What will the Traditional Anglicans do when 20 years down the road, the Vatican decides to ordain women to the priesthood?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by k-mann:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Max.:
I've asked this on both my facebook and my twitter and I'm going to ask it here:

What will the Traditional Anglicans do when 20 years down the road, the Vatican decides to ordain women to the priesthood?

---

This question assumes that the Catholic Church's ecclesiology is of the same pick-and-choose type as some protestant churches. The Catholic Churh will never ordain women to the priesthood.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin L:
All it takes is one pope...

---

quote:

---

If you mean ordaining women, for at least some in the CofE that went along with a move in the other direction. For reasons that are probably off-topic here.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alt Wally:
John Paul II himself said he did not have the power to change the the church's stance on the ordination of women.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChastMastr:
My understanding (as the kind of Anglo-Catholic I am, anyway) of sacraments and their validity is that they are definitely valid when consecrated by a priest or bishop in Apostolic Succession (which includes those in the Anglican, Orthodox, and Roman Catholic churches)...

---