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.
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.
Anglicanism is liberalizing themselves into extinction.
How many of these 25 million are the Traditionalist Anglicans?