Posted on 10/20/2009 9:44:06 PM PDT by iowamark
Rome has parked its tanks on the Archbishop of Canterbury’s lawn after manoeuvres undertaken by up to fifty bishops and begun two years ago by an Australian archbishop, John Hepworth...
In the US, where a similar “Anglican usage” model has been in operation for years and will now be incorporated into the new ordinariate structures, there are 77 million Catholics alongside a mere 1.8 million Episcopalians. A few incoming conservative Anglicans have made little difference.
In England and Wales, the proportions are reversed, with 25 million baptised Anglicans but four million Catholics.... Set against this, however, is the more confident American-style Catholicism that this initiative represents...
Archbishop Nichols is a priest in the same mould as the late Cardinal Basil Hume, who led the moves to welcome in opponents of women priests back in 1994... A priest of remarkable charisma, Archbishop Nichols could easily end up in a senior position in Rome himself, if not the most senior.
He was clearly “in charge” at the joint press conference at the Catholic Church’s Eccleston Square administrative offices yesterday, at one point interrupting to answer a question addressed to the Archbishop of Canterbury. He appears to have no compunctions about unsettling a few Anglicans...
Although the established status of the Church of England means this could never be a straightforward process, Rome’s new move undercuts all that by allowing for unity to evolve upwards organically, from the grass roots, as forseen by an ecumenical report produced a few years ago.
Every church leader speaks about unity, but they all want it on their terms. Pope Benedict XVI is the first since the Reformation who seems to have hit on a realistic way of turning the clock back by moving it forwards...
(Excerpt) Read more at timesonline.co.uk ...
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article6883045.ece
“”Pope’s move will harm dialogue and weaken Church of England
Rome has clearly made a bold move, one which might prove attractive to some disgruntled evangelicals in search of an authority unlikely to cave in to the demands of the deepening secularist culture of the West...
The Anglican-Roman Catholic ecumenical dialogue in its current phase has seen the Anglicans making deep concessions to Rome. To the surprise of many Anglicans, an agreed statement, the Gift of Authority, urged the acceptance of the universal primacy and teaching authority of the Bishop of Rome. Anglican and Roman Catholic bishops worldwide have also been working together in a body seeking closer co-operation between the two.
On the face of it the sudden announcement by Rome seems to jolt, if not actually upset, that apple cart. Is the cause of gradual movement towards unity, with both sides making concessions, looking less realistic? If Rome does remove a significant body of conservative Anglicans, it will be left with a liberal Anglican communion with which to hold dialogue.
Rome’s move looks like a Western version of the Eastern Orthodox groups that accepted the primacy of Rome, the largest being the Ukrainian. The so-called Uniate churches keep their liturgical local custom and practice, as the Anglican body would be allowed to do under the new offer...
Anything that weakens the Church of England, at a time of real embattlement with radically secularist agendas now under way, must ultimately be a bad thing for the nation from a Christian perspective.””
Dr. Rowan Williams is an idiot and a surrender monkey to Islam.
I have major issues with the Catholic Church especailly the liberal American Catholic Notre Dame wing of vermin. I do like this Pope. The Church may be the only thing standing in the way of Islamification.
The Catholic Church has been fighting against this evil for 1400 years.
It’s a pretty interesting article anyway.
I don’t think it’s going to lead to any change in Latin Rite celibacy; for one thing, these married clergy may be grandfathered in with no provision for married clergy in the future. Remember, Anglican clergy marry only because this was required by Henry VIII as a sign that they were no longer loyal to Rome. The Church in England did not have a married clergy before Henry VIII. (On the other hand, in the East, married clergy and celibate bishops have a long history.)
In fact, many Anglo Catholic priests in the 19th century opted for celibacy as they grew closer to Rome. So I think it is not as wonderful as this author makes it sound. And then there’s the problem with divorced and remarried Anglican clergy...
In any case, I didn’t understand the final observation about Rowan Williams.
The atheist group National Secular Society says: “Rowan Williams has failed dismally in his ambitions to avoid schism. His refusal to take a principled moral stand against bigotry has left his Church in tatters.”
