Posted on 07/12/2005 12:47:41 PM PDT by sionnsar
LONDON (CNS) -- A Catholic bishop said Anglican clerics opposed to the ordination of women bishops should not be received into the Catholic Church for "negative reasons."
Bishop Declan Lang of Clifton, one of England's leading Catholic ecumenists, spoke amid rising speculation that the vote taken by the Church of England July 11 to remove legal obstacles to the episcopal ordination of women would lead to mass defections of traditionalist clergy.
Bishop Lang, co-chairman of the English Anglican-Roman Catholic Committee, a group that meets twice a year to promote ecumenical projects and the joint study of theology, said mechanisms existed within the English Catholic Church to receive married Anglican ministers and even to ordain them as Catholic priests.
"When there was the ordination of women in the first place there were some Anglicans who applied to be received into the Catholic Church, and the same provision is there at the moment," he told Catholic News Service <http://www.catholicnews.com/index.html> July 12. "But there is an understanding that you don't come into the Catholic Church for a negative reason.
"Those Anglican priests who were received into the church were received for positive reasons -- for example, that they accepted the teaching authority of the church," he said.
About 400 English Anglican clerics converted to Catholicism after the General Synod of the Church of England voted to ordain women in 1992, and a number of them -- married and single -- became Catholic priests.
The vote for women bishops has led to predictions of more defections, with Anglican Bishop Andrew Burnham of Ebbsfleet telling The Sunday Times newspaper July 10 that he would join the Catholic Church along with about 800 Anglican ministers if the Church of England failed to provide a "third province" with an all-male clergy.
The two provinces in the Church of England are Canterbury and York, established during the Anglo-Saxon period by St. Augustine and St. Paulinus. A third province would require an archbishop and would be totally autonomous from, but in communion with, other Anglican churches throughout the world.
Bishop Lang said he did not think the decisive vote by all three houses of the General Synod of the Church of England, meeting at York University, would harm relations between the Catholic and Anglican churches.
"Our conversations will continue," he said.
Anglican Bishop Tom Butler of Southwark said during the debate that the Church of England should not be deterred by its relations with Catholics.
"The Church of England, catholic and reformed, has before acted prophetically for the wider church: The vernacular liturgy, married clergy, have all been pioneered by our church and have proved to be a blessing to other communions also," Bishop Butler said. "The same I believe will be true of women's orders, which we are pioneering."
The vote means that women could be ordained bishops in England within seven years.
Fourteen of the world's 38 Anglican churches already have decided to allow women bishops.
The Rev. David Houlding, leader of the Anglo-Catholic group of the General Synod, told the British Broadcasting Corp. radio July 12 that he feared the unity of the Anglican Communion would be damaged as a result of the vote.
"We need proper provision for people who do not agree with that decision to stay within the Church of England," he said.
But Christina Reese of the campaign group Women and the Church told the same program that such a move would result only in an "ecclesiastical ghetto."
"We have had women priests for over 11 years, and it's normal now for people to see women as part of the clergy," she said.
William Oddie, author of "The Roman Option," a 1997 book about the defections from the Church of England after women began to be ordained in 1994, told CNS July 11 that it was "ludicrous to say you can't have women bishops" if it was accepted that women could be ordained as priests.
Oddie, a former Anglican minister who converted to Catholicism in the 1980s, said that in the 1990s some disaffected Anglicans made contact with Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, head of the Vatican's doctrinal congregation, about a possible "parallel jurisdiction," and the future Pope Benedict XVI was said to have been sympathetic.
Such a parallel jurisdiction, Oddie said, would mean that the former Anglicans would be in communion with the Catholic Church but would be under the authority of their own bishop.
"This pope might accept a separate body which is outside the jurisdiction of the English Catholic bishops," Oddie said, adding that he thought the vote would mean many Anglican ministers would be "coming to Rome one way or another."
"They have been asking for a third province, and it is possible that they could be offered that rather than go to Rome," said Oddie. "Personally, I think Rome ought to outbid them (the Anglican bishops) and say 'Come to us, we are here for you.'"
I don't know anything about this bishop, but is it possible that he's been quoted out of context?
Because he's involved in ecumenical affairs with the Anglican Church, he's in a delicate position when it comes to discussions about a large number of Anglican Clergy being received into the Catholic Church. Is it possible he was making a diplomatic gesture that sounds awkward?
I have been restrained, bub. But I am more than ready to load my rocket launcher and let you have it if you continue with the smarmy attitude of self-appointed thought police on behalf of the dignity of the Catholic episcopate.
Back off.
Clifton Bishop's Easter Message:
Oscar Romero was assassinated on the 24th of March 1980. He was Archbishop of San Salvador, the capital city of El Salvador in Central America. Perhaps to us in this country, bishops are unlikely assassination targets, but to people in authority in El Salvador, Romero was a dangerous man. Through his words and through upholding the rights of the poor, Romero threatened their power base. He exposed corruption. He was a man with integrity and because of his integrity some people felt very uncomfortable. The solution was to rid themselves of this prophet. And so they killed him whilst he was celebrating Mass.
