Churches back plan to unite under Pope

Radical proposals to reunite Anglicans with the Roman Catholic Church under the leadership of the Pope are to be published this year, The Times has learnt.

In a 42-page statement prepared by an international commission of both churches, Anglicans and Roman Catholics are urged to explore how they might reunite under the Pope.

The statement, leaked to The Times, is being considered by the Vatican, where Catholic bishops are preparing a formal response.

It comes as the archbishops who lead the 38 provinces of the Anglican Communion meet in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, in an attempt to avoid schism over gay ordination and other liberal doctrines that have taken hold in parts of the Western Church.

The 36 primates at the gathering will be aware that the Pope, while still a cardinal, sent a message of support to the orthodox wing of the Episcopal Church of the US as it struggled to cope with the fallout after the ordination of the gay bishop Gene Robinson.

Were this week’s discussions to lead to a split between liberals and conservatives, many of the former objections in Rome to a reunion with Anglican conservatives would disappear. Many of those Anglicans who object most strongly to gay ordination also oppose the ordination of women priests.

Rome has already shown itself willing to be flexible on the subject of celibacywhen it received dozens of married priests from the Church of England into the Catholic priesthood after they left over the issue of women’s ordination.

There are about 78 million Anglicans, compared with a billion Roman Catholics, worldwide. In England and Wales, the Catholic Church is set to overtake Anglicanism as the predominant Christian denomination for the first time since the Reformation, thanks to immigration from Catholic countries.

As the Anglicans’ squabbles over the fundamentals of Christian doctrine continue — with seven of the conservative primates twice refusing to share Communion with the other Anglican leaders at their meeting in Tanzania — the Church’s credibility is being increasingly undermined in a world that is looking for strong witness from its international religious leaders.

The Anglicans will attempt to re-solve their differences today by publishing a new Anglican Covenant, an attempt to provide a doctrinal statement under which they can unite.

But many fear that the divisions have gone too far to be bridged and that, if they cannot even share Communion with each other, there is little hope that they will agree on a statement of common doctrine.

The latest Anglican-Catholic report could hardly come at a more sensitive time. It has been drawn up by the International Anglican-Roman Catholic Commission for Unity and Mission, which is chaired by the Right Rev David Beetge, an Anglican bishop from South Africa, and the Most Rev John Bathersby, the Catholic Archbishop of Brisbane, Australia.

The commission was set up in 2000 by the former Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord Carey of Clifton, and Cardinal Edward Cassidy, the president of the Vatican’s Council for Christian Unity. Its aim was to find a way of moving towards unity through “common life and mission”.

The document leaked to The Times is the commission’s first statement, Growing Together in Unity and Mission. The report acknowledges the “imperfect communion” between the two churches but says that there is enough common ground to make its “call for action” about the Pope and other issues.

In one significant passage the report notes: “The Roman Catholic Church teaches that the ministry of the Bishop of Rome [the Pope] as universal primate is in accordance with Christ’s will for the Church and an essential element of maintaining it in unity and truth.” Anglicans rejected the Bishop of Rome as universal primate in the 16th century. Today, however, some Anglicans are beginning to see the potential value of a ministry of universal primacy, which would be exercised by the Bishop of Rome, as a sign and focus of unity within a reunited Church.

In another paragraph the report goes even further: “We urge Anglicans and Roman Catholics to explore together how the ministry of the Bishop of Rome might be offered and received in order to assist our Communions to grow towards full, ecclesial communion.”

Other recommendations include inviting lay and ordained members of both denominations to attend each other’s synodical and collegial gatherings and conferences.

Anglican bishops could be invited to accompany Catholic ones on their regular visits to Rome.

The report adds that special “protocols” should also be drawn up to handle the movement of clergy from one Church to the other. Other proposals include common teaching resources for children in Sunday schoolsand attendance at each other’s services, pilgrimages and processions.

Anglicans are also urged to begin praying for the Pope during the intercessionary prayers in church services, and Catholics are asked also to pray publicly for the Archbishop of Canterbury.

In today’s Anglican Church, it is unlikely that a majority of parishioners would wish to heal the centuries-old rift and return to Rome.

However, the stance of the present Archbishop of Canterbury over the present dispute dividing his Church gives an indication of how priorities could be changing in light of the gospel imperative towards church unity.

Dr Rowan Williams, who as Primate of the Church of England is its “focus for unity”, has in the past supported a liberal interpretation of Scripture on the gay issue. But he has made it clear that church unity must come before provincial autonomy. A logical extension of that, once this crisis is overcome either by agreement or schism, would be to seek reunion with the Church of England's own mother Church.

The trigger in England was Henry VIII’s wish to remarry. The Pope had said that his marriage to Anne Boleyn was illegal

Henry had been a devout Catholic. But when he turned on the Catholic Church he seized its land and cash and destroyed its religious heritage in Britain

Centuries of suppression continued until Catholic emancipation and the restoration of the hierarchy in the 19th century

Peach -

As a former Episcopalian, now RC, I will try to answer a couple of your questions.