They are referring to Williams’ confused attempts to find some middle ground on homosexuality. As if he could have held his church together by being even more pro-homosexual.
The archbishop is a surrender monkey; what’s to understand? The Romans have been doing quite well tactically, but the the surrender monkey status of the Anglican leader is just a happy coincidence, not a result of any nefarious plot. It’s an observation that he’s a simian of French tendencies, not a conclusion.
Those atheists are idiots. Sound like RINO’s saying the party needs to be even more liberal.
I really don't think so. The Eastern Rite Catholics have had married clergy. It is not a religious tenet that clergy be married but a long standing judgment that it works better to have a priesthood that is focused without the distractions of marriage. The Eastern rite parishes in the US have adapted to the Roman practice, not the other way around and the Anglican Use parishes will not be different.
As the liberal "wing" of the Anglicans is closer and closer to being effectively atheist the weakening of the Church of England does not look like a loss from a pan-Christian perspective.
The CofE is already nearly mortally weakened by being squashed under the thumb of a bishopric of gay agnostics who have more in common with the Druids than with any "Christian perspective."
This frees the Forward in Faith contingent to do battle with the Enemy. Think of it as lifesaving triage, or the amputation of a gangrenous limb.
The big question is what about the Queen? She’s under no obligation, constitutional or otherwise to maintain communion with the CoE. If the body of conservative Anglicans swim the Tiber, why not the Queen as well? England was built under Catholic Kings and Queens, even now, the majority have been Catholic.
As a convert from the Anglican church, this pleases me to no end, and I hope all those who have suffered dearly under the ‘leadership’ of Dr. Atkinson, can find a home with Papa Benedict.
GOD HAVE MERCY
Coming so soon after the encyclical advocating globalism . . . sobering.
She would have to abdicate, because under laws passed in the wake of the ‘Glorious Revolution’ of 1688, the monarch is not allowed to be a Catholic....
This bold move to incorporate anglicanism is B16's way of sending a signal to the Orthodox communion. The big prize is the orthodox church. If a way can be found to get all branches of Christianity on the same page - B16 will go down as the greatest pope in history.
John Paul II's command to B16 (while he was in charge of the college of the doctrine of the faith) to clean up the Catholic Catechism took over 10 years to finish. It was published in English in the 1990's and is easy to read, easy to understand. B16 is a master of taking on hard jobs and finishing them.
By the time it was done, B16 knew more about the structure of the catholic faith than anyone else. This assignment by JPII was hard but necessary and providential. B16 has the academic and ecclesiastical credentials to make sweeping upgrades to the Roman communion. We are blessed that this is happening in our lifetimes.
As for the queen - she will have to jump out from under the bus.
Anglicanism is liberalizing themselves into extinction.
The political union with the Orthodox will not happen so quickly. I feel it’s better for us to hasten in an alliance againstIslam and secularism. We have much to learn from the East and both need each other to fight these two demons ofIslam and secularism.
1) She is head of the Church of England by law and is required to be a member.
2) Under the Act of Settlement (1700) that governs the succession to the throne she and her heirs are barred from entering into communion with the Roman Catholic Church, on penalty of losing their succession rights.
3) Under the Statute of Westminster (1931) the British Parliament cannot alter the succession to the throne without the permission of the other dominions. Therefore amending the Act of Settlement would require the agreement of all the other Commonwealth Dominions that recognize her as head of state.
Until the law is amended she is by law forced to be a member of the Church along with women priests and gay bishops. As are her children and grandchildren if they wish to assume the throne at some time in the future.
Yeah, it's like them EEVIL Papists actually read John chapter 17 and intend to carry it into practice to the best of their ability. Can't have that!
The CofE is still in communion with the ECUSA, which not only thinks homosexual clergy are dandy, it's in the process of endorsing "gay marriage" as a good thing.
Would you rather Christian people be in communion with the gay-marriage promoting ECUSA than with the Pope of Rome? Is that really what your "conservative Christianity" has come to?
That's not to say it will happen, of course.
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.