At one time those in authority applauded Romero. He was one of them. He was a good man but not someone who would upset the status quo. What they did not count on was that Romero would change. And the change occurred because he began to listen to the stories of the poor and the marginalised. He began to see their plight and the injustices under which they lived. This gave him a new perception on how life should be if there was to be justice for all. Not only did Romero change, he sought to change others and the structures of his society so that everyone would see life with new eyes. He died to his old perceptions of what is right and he became a new person.
This weekend we celebrate Easter, the main Christian Feast that extends from Thursday evening through Friday and Saturday to Easter Sunday. We celebrate the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. We believe that in learning to die to selfishness and injustice, we can become a new people. We believe that structures in society that crush people rather enhance their lives can be changed. We believe that Jesus shows us a new way of life and enables us to live it.
Not long before he died, Oscar Romero said: “As a Christian I don’t believe in death without resurrection.” His own life was a story of dying and rising. He died to his old understanding of life and rose to a new one. That resurrection brought him to a martyr’s death but he lives on. He is an inspiration to many of what it means to be a friend of the poor and a champion of justice. This Easter what do we have to die to in order to live?
"I disagree with your observation that "entering Anglicans will be conservative." True, some will. However, the entering Anglicans remained Anglicans until now and did not seek union with Rome when the Church of England authorized female ordination in '92. They didn't cross the Tiber in 1991 after the House of Bishops approved Issues in Human Sexuality, a report in which the Bishops accepted "committed and permanent" homosexual relationships for the laity. If these two issues--particularly Issues in Human Sexuality--did not lead an Anglican to leave, then why are they leaving now that women are being made bishops?"
I respectfully disagree with your point. Changing churches, particularly one that you've been in for most if not all of your life, is a significant change. People tend to stick with what they know. But people do reach "tipping points", and there is something of a group-think mentality. Folks take a look around and see what their respected peers are doing and often follow in those foot steps.
I'm sure you've heard the old saw of the straw that broke the camel's back. This might be the straw for significant number of Anglicans. It might not be. We don't know at this point.
My take exactly.
Being PO'd about X is not a good "reason" to join Y.
OTOH, another few hundred clergy who dissent from Rome's teachings will hardly make a BIG difference either here or in merrie aulde England...
Umnnnhhh....
There's more than a little controversy as to the absolute truth of your claim about Innocent III's proclamation.
Just because I.3's WRITTEN declaration was issued in XXXX does not mean that the practice/discipline/tradition was not used beforehand.
There is a good deal of evidence that priests were expected to be either celibate or continent (if married) from Day One. Not conclusive, yet, but extremely persuasive.
Violations of the expectation were numerous and sometimes infamous--but what's new?
Well--
1) This puts a different light on the statement.
2) Why am I not surprised about your testimony?
Vicky Gene was the last straw for Hubby and me. We are beginning the process of "swimming the Tiber" and this latest development just confirms to us that we are headed in the right direction. As former members of an Anglo-Catholic Episcopal church, it is hard to leave and go to a modern, ugly Roman Catholic church with guitar music. But I'm convinced that the salvation of our souls is at stake. Lack of aesthetics is made up for in the richness of doctrine, and the fact that the Roman Catholic church has instructions from God on how to handle all of life's problems, joys, sorrows, and mundaneness. It is a very comforting realization.
"Welcome Home."
http://www.hannity.com/gallery/view_photo.php?set_albumName=Freedom-Concert-2005&id=acv
I have to agree with RD here. I watched the departures begin in 1979, departing myself in 1983, and have met those who've departed since. For those who converted to ECUSA at some point in their lives leaving doesn't seem to be anywhere near as difficult as it is for cradle Episcopalians. The latter tend to hang on until matters become untenable, until they reach the tipping point. (My departure was eased by a move to a new locale -- I didn't have the comfort of a familiar church to hang on to.)
And it's not the liberals who are leaving. Why should they? ECUSA is becoming more and more the kind of church they want.
ninenot,
I'm very sorry about being unclear. It is beyond dispute that celibacy was both encouraged in the West and sometimes required, depending on the Metropolitan, for a long time before I 3. It was his encyclical which made it mandatory for all provinces under his Primacy, is what I meant.
In Christ,
Deacon Paul+
As a former member of a modern ugly Roman Catholic church with guitar music, I can entirely sympathize. The American branch of the Tiber has gotten clogged with debris: 30 years' worth of polyester and felt.
Have you had a chance to look at other liturgical options: Eastern Catholic churches, Latin Mass indults and/or Anglican Use parishes?
"I will assume from your answer that you have tried and convicted said bishop of heresy without the evidence."
I can give Siobhan all the evidence she needs, as I've heard it straight from the horse's mouth. Any believer in the dioceses of Portsmouth or Clifton could no doubt also furnish you with plenty of reasons why. He should never have been appointed and the fact that he was is a huge black mark on the last pontificate as far as I'm concerned. He is just one example of how JPII aided and abetted the liberals in their attempted destruction of HMC.
His opinions on putative female "ordination" are well covered in the UK Catholic press, and on this matter alone he is clearly a heretic - cf. Ad Tuendam Fidem.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.