In 1980, John Paul II established the Pastoral Provision for Anglicans/Episcopalians who are converting to Rome. It provides that entire congregations, along with their priests, may convert. Many times the priest will go on to become an RC priest, even if married. The Anglican Use parishes use the "Book of Divine Worship," which is basically the 1979 BCP which has been modified to conform to the Latin Rite. For example, the Mass is the same, with the Words of Consecration changed to the Roman Canon. In addition, I think most of the Anglican Use parishes use the 1982 Episcopal Hymnal - I know mine does.

Here is a website on the Pastoral Provision, which explains everything and provides links to Anglican Use parishes:

http://www.pastoralprovision.org/

When Mr. Claret and I converted, we had to have our previous marriages annuled. It was a very healing experience! It was not about whether we considered our previous marriages binding, but whether or not they were Sacramental. The Church makes that judgement after having been given all the facts - and it is really a judgement about facts and not feelings.

Hope this has helped. Freepmail me if you have any questions. I will be happy to answer them.

nan c

You wrote:

"What a freakingly stupid and arrogant question from one who hangs out and posts nasty snarky remarks on Anglican threads."

There is nothing stupid not arrogant about the question. What is the point of the term "continuing"? What are you continuing to? What are you continuing from? What's the point of the term? What is it supposed to convey? Does it actually apply? None of those questions are stupid or arrogant. They all make sense.

"Go ask your great high pope, Vlad.. He can tell you."

He's not Anglican. You are. If you can't answer the question then simply say so.

"Maybe your cardinal can."

I don't have a cardinal.

"Maybe your bishop can. Maybe your priest can. I guess you can't."

If I could answer it then I probably would have asked it. Also, my priest is Catholic and so is my bishop. Why would I ask them about something as minor and not Catholic as "continuing" Anglican groups which I know are small and not Catholic?

"Are your superior authorities so high & mighty & inaccessible that you have to rely on informational responses from non-Catholics?"

In regard to Protestant things I think it makes sense to ask Protestants. Since the continuing Anglican sects are all Protestant it makes sense to ask Protestants who claim to be in those sects.

"Or do you trust non-Catholics more than Catholics?"

I trust continuing Anglicans to know their own terms. I need not ask a Muslim about Jewish things, nor a Hindu about Confucist thing. It makes sense to ask a continuing Anglican about the term "continuing". Why you find this so upsetting is beyond me.

"Everye you post, I learn more and more about your Roman Catholic church. It's not a very pretty picture that's forming here. At the rate it's going one of these days I might even be persuaded the (IMHO canard that) one of your popes took the low road with Hitler."

And what does that have to do with the term "continuing"? And are you saying that some popes might have gone to Hell? No surprise there. Do you think such a childish tweaking remark is supposed to upset me? My gosh, get a grip. I asked a simple question of a continuing Anglican. What is the problem?

"I sincerely hope that is not the case. There are some Roman Catholics for which I have much respect, WFB for example, -- but I also see that that church also permits without correction quite arrogant twits in their midst."

Yes, it does. Is your sect any different on that score? Were Gene Robinson (?) and Schorri made bishops or not? And even if someone claims that they are Episcopalian and you're something else nowadays, are you actually claiming there are no twits at all in your sect? Yeah, sure.

"vladimir998 is a perfect example of why I will never become Roman Catholic (were I even looking to change), and exactly what I present to those who indicate an interest in that direction."

Please don't become a "Roman Catholic". I'm not one either. Instead, become a Catholic. Please grow up BEFOREHAND.

"If you really desire to undergo unChristian abasement and abjection, go here... and see what you're headed into. If kissing the toes of the arrogant self-righteous is what you desire, go ahead. If you want real salvation, re-think. The likes of vladimir998 is what you're going to encounter in the Roman church, and it doesn't look very Christian to me."

Oh, no, they might encounter me!? How horrible! I ask a simple question and you try to scare people away from the Church because of it? My gosh, are you crying as you write this? Be a man. If the question of what a Continuing Anglican is continuing to is such a horrnedusly destructive to you it should make you think why it is so rather than make you whine against the questioner.

"Power. It's all about power. And that church has established a major record about being powerful."

Unbelievable. I asked a simple question. If this doesn't show the moral and intellectual bankrupcy of Anglicanism, or at least Anglicans here, what could?

Let this be a warning to everyone: Don't dare ask questions of Anglicans. They might throw a fit and post rambling nonsensical notes that have nothing at all to do with your question.

Remember, all I asked was this: What exactly are you continuing to?

"[I]f a man abandons his family and sues or divorce, it doesn't mean the woman had not considered the marriage binding. And to say so to satisfy the church is to be untruthful."

Ah! I think there's the misunderstanding. There's no reason why one spouse's abandonment of the family means the other spouse's vows weren't sincere. But because Matrimony is a covenant based on a mutual vow, if one party didn't sincerely intend the vow, then here was no "mutual vow."

As I understand it, if the abandoning partner believed from the outset that divorce would be an option "if the marriage didn't work out," then he didn't really intend what the Church intends by Matrimony.

It's no reflection on the innocent spouse. She intended the marriage to be binding. But since that intention wasn't mutual, the marriage was defective (in a Sacramental sense) from the git-go. There's no reason she would have to say something untruthful by claiming that she herself wasn't sincere. She was sincere. Thee was simply no mutual vow.

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.